Piketty and Nievas's paper on Unequal Exchange is important, but is rendered weak by its insistence to shy away from faithfully describing the colonial world.
That's a pertinent question, whether the perspective these authors are taking is itself colonial (if they are actively choosing to frame their rationale that way). Indeed some folks have pointed out how despite being about North-South inequalities, this article itself reproduces those inequalities by largely skipping referring to the work of Global South scholars apart from a few. Lots to analyze here.
‘ “it is clear that from a modern perspective this [colonial transfers] looks very much like colonial extraction” [emphasis added]’
Does this mean that Piketty and colleague’s perspective is not modern but rather colonial?
One has to wonder. Does not the historian keep their feet and intellect squarely planted in their contemporary period when they analyse the past?
Thank you for this piece. It explains the problems with the paper—that I have not yet read but mean to—clearly.
That's a pertinent question, whether the perspective these authors are taking is itself colonial (if they are actively choosing to frame their rationale that way). Indeed some folks have pointed out how despite being about North-South inequalities, this article itself reproduces those inequalities by largely skipping referring to the work of Global South scholars apart from a few. Lots to analyze here.