For over a decade the most common policy advice given to developing countries by international development institutions has been to copy the export-oriented path of the newly industrializing countries, the celebrated NICs. These economies-Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan-burst into the world manufacturing market in the late 1960s and the 1970s; by 1978 these six economies, along with India, enjoyed unequaled growth rates for gross national product and for exports, with exports accounting for 70 percent of the developing world's manufactured exports. It was, therefore, not surprising that dozens of other countries attempted to follow their model, yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success. In "No More NICs," Robin Broad and John Cavanagh search for the reasons behind these failures, identifying far-reaching changes in the global economy-from synthetic substitutes for commodity exports to unsustainable levels of foreign debt-as responsible for a glut economy offering little room for new entrants. Despite these changes, the authors maintain, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed. And yet the futility of this approach should, according to the authors, be all too apparent so many years into a period of reduced growth in world markets.


The primary purpose of the passage is to


report on a critique of a practice

identify the solution to a problem

indicate the advantages of a plan

assess alternatives to a controversial practice

examine the particulars of an agenda

考题讲解

此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。

正确答案是 A。因为本文的主要目的是报告一种受到评论的实践情况,即世界银行和国际货币基金组织一直在鼓励经济复苏的新兴工业化国家表示采用出口导向道路。文章讨论了多个国家这样做失败的原因,以及他们如何以几乎没有任何实际进展长期改善全球经济状况的失败。而不是提供解决方案(B选项),表明计划的优势(C选项),评估有争议的实践的替代方案(D选项)或检查议程的细节(E选项)。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

Prep2008E2-RC