Nice dress. No pointie hat? Now's your chance he's in that position again.

Let's not criticize it until we see the substance and it's implementation.

You know its coming Roy, but, I'll stay out of it.....

Funny that the Economy ministers name almost sound like "THE MYSTICAL MANTAS" all they need is a ring announcer and they're set...

There is no substance and there will be no implementation.

Just chalk this up to another government boondoggle.

first of all, Roy, we need to see what this strategy looks like

I don't wish to exaggerate the consequences of a country in stalemate but a strategy of doing nothing and letting the phenomena of globalization take its course will result in the imminent collapse of our country's economy.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe, just maybe, Leo has come to the realization that his international reputation and prestige is determined more by what he does for this country, than all the overseas visits, delegations and speeches.

RoyStone, due to the negative perception we (citizens) have of our political system, it's difficult not to purceive this act of government as a way of making the rich richer and poor poorer. However, as an optimist and nationalist how can one not give another opportunity to ourl political system before coming to a negative conclusion.

Our political system is democracy. I wonder what system its critics would prefer.

Dready, I'll be relying on you and Josean to point me to the detail when you find it.

and i am relying upon you for a reciprocity of duty, should you find it first.

Fancy putting Dreadlocks and Josean in the same basket of ability ,,,that is the most novel statement that senor Australia has made .since saying he questioned people in his pueblo , when he can not speak spanish

Dominicans do NOT respect the laws they have.

Why is ANYONE supposed to believe this?

Perhaps these documents will shed some light on matters.

Summary of country strategy

1. This is the first country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) prepared for the
Dominican Republic under the guidelines for results-based interventions. The update
of IFAD’s country strategy is particularly timely as the Fund is in the process of
expanding its country programme and the Government has now released the new
National Development Strategy 2010-2030.

The following three strategic objectives are being proposed in agreement with
Government authorities, and are clearly within the Government’s policies for
harmonization and alignment:

(a) Strategic objective 1: Expand organized small farmers’ access to dynamic
agrifood markets through inclusive and rewarding partnerships with the private
sector;

(b) Strategic objective 2: Improve small farmers’ access to market-driven and
climate change-adapted farming practices and technology;

(c) Strategic objective 3: Increase human and social capital and develop offfarm
small entreprise and employment opportunities of the rural poor,
particularly

Dominican Republic
Country strategic opportunities
programme

http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/99/e/EB-2010-99-R-10.pdf

NATIONAL ACTION PLAN
TO STRENGTHEN TRADE RELATED CAPACITIES:
CONFRONTING THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION (2010)
PROJECT PROFILES

http://www.seic.gov.do/comercioex....glish%20Version%20-%20101019_.pdf

Anything about politikeros stopping ripping off the country ang giving back what they stole?

Sorry, Ricardolito, I must have overlooked your link to the details.
Care to post them here, or don't you know how?

Statement of objectives is all very noble, but without detailed, costed plans is meaningless.

I'm in favor of ending all wars and world poverty, myself.
Engaging in interracial sex and dumping Christianity and Islam would be a good start, yeah?

Another 4% law??????

Thanks, Atabey, I'll download when my bandwidth returns.

"National Development Strategy (END) 2010-2030"
Basically the politicos are acknowledging that by 2030 they are going to "END" the Dominican Republic by sucking it all up!

The Curious Capitalist: Escaping the middle-income trap



Escaping the middle-income trap

Posted by Michael Schuman Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 12:49 am


I returned a few days ago from Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, where the talk of the town – well, at least among economists -- is the “middle-income trap.” What's that, you ask? A developing nation gets “trapped” when it reaches a certain, relatively comfortable level of income but can't seem to take that next big jump into the true big leagues of the world economy, with per capita wealth to match. Every go-go economy in Asia has confronted this “trap,” or is dealing with it now. Breaking out of it, however, is extremely difficult. The reason is that escaping the “trap” requires an entire overhaul of the economic growth model most often used by emerging economies.

However, that growth model eventually runs out of steam. As incomes increase, so do costs, undermining the competitiveness of the old, low-tech manufacturing industries. Countries (like Malaysia) then move “up the value chain,” into exports of more technologically advanced products, like electronics. But even that's not enough to avoid the “trap.” To get to that next level – that high-income level – an economy needs to do more than just make stuff by throwing people and money into factories. The economy has to innovate and use labor and capital more productively. That requires an entirely different way of doing business. Instead of just assembling products designed by others, with imported technology, companies must invest more heavily in R&D on their own and employ highly educated and skilled workers to turn those investments into new products and profits. It is a very, very hard shift to achieve. Thus the “trap.”

Malaysia's caught in the “trap” right now, and getting out if is going to be tough. Simply put, Malaysia needs to change what it has been doing economically for the past 40 years. How Malaysia got itself into the “trap,” and how it could escape from it, can provide us with some valuable lessons on development and, more specifically, how developing nations can graduate into becoming fully advanced economies.

The concept behind the “middle-income trap” is quite simple: It's easier to rise from a low-income to a middle-income economy than it is to jump from a middle-income to a high-income economy. That's because when you're really poor, you can use your poverty to your advantage. Cheap wages makes a low-income economy competitive in labor-intensive manufacturing (apparel, shoes and toys, for example). Factories sprout up, creating jobs and increasing incomes. Every rapid-growth economy in Asia jumpstarted its famed gains in human welfare in this way, including Malaysia.

South Korea is probably the best current example of a developing economy making the leap into the realm of the most advanced. Companies like Samsung and LG are becoming true leaders in their fields. Taiwan isn't far behind. China's policymakers are fully aware that, with labor costs rising, it needs to follow suit. (More on Time.com: See a stimulus report card at the one year mark)

Malaysia, though, is quite far from where it wants to be. That's a bit surprising based on its remarkable recent history. Malaysia has been among the best performing economies in the world since World War II, one of only 13 to record an average growth rate of 7% over at least a 25-year period. The country has an amazing record of improving human welfare. In 1970, some 50% of Malaysians lived in absolute poverty; now less than 4% do. Yet Malaysians also feel that they've become somewhat stuck where they are.

GDP growth has slowed up, from an annual average of 9.1% between 1990 and 1997 to 5.5% from 2000 and 2008. Meanwhile, other Asian economies have zipped by Malaysia. According to the World Bank, the per capita gross national income (GNI) of South Korea in 1970 was below that of Malaysia ($260 versus $380), but by 2009, South Korea's was three times larger than Malaysia's ($21,530 versus $6,760). Malaysia is getting “trapped” as a relatively prosperous but still middle-income nation.

Can Malaysia escape? The initial indications are not encouraging. The economy's growth engine remains unchanged – export-oriented manufacturing backed by foreign investment. Its companies are just not innovating or adding much value to what they produce. You can find all of the ugly details in a very thorough study by the World Bank, released in April. Private investment has sunk precipitously, from more than a third of GDP in the mid-1990s to only some 10% today.

Labor productivity is growing more slowly than in the 1990s. The “value-added” in manufacturing in Malaysia trails many of its neighbors – an indication that Malaysian factories are mainly assembling goods designed elsewhere. R&D spending remains frighteningly low, at about 0.6% of GDP (compared to 3.5% in South Korea). If Malaysia is going to break the “trap,” it has to reverse all of these trends.

How can Malaysia achieve that? The World Bank report has pages of recommendations. The basics include slicing apart the bureaucratic red tape that stifles competition and suppresses investment, bolstering the education system so it can churn out more top-notch graduates, and funneling more financial resources to start-ups and other potentially innovative firms. To its credit, the government of Malaysia is fully aware of what it needs to do. In March, Prime Minister Najib Razak introduced a reform program called the New Economic Model. You can read the initial report here.

The NEM shows that Najib realizes that excessive government interference in the economy is dampening investor sentiment and holding back Malaysian industry. All eyes now are waiting for the more detailed policy recommendations for the NEM (though it is not clear when those might appear).

Yet I'm wondering if getting policy right is really enough. Of course, it would help, by setting in place better incentives for private businessmen to invest in innovative projects, and creating the tools they need to make those projects work. But I don't think that's the whole story. I've been musing on the differences between South Korea and Malaysia. Why has Korea jumped so far ahead? I think the reason is embedded in the different methods the two countries used to spur rapid growth."


What awaits DR in the future: conquering the "Middle Income Trap"