Confessions of an Economic Hit Man [Paperback]

This book takes the form of a confessional autobiography, as the title suggests. Perkins is deeply ashamed of the life he led before quitting the corporate sector. He tries to contextualise this within a brief outline of his general life story, born into an impoverished family nonetheless part of some kind of social elite. So at a human level the account of his career moves and motives is interesting.

But you're not going to read this book as a human interest story. The main point obviously is the structure of corporate power. This is where his narrative starts to fill up with holes. The basic story is that he was employed by a private corporation specialising in providing infrastructure services to "developing" countries. He claims that this was essentially a front for imperialist policy imposed by the USA, through which money is used to draw countries into the America camp.

This can happen in either of two ways. For a poor country, vast loans are granted on the assumption (created by the like of Perkins) that they will trigger of very high rates of economic growth. When this growth does not occur countries pile up the debt, default and hence become beholden to their loan shark (i.e. the IMF, international banks, and the American led capitalist sytsem in general). [ps, for a more detailed account of this dynamic, see Chossudovsky, "The Globalisation of Poverty"] For richer countries (normamlly due to oil), there is the opposite problem: they have too much cash. Thus the economic hit man draws up programmes for the investment of this cash in schemes which benefit the USA. For example, Saudi Arabia invests in US treasury certificates (i.e. the American national debt), then uses the interest to pay American firms to develop Saudi Arabia. The Americans get lots of business and profits, whilst the Saudis get development, a steady return on capital and a protected investment. Perkins argues that long term needs for servicing and upgrading futther tie in the Saudis to this system.

Fair enough. But what is the difference between a private company touting for business and a broader government-led conspiracy. Unless Perkins can establish the latter he is ultimately going to look like some kind of Walter Mitty character.

He claims evidence for this link on the basis that he was referred to the private sector by the NSA, which was considering his recruitment (due to family connections in the intelligence services). He then says that after recruitment, a certain "Claudine", in a series of clandestine meetings at a safe house, inducted him into the EHM strategy. Basically she told him that his job was not to guarantee development of third world countries, but to break them with high debts. After this cloak and dagger beginning, Claudine then disappears from the scene. However, if the positive development of third world nations would eventually create indigenous industries, this would then avoid the need for further American consultants in those countries. Plus there would be more competition on the global market for other countries in need of developmental assistance. Therefore, Perkins strategy of saddling countries with debts also works in the interst of his own company. (Whilst his argument appears to be that a policy driven by such an insane economic logic could only be driven by broader governmental (of imperial) policy considerations.)

In the end therefore, Perkins' story is only of any interest if he can demonstrate this link with government. It appears that he does not do that. His references to various coups and assassinations do point to some darker forces at work, but it is all presented as innuendo.

And consider this: surely someone of his undoubted economic expertise would be able to set out in some greater detail the mechanics of the transactions he was involved in, and what made them special when compared to normal commercial transactions. The lack of particular detail on this point is a bit suspicious. The book may not be aimed at an academic audience, but the way he sets up his argument - plus the lack of real substantial evidence on the US government's involvement - calls for more detail which is simply not there.

The book is very light reading, I read it all in one day on a 6 hour train journey. Only really recommended for people who don't really have much background in international politics.