By Andres Arevalo
It is interesting to witness how much the world has changed in the two years since the world’s financial crisis started. In these two years major challenges to the “world order” have been raised, and the system in which we have all grown up with in this country, capitalism, is now seriously challenged. In his book The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, Ian Bremmer raises several interesting questions about this topic. I found his comparison between mercantilism and state capitalism fascinating but nonetheless a bit faulty. Mercantilism is generally perceived with negative connotations. Mercantilism generally only benefited the elite that controlled its key industries and sought to take advantage of other world regions, most famously the American colonies. However, I doubt that State Capitalism has the same intentions. In nations such as China and Saudi Arabia the state puts more emphasis on education and health-care than Britain or the Netherlands cared for in the 17th century. Although these nations restrict personal freedoms their citizens are seeing the benefits of the wealth generated by their countries. Purchasing power in nations such as China and Vietnam has dramatically increased since those nations began implementing “state capitalistic” measures. People in these nations now enjoy higher living standards, better education and health coverage. China is one of the few developing nations in track to meet the 2015 Millennium Development Goals which include halving poverty and achieving universal primary education amongst others. In this sense state capitalism should not be viewed as something negative, but rather an alternative way in which nations seek to better the life quality of its citizens. It’s true that it also works as a tool of keeping the political parties of these nations in power, but it’s only able to do so because the political parties responds to the basic needs of its people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Could you also say, though, that the Chinese government's response to the basic needs of its people is a way to cover up the human rights oppressions and violations in the country? In other words, couldn't China use the increases in wealth and living standards to draw attention away from the utter lack of freedom given to its citizens, so that outside nations that would otherwise put pressure on China to change its policies have less evidence to support their claims? (A sort of shield against political backlash).
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to imply that advances in China's wealth, living standards, and overall economic standing are negative. However, they do not have to exist exclusive of political and social gains toward democracy and freedom.
-Michelle Consorte