Jim Stewart: The effects of "Trumpolicy" on real investment are difficult to understand. Corporate investment and flows of FDI to Ireland and other countries are extensively influenced by factors other than tax, as revealed by annual investment surveys.
Showing posts with label globalisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label globalisation. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 November 2016
Monday, 23 November 2009
Authoritarian Capitalism
Nat O'Connor: A Wall Street Journal article raises the question of whether authoritarian capitalism is a robust alternative to liberal democratic capitalism.
In the first ten years after the Berlin Wall fell, there was an initial rush of democratization, but since 1999 to 2009 there has not been an increase in the proportion of liberal democracies in the world (which remains at 46 percent). And countries such as China and Russia, as well as highly developed countries like Singapore, are examples of resilient authoritiarian regimes despite the fact that they adopted capitalist economic systems.
I think this is an important 'big picture' question. For example, it challenges the long-held assumption that global free trade with non-democratic regimes is OK. It was always assumed that internal prosperity and a growing middle class would lead to more freedoms and ultimately democracy in those countries. (Note, I wouldn't throw out this argument just yet, but it is open to challenge as the evidence develops).
One particularly interesting comment came from Prof. Francis Fukuyama. Talking about China's unexpected success at developing a capitalist economy while keeping one-party rule, Prof. Fukuyama said: "They've mastered economic development under authoritarian circumstances, and you can argue they've done it faster because they're authoritarian,"
If it is the case (and it's an 'if') that authoritarian regimes can be more effecient at capitalism than liberal democracies, than we perhaps need to make it very clear that we are not willing to sacrifice democratic freedoms for more efficiency. This may sound obvious, but it is not an argument that has been much discussed or fully articulated, because of the assumption that liberal democracies have the most efficient capitalist economies. That is, we've never had a situation where the indicators of capitalist success were in tension with the indicators of democratic strength.
Of course, the relative 'success' of capitalist economies around the world depends on how they are measured. And much of the success enjoyed by China and Russia may rely on GDP growth measures (which include for example polluting industries, resource depletion, arms manufacturing and poor labour conditions) rather than more nuanced socio-economic measurements. This in turn reinforces the arguments for finding and developing other ways of measuring economic performance and social progress, such as the recent work of Stiglitz, Sen and Foutoussi.
We may ultimately need alternatives to GDP, not just to direct our economies in a more progressive direction, but also to explain why we regulate capitalism to protect democracy.
In the first ten years after the Berlin Wall fell, there was an initial rush of democratization, but since 1999 to 2009 there has not been an increase in the proportion of liberal democracies in the world (which remains at 46 percent). And countries such as China and Russia, as well as highly developed countries like Singapore, are examples of resilient authoritiarian regimes despite the fact that they adopted capitalist economic systems.
I think this is an important 'big picture' question. For example, it challenges the long-held assumption that global free trade with non-democratic regimes is OK. It was always assumed that internal prosperity and a growing middle class would lead to more freedoms and ultimately democracy in those countries. (Note, I wouldn't throw out this argument just yet, but it is open to challenge as the evidence develops).
One particularly interesting comment came from Prof. Francis Fukuyama. Talking about China's unexpected success at developing a capitalist economy while keeping one-party rule, Prof. Fukuyama said: "They've mastered economic development under authoritarian circumstances, and you can argue they've done it faster because they're authoritarian,"
If it is the case (and it's an 'if') that authoritarian regimes can be more effecient at capitalism than liberal democracies, than we perhaps need to make it very clear that we are not willing to sacrifice democratic freedoms for more efficiency. This may sound obvious, but it is not an argument that has been much discussed or fully articulated, because of the assumption that liberal democracies have the most efficient capitalist economies. That is, we've never had a situation where the indicators of capitalist success were in tension with the indicators of democratic strength.
Of course, the relative 'success' of capitalist economies around the world depends on how they are measured. And much of the success enjoyed by China and Russia may rely on GDP growth measures (which include for example polluting industries, resource depletion, arms manufacturing and poor labour conditions) rather than more nuanced socio-economic measurements. This in turn reinforces the arguments for finding and developing other ways of measuring economic performance and social progress, such as the recent work of Stiglitz, Sen and Foutoussi.
We may ultimately need alternatives to GDP, not just to direct our economies in a more progressive direction, but also to explain why we regulate capitalism to protect democracy.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Facing up to inequality
Peadar Kirby: Tasc's survey of public opinion on inequality in Irish society is both welcome and significant. One of the remarkable and disturbing aspects of the Celtic Tiger years is the neglect of inequality as a objective of public policy, and its replacement by the much more restrictive goal of 'combating poverty' (a goal that is arguably now even further weakened by the incorporation of the former Combat Poverty Agency in the Social Inclusion Office). Even the Equality Authority, now also greatly weakened by budget cutbacks that can only be described as vindictive, had no brief to reduce socio-economic inequality, despite the efforts of its former CEO, Niall Crowley. Tasc's Inequality Survey shows that this is an issue that matters to the public thus strengthening its claim to become the object of public policy.
The significance of the Tasc survey, however, goes further than this. For, at long last, it draws in a forceful way into Irish debates, the topic of socio-economic inequality. For its accompanying text on "The Solidarity Factor" undertakes a valuable social science exercise (unfortunately neglected by most Irish social scientists) to make an approximation of the changing dynamic of the income structure (so influential in constituting a society's social structure) in the immediate aftermath of the Celtic Tiger boom. While those of more strictly quantitative persuasion may fault it for jumping to certain conclusions, those of us who are constantly frustrated by the profoundly conservative and cautious bias of the output of the ESRI stable, will welcome a valuable contribution to debate on what is happening to our social structure in a time of immense social change.
I particularly welcome the emphasis on precariousness as it has seemed to me for some time that this is a crucial concept to capture the distinctive impacts of processes associated with what we label as 'globalisation' (see my 'Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalisation', Pluto Press, 2006). I agree completely with Tasc's conclusion that 'when viewing income groups through this prism, it becomes obvious that earlier boundaries (e.g. of occupation) which made income groups relatively impermeable in the past are now much more blurred. Thus - especially in the context of a recession - those who are 'comfortably off' may share precarious employment with the 'working poor' ' (page 6). This, of course, contradicts (rightly, in my view) the attempt of the ESRI to use the concept of vulnerability to identify a 'vulnerable class' in Irish society which they limited to 20 per cent of the population (see their 'Best of Times?' book). As Tasc makes clear, in the conditions of today's world, precariousness or vulnerability are much more generalised in their impact. We urgently need to attend to the public policy implications of such an insight.
Tasc's initiative is also to be welcomed in the context of the recent book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett: 'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better' (Allen Lane, 2009). This assembles a range of evidence that correlates socio-economic inequality with social ills. In doing this, it raises very important issues that require urgent consideration by policy makers. There is a danger that the conditions of our current economic and social crisis may lead us to believe that such issues are a luxury to be postponed for better times. However, since we so totally failed to address them during our boom years, their urgency requires that we don't postpone them any more. Hopefully Tasc's initiative will stimulate a badly overdue public debate.
The significance of the Tasc survey, however, goes further than this. For, at long last, it draws in a forceful way into Irish debates, the topic of socio-economic inequality. For its accompanying text on "The Solidarity Factor" undertakes a valuable social science exercise (unfortunately neglected by most Irish social scientists) to make an approximation of the changing dynamic of the income structure (so influential in constituting a society's social structure) in the immediate aftermath of the Celtic Tiger boom. While those of more strictly quantitative persuasion may fault it for jumping to certain conclusions, those of us who are constantly frustrated by the profoundly conservative and cautious bias of the output of the ESRI stable, will welcome a valuable contribution to debate on what is happening to our social structure in a time of immense social change.
I particularly welcome the emphasis on precariousness as it has seemed to me for some time that this is a crucial concept to capture the distinctive impacts of processes associated with what we label as 'globalisation' (see my 'Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalisation', Pluto Press, 2006). I agree completely with Tasc's conclusion that 'when viewing income groups through this prism, it becomes obvious that earlier boundaries (e.g. of occupation) which made income groups relatively impermeable in the past are now much more blurred. Thus - especially in the context of a recession - those who are 'comfortably off' may share precarious employment with the 'working poor' ' (page 6). This, of course, contradicts (rightly, in my view) the attempt of the ESRI to use the concept of vulnerability to identify a 'vulnerable class' in Irish society which they limited to 20 per cent of the population (see their 'Best of Times?' book). As Tasc makes clear, in the conditions of today's world, precariousness or vulnerability are much more generalised in their impact. We urgently need to attend to the public policy implications of such an insight.
Tasc's initiative is also to be welcomed in the context of the recent book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett: 'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better' (Allen Lane, 2009). This assembles a range of evidence that correlates socio-economic inequality with social ills. In doing this, it raises very important issues that require urgent consideration by policy makers. There is a danger that the conditions of our current economic and social crisis may lead us to believe that such issues are a luxury to be postponed for better times. However, since we so totally failed to address them during our boom years, their urgency requires that we don't postpone them any more. Hopefully Tasc's initiative will stimulate a badly overdue public debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)