Although income tax changes would be a good first step towards a global meritocracy, far bigger steps toward that goal are possible through the establishment of global equality of opportunity. I think that the clarity I see on this issue compared to the others makes it one of the most important goals to focus on in the 21st century.
Unlike my proposed income tax changes, which would affect 167,000 people (166,000 high income earners in Canada making over $250,000/yr and 1000 contribution-prize winners), global equality of opportunity has the potential to help 95% of the people on the planet. Even if my income tax provisions were applied globally, they would probably affect less than 5% of the world population. Therefore, this goal has to be considered much more critical.
As I outlined in the first post of this series, I see two major components necessary to achieving global equality of opportunity. The first one is obtaining equality of opportunity between countries. Significant progress has already been made on this goal, with many more countries being welcomed into the developed world in the last 50 years. Chinese and Indian incomes are rising fast, and their educational systems are sufficiently robust that most children in China, and a significant number in India, now have the foundation necessary to accomplish virtually any goal they may set for themselves.
In China and India, the work that remains to be done is the equalization of probabilities - that is, it is still much more likely that an American kid will grow up to be rich and powerful compared to his Chinese counterpart. This equalization will gradually materialize if China and India continue to integrate globally and pursue sensible economic policies, and the west should encourage that rather than fear it.
There are a number of other countries, however, where the probabilities of achieving a western standard of living are infinitesimal for most people. In China and India, to some extent, we can stand by and watch the global market begin to equalize opportunities and standards of living, but for other countries, more help will be required.
The countries that are the farthest from equality of opportunity are primarily located in Africa and Central/Western Asia. The biggest common denominator among them is the lack of an adequate education system, but other commonalities include high birth rates, corruption and AIDS prevalence. These are all issues we can do something about.
In terms of education, my belief is that a large percentage of our foreign aid should be going towards the development of secular education systems in these countries. Ideally this would be done in conjunction with a Canadian civil service program, as I discussed in my post Across the Sea. Intense political pressure should be applied to all these countries, particularly with respect to education of girls, as many studies have shown that education of girls is extremely effective at lowering birth rates and fostering development. Health care and microfinance would also be key initiatives, as the above linked post describes.
In tandem with this, we should aim to bring these countries into the global economy more effectively, especially with regard to trade. As I have previously pointed out, the competitive advantage that many of these countries have is in agriculture. The elimination of agricultural subsidies in developed countries could go a long way towards bringing some of the world's poorest countries forward.
Those few initiatives will not be enough, but they would be a good start. Further initiatives could come from looking at the experiences of successful developing countries in Asia and Eastern Europe and modelling development of their experiences. As ardent of a free-trader as I typically am, I recognize that the evidence does show that some protectionism in the early stages of development followed by a later entry into global markets has been very successful in places like South Korea, Taiwan and even China. There are other lessons that can be learned from the experiences of those countries as well.
A final obstacle to the type of global integration that would bring about true equality of opportunity is the fragmented worldwide immigration system. I believe that the ideal we should be aiming for on immigration is of a free flow of people between nation-states, with those states essentially competing for the best people worldwide. People would be able to go to the country whose moral and organizational systems most appealed to them, and this would encourage countries to provide high-performance government as they would be essentially forced to compete for human capital in a competitive market.
Such a system is not possible in today's world, because economic disparity is still too great. If free migration was allowed, the massive influx of immigrants would destabilize the developed countries and destroy the societies that those immigrants wanted to participate in in the first place. For this reason, I think that the first priority has to be equalizing levels of development globally, which can then be followed by the loosening of immigration rules. However, it would not be a bad idea for developed countries to continue relaxing restrictions on immigration, perhaps with the intermediate-term goal of having a relatively open labour market within the OECD. I still have a lot of thinking to do on short-medium term immigration policy before I can get much more specific than that.
Although achieving a more equal balance between countries is probably more critical, equality of opportunity within countries is also important, and I will address that in my next post.
Showing posts with label globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label globalization. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The 22nd Century Economy (1 of 10)
As much as we like to present history as a series of distinct epochs, in most cases that is an artificial simplification. Within individual societies throughout history, and now in our global society, different periods of history tend to blend together.
Each period of history can be seen as both an outgrowth of its predecessor and as a lead-up to its successor. I believe that most people throughout history have seen their own age as a transitory one, bridging the storied past and the uncertain future; I also believe that this is a healthy outlook because it creates a mindset for advancement and change.
As I have previously said, I believe that it is difficult to form forward-looking policy without a coherent vision of your goal. I believe that this is one of the reasons much government policy remains reactive, because politicians do not have, cannot articulate, or will not disclose their visions of the future.
I aim to be different. I have said before that my long-term environmental vision is of people living in urban "islands", surrounded by mostly unspoiled landscape. That vision drives much of my environmental policy. I want to expand on this vision of the future and discuss some other policy areas from a viewpoint of creating proactive policies that work toward identifiable goals.
In this post, I will start with the economy. I have referred to it as the 22nd century economy because I see our current system as being the 21st century economy, the successful but flawed basis which leads into the next age. I see the 23rd century economy as the "ideal" that the next age will play a part in ushering in. The time scales involved may be longer or (somewhat) shorter, I have simply used the 23rd century as the ideal in homage to Star Trek, which presents a vision of an ideal economy where scarcity no longer applies, people are driven by contribution rather than profit, and merit is the determining factor of success.
What we have now is a nascent global economy, artificially divided into ~200 nation-states, most with some form of mixed market system, combining capitalist economics with a moderately interventionist state. A little over half these states have some form of democratic political system, with the rest being authoritarian.
As I have said many times before, the current system is not in need of wholesale change, as it has been proven to be very efficient and has drastically improved living standards across the board. It can and will, with appropriate guidance, continue to improve life for humanity and bring us closer to our goals.
However, the system should also not remain static, because a fragmented, mixed capitalist economy is not equipped to transform into a global, democratic post-capitalist meritocracy, even if fusion power and replicators (scarcity-eliminating matter-energy conversion devices) were invented and perfected tomorrow.
I believe our attitude should be one of gradual change and improvement, constantly attempting to make our system one that will bridge the gap between the present and the future.
The obvious question then becomes, what will this "bridge" economy look like? What kind of system can reduce the problems we face today while simultaneously preparing for a post-scarcity economy and thriving in one where scarcity still applies?
I think we can start by identifying some of the things in the current system that will have to change to reach the long-term vision. Once we have incorporated those adjustments, we can work from there to complete the transitional framework.
Here are some of the problems I see with our current system:
1. The biggest problem is the inability of pure capitalism to price in externalities, that is, effects that economic transactions have on third parties. I have said before that in our system I believe governments must do their best to manage these externalities, but it is possible there is a better way.
2. A related problem is the tragedy of the commons, where a common resource (like fishing stocks or water) is overexploited because it is available to all. Again, government regulation has been the default (and relatively unsuccessful) solution to this problem, although some other novel approaches have been proposed, such as simply privatizing ownership of all resources, removing the incentive to overexploit.
3. The second great challenge we face, as I have mentioned before, is the reconciliation of profit with contribution. If we are move toward a true meritocracy, two things must happen. We must have equality of opportunity, and we must solve this problem. This will be a tricky one to solve, primarily because people don't agree on what constitutes contribution
4. Speaking of equality of opportunity, it is a necessity and we don't have it. There have been significant strides made in this area, but there is still a long way to go. Differences need to be eliminated between countries and within them. The two major sub-problems here are the lack of global economic and political integration disadvantaging people in certain countries as well as the neo-aristocracy created through inherited wealth.
There is progress being made on the first issue, through gradual increase in worldwide development as well as through political and economic integration. It is the second problem that really causes me grief.
I strongly believe that the majority of people who work their way to extreme wealth deserve to have such wealth, because they have indeed made contributions. Probably the opposite is true for so-called "trust fund kids". My observations suggest that the massive wealth they inherit tends to be a deterrent to contribution, rather than an enabler. There are exceptions, but they are rare. To solve this problem, I have previously advocated a heavy estate tax, but I am cognizant of the enforcement problems with estate taxes. A different approach may be necessary here.
5. Capitalism in its current form seemingly disincentivises efficiency in some ways. This is a curious problem, but it is pervasive. Presumably, most people would rather work less, and less time spent on low-skill activities would theoretically free up additional man-hours for more "contribution-added" activities. However, the trend in capitalist societies has been towards more work, not less, and employment economics are such that many people (and unions) are actually strongly opposed to changes that would replace human labour with machine power.
A related problem involves technologies that are more efficient, but more expensive. The energy efficiency of nuclear power, for example, is much higher than other alternatives, but its use is still relatively limited because of the cost. This disconnect between economic efficiency and technological efficiency is an interesting one, which I will have to give more thought to.
6. There is a small disconnect between our current form of capitalism and the democratic ideals we claim to value. The corporation, pervasive in today's capitalism because of its unique ability to raise large amounts of capital from strangers, is not a democratic beast. As a result, many people spend half (or more) of their waking hours in what is essentially an authoritarian environment. It would seem that we would want to move away from this if we could.
7. The last issue I will discuss is a controversial one, because of the atrocious evil that has been associated with perverse forms of the idea in the past. I thought long and hard about whether or not I should include it at all, and am fully expecting people to twist my words and crucify me for them. However, it is a real issue, and I can't not mention it.
This issue is evolution. I would argue that human evolution has been affected by the advent of industrial capitalism and modern medicine. I don't think its revolutionary to believe that there are certain genetic traits that we have an interest in promoting or preventing, mostly to do with inheritable diseases, but also traits like intelligence. It would seem self-evident that since intelligence (for example) is a trait almost universally valued across societies, and absolutely necessary for the survival and expansion of the human race, that we would want to make sure that the next generation is as intelligent as possible. It seems to me, however, that in developed countries, the smartest people are having fewer and fewer children.
By now, half of you are probably thinking I'm about to advocate Nazi-era policies of forced sterilization and the other half are probably thinking "I have five kids so he's saying I am dumb". I am not saying either of these things. I violently oppose the kind of restrictions on freedom and the loss of human dignity that are necessary for the first, and the second is not true in many, many cases, and is only a statistical argument. I am merely trying to say that if each successive generation is becoming less and less intelligent, that is (or will be) a serious problem and one that we should at least discuss in a reasonable fashion.
In the next few posts, I will discuss these problems further and try to point out some potential ways forward. Frankly though, I don't have very many answers yet, and these are tough problems.
As a sidebar, I have been reading about something called Economic Democracy, which is what got me thinking about the dynamics of a post-capitalist economy. Basically the idea is to retain a market economy, but replace corporations with worker-run cooperatives, which would borrow money from state-owned banks based on previous success and (possibly) how the objective of the business conformed with state goals. The cooperatives would pay a flat capital asset tax to the state. It is an interesting idea, and some of the ideas it presents deserve a long, hard look, but it suffers from three main problems in my view:
1. It would not be feasible to establish this system before worldwide political integration has been achieved. The very nature of the system precludes foreign investment, and it would substantially damage the economy through the loss of global application of comparative advantage. It would also reinforce national standard-of-living differences.
2. A worker-run system would suffer even more from a tendency to reject labour saving technologies in favour of inefficiency.
3. The capital allocation decisions made by the state owned banks make me very skeptical. I highly doubt that these decisions would be made effectively because of political interference and the historical inability of government bureaucrats to make good decisions on similar matters.
I will come back to Economic Democracy in later posts.
Each period of history can be seen as both an outgrowth of its predecessor and as a lead-up to its successor. I believe that most people throughout history have seen their own age as a transitory one, bridging the storied past and the uncertain future; I also believe that this is a healthy outlook because it creates a mindset for advancement and change.
As I have previously said, I believe that it is difficult to form forward-looking policy without a coherent vision of your goal. I believe that this is one of the reasons much government policy remains reactive, because politicians do not have, cannot articulate, or will not disclose their visions of the future.
I aim to be different. I have said before that my long-term environmental vision is of people living in urban "islands", surrounded by mostly unspoiled landscape. That vision drives much of my environmental policy. I want to expand on this vision of the future and discuss some other policy areas from a viewpoint of creating proactive policies that work toward identifiable goals.
In this post, I will start with the economy. I have referred to it as the 22nd century economy because I see our current system as being the 21st century economy, the successful but flawed basis which leads into the next age. I see the 23rd century economy as the "ideal" that the next age will play a part in ushering in. The time scales involved may be longer or (somewhat) shorter, I have simply used the 23rd century as the ideal in homage to Star Trek, which presents a vision of an ideal economy where scarcity no longer applies, people are driven by contribution rather than profit, and merit is the determining factor of success.
What we have now is a nascent global economy, artificially divided into ~200 nation-states, most with some form of mixed market system, combining capitalist economics with a moderately interventionist state. A little over half these states have some form of democratic political system, with the rest being authoritarian.
As I have said many times before, the current system is not in need of wholesale change, as it has been proven to be very efficient and has drastically improved living standards across the board. It can and will, with appropriate guidance, continue to improve life for humanity and bring us closer to our goals.
However, the system should also not remain static, because a fragmented, mixed capitalist economy is not equipped to transform into a global, democratic post-capitalist meritocracy, even if fusion power and replicators (scarcity-eliminating matter-energy conversion devices) were invented and perfected tomorrow.
I believe our attitude should be one of gradual change and improvement, constantly attempting to make our system one that will bridge the gap between the present and the future.
The obvious question then becomes, what will this "bridge" economy look like? What kind of system can reduce the problems we face today while simultaneously preparing for a post-scarcity economy and thriving in one where scarcity still applies?
I think we can start by identifying some of the things in the current system that will have to change to reach the long-term vision. Once we have incorporated those adjustments, we can work from there to complete the transitional framework.
Here are some of the problems I see with our current system:
1. The biggest problem is the inability of pure capitalism to price in externalities, that is, effects that economic transactions have on third parties. I have said before that in our system I believe governments must do their best to manage these externalities, but it is possible there is a better way.
2. A related problem is the tragedy of the commons, where a common resource (like fishing stocks or water) is overexploited because it is available to all. Again, government regulation has been the default (and relatively unsuccessful) solution to this problem, although some other novel approaches have been proposed, such as simply privatizing ownership of all resources, removing the incentive to overexploit.
3. The second great challenge we face, as I have mentioned before, is the reconciliation of profit with contribution. If we are move toward a true meritocracy, two things must happen. We must have equality of opportunity, and we must solve this problem. This will be a tricky one to solve, primarily because people don't agree on what constitutes contribution
4. Speaking of equality of opportunity, it is a necessity and we don't have it. There have been significant strides made in this area, but there is still a long way to go. Differences need to be eliminated between countries and within them. The two major sub-problems here are the lack of global economic and political integration disadvantaging people in certain countries as well as the neo-aristocracy created through inherited wealth.
There is progress being made on the first issue, through gradual increase in worldwide development as well as through political and economic integration. It is the second problem that really causes me grief.
I strongly believe that the majority of people who work their way to extreme wealth deserve to have such wealth, because they have indeed made contributions. Probably the opposite is true for so-called "trust fund kids". My observations suggest that the massive wealth they inherit tends to be a deterrent to contribution, rather than an enabler. There are exceptions, but they are rare. To solve this problem, I have previously advocated a heavy estate tax, but I am cognizant of the enforcement problems with estate taxes. A different approach may be necessary here.
5. Capitalism in its current form seemingly disincentivises efficiency in some ways. This is a curious problem, but it is pervasive. Presumably, most people would rather work less, and less time spent on low-skill activities would theoretically free up additional man-hours for more "contribution-added" activities. However, the trend in capitalist societies has been towards more work, not less, and employment economics are such that many people (and unions) are actually strongly opposed to changes that would replace human labour with machine power.
A related problem involves technologies that are more efficient, but more expensive. The energy efficiency of nuclear power, for example, is much higher than other alternatives, but its use is still relatively limited because of the cost. This disconnect between economic efficiency and technological efficiency is an interesting one, which I will have to give more thought to.
6. There is a small disconnect between our current form of capitalism and the democratic ideals we claim to value. The corporation, pervasive in today's capitalism because of its unique ability to raise large amounts of capital from strangers, is not a democratic beast. As a result, many people spend half (or more) of their waking hours in what is essentially an authoritarian environment. It would seem that we would want to move away from this if we could.
7. The last issue I will discuss is a controversial one, because of the atrocious evil that has been associated with perverse forms of the idea in the past. I thought long and hard about whether or not I should include it at all, and am fully expecting people to twist my words and crucify me for them. However, it is a real issue, and I can't not mention it.
This issue is evolution. I would argue that human evolution has been affected by the advent of industrial capitalism and modern medicine. I don't think its revolutionary to believe that there are certain genetic traits that we have an interest in promoting or preventing, mostly to do with inheritable diseases, but also traits like intelligence. It would seem self-evident that since intelligence (for example) is a trait almost universally valued across societies, and absolutely necessary for the survival and expansion of the human race, that we would want to make sure that the next generation is as intelligent as possible. It seems to me, however, that in developed countries, the smartest people are having fewer and fewer children.
By now, half of you are probably thinking I'm about to advocate Nazi-era policies of forced sterilization and the other half are probably thinking "I have five kids so he's saying I am dumb". I am not saying either of these things. I violently oppose the kind of restrictions on freedom and the loss of human dignity that are necessary for the first, and the second is not true in many, many cases, and is only a statistical argument. I am merely trying to say that if each successive generation is becoming less and less intelligent, that is (or will be) a serious problem and one that we should at least discuss in a reasonable fashion.
In the next few posts, I will discuss these problems further and try to point out some potential ways forward. Frankly though, I don't have very many answers yet, and these are tough problems.
As a sidebar, I have been reading about something called Economic Democracy, which is what got me thinking about the dynamics of a post-capitalist economy. Basically the idea is to retain a market economy, but replace corporations with worker-run cooperatives, which would borrow money from state-owned banks based on previous success and (possibly) how the objective of the business conformed with state goals. The cooperatives would pay a flat capital asset tax to the state. It is an interesting idea, and some of the ideas it presents deserve a long, hard look, but it suffers from three main problems in my view:
1. It would not be feasible to establish this system before worldwide political integration has been achieved. The very nature of the system precludes foreign investment, and it would substantially damage the economy through the loss of global application of comparative advantage. It would also reinforce national standard-of-living differences.
2. A worker-run system would suffer even more from a tendency to reject labour saving technologies in favour of inefficiency.
3. The capital allocation decisions made by the state owned banks make me very skeptical. I highly doubt that these decisions would be made effectively because of political interference and the historical inability of government bureaucrats to make good decisions on similar matters.
I will come back to Economic Democracy in later posts.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Mind What You Have Learned (Apr. 7, 2007)
"Fear leads to anger,
anger leads to hate,
hate leads to suffering."
This post was going to be about fear. I was planning to talk about the things people are afraid of and why, and whether fear can spur people to innovate and achieve or simply paralyses them into inaction. But then i started to think about the levels of fear. Individuals have fears, and groups of people also have fears. Even entire nations can be said to have fears, for example, "France fears German aggression". So then I thought..is there a level above that? Can it be said that humanity as a whole has collective fears? I think it can. As far as I can discern, those fears include the following:
1. Fear of obliteration
2. Fear of negative change
3. Fear of hopelessness
The first two are pretty self explanatory. Humanity fears its own destruction. Nuclear war, virulent diseases, asteroids or environmental catastrophe are manifestations of this fear. Humanity also fears negative change, for example, Nazis taking over the world, regression of living standards or a less extensive form of any of the other factors I mentioned. The third factor is a bit more ambiguous. I believe that humanity as a whole cannot survive without hope. Every person hopes for certain things, and without this hope, there is no motivation. People hope to be happier, people hope to have a better future, people hope to make a difference and people hope to find meaning in life. Even though it is difficult to imagine a situation that would rob humanity of these hoped, I believe people unconciously fear that hopelessness will someday envelop the world.
Fear in humans is an evolved response. People dislike feeling fear, and just like lust is designed by evolution to encourage reproduction and hunger is designed to encourage energy intake, fear is designed to make people take preventative measures. This was something I had planned to discuss in this post, specifically relating to the way that people address their fears. Having taken this post in another direction, the question that now presents itself is this. Do larger entities also take preventative action, concious or otherwise, to decrease the likelihood of their fears being realized?
The answer to that previous question is certainly yes if one looks at the national entities of the world. States and governments are organized largely to deal with the macro-level fears of their people. Because governments rely on the support of at least a portion of their populace, they have an incentive to act in ways that decrease the collective fear of their constituants. They gather information, design a plan, and employ the resources at their disposal to the best of their ability in order to fulfill that plan.
The really striking thing, once you think about it, is how little organization exists to deal with the problems that extend beyond the macro level. These are the problems that are manifestations of global fears. Any action taken against them at this point is from the national level, and not surprisingly, has proven ineffective. It is rather like what would occur if 200 families, all with conflicting interests, all tried to solve community-level problems such as infrastructure and resource distribution without any kind of centralized authority. Global problems are going to require global planning and global solutions. In my next post, I will discuss the specific problems I see and the things that I believe need to happen before humanity can address them. Until then...
anger leads to hate,
hate leads to suffering."
This post was going to be about fear. I was planning to talk about the things people are afraid of and why, and whether fear can spur people to innovate and achieve or simply paralyses them into inaction. But then i started to think about the levels of fear. Individuals have fears, and groups of people also have fears. Even entire nations can be said to have fears, for example, "France fears German aggression". So then I thought..is there a level above that? Can it be said that humanity as a whole has collective fears? I think it can. As far as I can discern, those fears include the following:
1. Fear of obliteration
2. Fear of negative change
3. Fear of hopelessness
The first two are pretty self explanatory. Humanity fears its own destruction. Nuclear war, virulent diseases, asteroids or environmental catastrophe are manifestations of this fear. Humanity also fears negative change, for example, Nazis taking over the world, regression of living standards or a less extensive form of any of the other factors I mentioned. The third factor is a bit more ambiguous. I believe that humanity as a whole cannot survive without hope. Every person hopes for certain things, and without this hope, there is no motivation. People hope to be happier, people hope to have a better future, people hope to make a difference and people hope to find meaning in life. Even though it is difficult to imagine a situation that would rob humanity of these hoped, I believe people unconciously fear that hopelessness will someday envelop the world.
Fear in humans is an evolved response. People dislike feeling fear, and just like lust is designed by evolution to encourage reproduction and hunger is designed to encourage energy intake, fear is designed to make people take preventative measures. This was something I had planned to discuss in this post, specifically relating to the way that people address their fears. Having taken this post in another direction, the question that now presents itself is this. Do larger entities also take preventative action, concious or otherwise, to decrease the likelihood of their fears being realized?
The answer to that previous question is certainly yes if one looks at the national entities of the world. States and governments are organized largely to deal with the macro-level fears of their people. Because governments rely on the support of at least a portion of their populace, they have an incentive to act in ways that decrease the collective fear of their constituants. They gather information, design a plan, and employ the resources at their disposal to the best of their ability in order to fulfill that plan.
The really striking thing, once you think about it, is how little organization exists to deal with the problems that extend beyond the macro level. These are the problems that are manifestations of global fears. Any action taken against them at this point is from the national level, and not surprisingly, has proven ineffective. It is rather like what would occur if 200 families, all with conflicting interests, all tried to solve community-level problems such as infrastructure and resource distribution without any kind of centralized authority. Global problems are going to require global planning and global solutions. In my next post, I will discuss the specific problems I see and the things that I believe need to happen before humanity can address them. Until then...
A Kingdom of Conscience (Oct. 26, 2005)
Karl Marx wasn't right about everything, and the political reality he inspired was really a dismal faliure. However, we have to note that the application of his theory and even the representation of his ideas have been influenced by the failiure of practical communism. Marx didn't believe that capitalism was bad. The soviet-american conflict seems to have given people the idea that Marx viewed capitalism as the devil, as nothing but a system of ruthless exploitation. In fact this is not the case, in many of his writings Marx portrays capitalism as a step forward from feudalism and as an immensley productive system. I have included this example as a clarification..because I know people are going to think "what is Blair doing talking about Marx?"
Although I strongly disagree with Marx's economic outlook, and even more so with the practical system it spawned, that isn't all Marx is. Personally, I find his most useful contribution to the argument I am about to make is his theory of societal change. He talks about the forces of production, by which he means the technology available for use, the resources and geography where that tech can be applied, and the characteristics of the population that will be applying the technology. These characteristics include culture, literacy and so on. A given set of forces of production give rise to a set of relations of production, how people organize themselves as a society to produce most efficiently. These relations of production eventually have an effect on the forces of production through technological improvement and changes to culture etc based on the new forms of organization. This results in a cyclical process that approximates evolution in a society.
I personally like Marx's interpretation in this case. Where he goes wrong is in saying that this societal evolution can only be accomplished through a series of violent class-based revolutions. We can see societal eveolution going on every day..for example, the math-science bend in western schools in the 1950's-1970's was a result of a cultural factor (high prestige associated with technological achivement, which in turn was motivated by the space race among other things) This math-science emphasis is a relation of production. The result of schools being so math-science oriented was a massive explosion in technology by the children that went through that school system, which fundamentally altered the forces of production (caused the information revolution), which is now allowing an increasing decentralization of businesses, which is part of the relations of production.
This theory can also be applied to relations in international politics. A given set of forces (for example, a europe-dominated state system recovering from a massive crisis (WWI), run by liberal, pacifistic elites) gave rise to a certain mode of relations between states (the league of nations, revanche, appeasement, US isolationism) This mode of relations causes changes in the system (rise of fascism and communism etc). In that case, the disparity between the mode of relations and the political forces did in fact cause a crisis, but I believe that a crisis is not neccesary for "evolution"
After WWII, a new set of international relations norms were defined. This included a United Nations that was designed to reflect the bipolar political reality, and as a result a good forum for negotiation and for less-political actions such as peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However, on the political front the UN was and is almost completley toothless. Since 1991, the collapse of the soviet union has radically changed the international political reality. The emergence of the United States as a unipolar superpower and the massive waves of democratization and capitalist reform in the former communist states as well as some other parts of the Third World has made the political reality of the world very incongruent with the current mode of international relations. In order to continue to move forward without hinderance, changes must be made to the international system, and particularly the United Nations.
The next question clearly is about the nature of these reforms. I think there are a number of changes that have occured since the fall of communism that can point us in the right direction concerning furthur reform of the international system. First, since the fall of communism, the world as a whole has become more homogenous. There is no longer a great ideological divide among the nations of the world. Second, in the last decade, the information revolution I mentioned earlier has caused the world to become a much smaller place. Individual people can easily communicate with others across the world. Communication has been revolutionized over the last decade, and I think this has profound implications for global change.
Having put forward those two observations, I am reminded of an exceptional book by Robert Wright. In Nonzero, he outlines many arguments similar to the ones I have put forth so far. In particular, he talks at length about "societal evolution" and where it might be taking us. Obviously, the ideas he puts forth are similar to the ones of Marx, which i have just outlined. His thesis with regard to societal evolution is that humankind is continually moving toward an increasingly integrated global system. He says that there are two primary barriers to this integration, communication and trust, and uses game theory as a proof of this. Since 1991, the world has seen both these barriers reduced significantly. The lack of an ideological divide, and increased general knowledge of what is going on in the world has reduced trust barriers, and I would argue that people now more than ever see people of other nations as people like themselves, with thoughts, culture etc, rather than "them", a hostile group with whom they have nothing in common. The reduction in communication barriers is self-evident. Given the reduction in these barriers, if Wright is correct, the direction of his (and Marx's) societal evolution would be toward an increasingly integrated global system, both politically and economically.
There is a mountain of emprical evidence that this integration has in fact occured since 1991. In the economic arena, the phenomenon is called globalization. The world had become vastly more economically interdependent. In the political ring, there has been just one sterling example of what integration might look like, and that is the EU. Since the treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the EU has turned Europe's fortunes around. Economic growth has been staggering in some areas, notably Ireland, and the application of EU policies like a Europe-wide free trade zone, the euro, and common agricultural and resource polices have reversed a 45 year decline in European political and economic weight. The EU is a political entity that correlates much better with the new order in international politics, and allows economic integration to reach its maximum potential. In the rest of the world, I would argue that globalization will flatline sometime in the reletivley near future, because there will not be a sufficiently integrated political system to support economic growth. Problems with incompatible legal systems and differences in contract law, as well as subsidies, tariffs and taxes are continually becoming more significant as the level of globalization grows. International regulatory bodies, such as the WTO or the NAFTA panel. are powerless to back up any resolutions they might issue.
Despite the recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland, I believe that the EU, and its policies of maintaing the state system while pushing for economic and political integration should be a model for the transformation of other international institutions like the UN. A stronger and more active UN would facilitate economic globalization while better reflecting the geopolitical realities of the post-USSR world.
Of course, there is a small portion of countries, approximatley 2.5% of UN membership, with about 29% of the worlds population but with 43% of world GDP, who currently benefit from enormous control over the UN and who are reluctant at this point to make significant changes, as they stand to lose significantly in the short run. If the UN is to become a democratic world body capable of increased responsibilities, the very first reform that must be made is the elimination or at the very least, modification of the security council veto power held by France, the UK, Russia, China and the US. Of course, these countries are reluctant to give up their power. Still, the veto power neccesitates consensus in the UN, and this in turn prevents the UN from action on any of the major world issues of today, which are often divisive.
For example, think of what might have happened to the Iraq situation if the veto power did not exist. A vote could have been held in the security council or the general assembly which either confirmed or rejected the US plan to topple Saddam Hussein. In the event of confirmation, the US would have gone into Iraq with much more legitimacy. Nations like France and Russia, who were opposed to the war, would have been under no obligation to send troops, but there could have been no charges of unilateralism and US-european relations would be much less strained than they are today. Even countries in the middle east would have had to acknowledge that a majority of the world believed military action against Iraq was justified. This would cool anti-american sentiment and undermine charges of hypocracy.
In the event the proposal was voted down, the US would have been in a position where they were faced with clear, democratically expressed opposition to their plan, and if they chose to ignore the vote, they could have been subjected to economic sanctions or other punitive measures. Such options were impossible in today's UN, because they would automatically have been vetoed. There have been attempts in recent years to eliminate or limit the veto power, and all have been unsuccessful. A proposal to eliminate the power in 1997 was vetoed by Russia. A proposal by Uruguay to limit the veto power to non-procedural questions was withdrawn under threat of veto from the United States. A Mexican proposal to limit the power to issues covered under chapter 7 of the UN charter (international peace and security) also never made it to a vote. Most recently, a Chilean proposal to phase out the veto by 2030 was withdrawn under American pressure.
The justification for the rejections was that the political realities of the world must be expressed in the United Nations to ensure participation by all countries. It is argued that if the veto power was eliminated, a predicament like that which doomed the League of Nations would arise, where powerful nations who had decisions go against them simply walked away from the institution. To prevent this, powerful countries must be given power within the UN as well, hence the existence of the veto. I think that this argument is flawed, because as we have already established, the world is much more interconnected than it was in 1930, and that simply walking away from the UN is no longer a viable alternative for any major power. However, the reality is that the countries who have the power want to keep it, and therefore, veto abolition is likely an impossible goal, and any modification would have to be a part of a much larger system of reforms that gave each of the major countries something in return for a limitation of the veto power.
My proposal would look something like the following. The UN would reform itself into an organization modelled along the lines of a bicameral national system. This system would work alongside UN bodies like the International Court of Justice, UN Economic and Social Council and the UN Trusteeship council, which would remain essentially unchanged. The system would include three levels, with the "executive" level being the security council, and the "legislative" level being comprised of the General Assembly and a new entity, which I will call the UN Senate. The Senate would be composed of 203 delegates, with distribution based approximatley on world population. Each seat would represent approximatley 31 million people, proportioned as closley as possible to national population levels. Countries with less than a cutoff level of population..perhaps 28 or 30 million, would share a seat with other countries of similar size and would rotate in alphabetical order every 2 years. This would provide a UN that reflected political reality, with one branch being based on world power and influence (security council) one branch based on population and one branch being egalitarian (one member per country). The UN secretariat would be responsible for facilitating relations between the three branches.
The decision allocation process would remain the same, with some General Assembly decisions allocated to the Senate. However, in the event of an "divisive issue", defined as an issue where over 1/3 of the body charged with the decision votes against the prevailing opinion or if there is a veto in a security council decision, the issue would be referred to seperate votes in all three bodies. In order for a resolution to be passed in this case, it would require 50% support in two of the three bodies. In the event of a veto, the following rules would apply. If a single Veto was cast, it would nullify the resolution except in the case of a 2/3 vote in the security council and at least 50% approval in both other bodies. if two vetoes were cast, it would take 2/3 approval in all three bodies to pass. If three vetoes were cast, it would take unanimity among the reminder of the security council and a 75% vote in both bodies to overturn the veto. If four vetoes were cast, it would take 90% approval in both houses and security council unanimity (which, incedentally, would make a resolution impossible to pass if China was one of the vetoing countries). If all five major powers were to veto, the veto would be final and impossible to overturn. (This prevents furthur restriction or elimination of the veto after this)
This reform could be the foundation for a stronger UN that would be far more democratic and far less bound to the 1945 status quo. Of course, given the significant opposition to veto modification, this proposal would be unlikely to pass without additional concessions. The addition of the population-based Senate would be a significant power boost to China, probably removing a threat of their veto. The UK has never used their veto except in conjunction with the US, and France has used it only once, and that was a situation involving a French military action. I think given that it is a reasonable assumption that those two would go along with a US/Russia approval. That leaves only those two. I believe that Russia would support the new system if given a minimum of concessions, including continued and increased aid funds for development, gurantees of its oil rights and so on in the Caspian/Black Sea region and international support of its position on Chechnya, especially if it was faced with US pressure.
That leaves only the superpower, and being a superpower there is little that could be offered to the US in the way of concessions. The biggest one would be the massive increase in international support that such reform would result in, it would certainly help the United States recover its tarnished international image. Other possible concessions could include an extended ban on the trial of US nationals in the International Criminal Court (perhaps 25 years), or the position that any votes on issues to do with Israel/Palestine could be subjected to US veto without threat of overturning, as most of their vetoes in recent years have been on that issue. i think, however, that the ultimate choice will have to rest on the US administration and their willingness to forgo their own interest for the sake of the greater good in this particular case. Given the history of past US administrations, I would judge this to be unlikely, but I believe that without meaningful UN reform, beginning with restriction on the veto, the organization will continue to be marginalized and will eventually become irrelevant. I think that even in this case political integration will eventually have to occur, but it will take a long time, will definatley exacerbate world problems in the short term, and might even cause a Marxian "crisis".
As HG Wells said in his 1921 book An Outline of History, "I believe that men will one day be united under a single government, committed to peace as one people, but whether this is a peaceful process that takes a few generations or a long struggle involving many crises and many centuries more of toil will ultimatley be determined by the will and morality of the leaders of mankind." In the subsequent 80 years, I think Wells would have been disappointed with our progress. But progress had been made, and I believe that my generation has the potential to make an impact, because among the widespread disillusionment and cynicism that tends to run through people my age, especially with regard to politics, I have observed that there exists pockets of idealism. They are rare, even among the distinguished and brilliant people I have met both here at McGill and at home in Calgary, and they hide themselves well. Nevertheless, I believe that the people of my generation believe that a better world is possible and that they can contribute, perhaps more so than any generation since WWII. So I want to ask everyone who reads this to "examine yourselves, and let each of you discover where your true chance at greatness lies." Follow your dreams. To quote James T. Kirk (I know I'm a nerd),
"Never let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there, you can make a difference."
Although I strongly disagree with Marx's economic outlook, and even more so with the practical system it spawned, that isn't all Marx is. Personally, I find his most useful contribution to the argument I am about to make is his theory of societal change. He talks about the forces of production, by which he means the technology available for use, the resources and geography where that tech can be applied, and the characteristics of the population that will be applying the technology. These characteristics include culture, literacy and so on. A given set of forces of production give rise to a set of relations of production, how people organize themselves as a society to produce most efficiently. These relations of production eventually have an effect on the forces of production through technological improvement and changes to culture etc based on the new forms of organization. This results in a cyclical process that approximates evolution in a society.
I personally like Marx's interpretation in this case. Where he goes wrong is in saying that this societal evolution can only be accomplished through a series of violent class-based revolutions. We can see societal eveolution going on every day..for example, the math-science bend in western schools in the 1950's-1970's was a result of a cultural factor (high prestige associated with technological achivement, which in turn was motivated by the space race among other things) This math-science emphasis is a relation of production. The result of schools being so math-science oriented was a massive explosion in technology by the children that went through that school system, which fundamentally altered the forces of production (caused the information revolution), which is now allowing an increasing decentralization of businesses, which is part of the relations of production.
This theory can also be applied to relations in international politics. A given set of forces (for example, a europe-dominated state system recovering from a massive crisis (WWI), run by liberal, pacifistic elites) gave rise to a certain mode of relations between states (the league of nations, revanche, appeasement, US isolationism) This mode of relations causes changes in the system (rise of fascism and communism etc). In that case, the disparity between the mode of relations and the political forces did in fact cause a crisis, but I believe that a crisis is not neccesary for "evolution"
After WWII, a new set of international relations norms were defined. This included a United Nations that was designed to reflect the bipolar political reality, and as a result a good forum for negotiation and for less-political actions such as peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However, on the political front the UN was and is almost completley toothless. Since 1991, the collapse of the soviet union has radically changed the international political reality. The emergence of the United States as a unipolar superpower and the massive waves of democratization and capitalist reform in the former communist states as well as some other parts of the Third World has made the political reality of the world very incongruent with the current mode of international relations. In order to continue to move forward without hinderance, changes must be made to the international system, and particularly the United Nations.
The next question clearly is about the nature of these reforms. I think there are a number of changes that have occured since the fall of communism that can point us in the right direction concerning furthur reform of the international system. First, since the fall of communism, the world as a whole has become more homogenous. There is no longer a great ideological divide among the nations of the world. Second, in the last decade, the information revolution I mentioned earlier has caused the world to become a much smaller place. Individual people can easily communicate with others across the world. Communication has been revolutionized over the last decade, and I think this has profound implications for global change.
Having put forward those two observations, I am reminded of an exceptional book by Robert Wright. In Nonzero, he outlines many arguments similar to the ones I have put forth so far. In particular, he talks at length about "societal evolution" and where it might be taking us. Obviously, the ideas he puts forth are similar to the ones of Marx, which i have just outlined. His thesis with regard to societal evolution is that humankind is continually moving toward an increasingly integrated global system. He says that there are two primary barriers to this integration, communication and trust, and uses game theory as a proof of this. Since 1991, the world has seen both these barriers reduced significantly. The lack of an ideological divide, and increased general knowledge of what is going on in the world has reduced trust barriers, and I would argue that people now more than ever see people of other nations as people like themselves, with thoughts, culture etc, rather than "them", a hostile group with whom they have nothing in common. The reduction in communication barriers is self-evident. Given the reduction in these barriers, if Wright is correct, the direction of his (and Marx's) societal evolution would be toward an increasingly integrated global system, both politically and economically.
There is a mountain of emprical evidence that this integration has in fact occured since 1991. In the economic arena, the phenomenon is called globalization. The world had become vastly more economically interdependent. In the political ring, there has been just one sterling example of what integration might look like, and that is the EU. Since the treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the EU has turned Europe's fortunes around. Economic growth has been staggering in some areas, notably Ireland, and the application of EU policies like a Europe-wide free trade zone, the euro, and common agricultural and resource polices have reversed a 45 year decline in European political and economic weight. The EU is a political entity that correlates much better with the new order in international politics, and allows economic integration to reach its maximum potential. In the rest of the world, I would argue that globalization will flatline sometime in the reletivley near future, because there will not be a sufficiently integrated political system to support economic growth. Problems with incompatible legal systems and differences in contract law, as well as subsidies, tariffs and taxes are continually becoming more significant as the level of globalization grows. International regulatory bodies, such as the WTO or the NAFTA panel. are powerless to back up any resolutions they might issue.
Despite the recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland, I believe that the EU, and its policies of maintaing the state system while pushing for economic and political integration should be a model for the transformation of other international institutions like the UN. A stronger and more active UN would facilitate economic globalization while better reflecting the geopolitical realities of the post-USSR world.
Of course, there is a small portion of countries, approximatley 2.5% of UN membership, with about 29% of the worlds population but with 43% of world GDP, who currently benefit from enormous control over the UN and who are reluctant at this point to make significant changes, as they stand to lose significantly in the short run. If the UN is to become a democratic world body capable of increased responsibilities, the very first reform that must be made is the elimination or at the very least, modification of the security council veto power held by France, the UK, Russia, China and the US. Of course, these countries are reluctant to give up their power. Still, the veto power neccesitates consensus in the UN, and this in turn prevents the UN from action on any of the major world issues of today, which are often divisive.
For example, think of what might have happened to the Iraq situation if the veto power did not exist. A vote could have been held in the security council or the general assembly which either confirmed or rejected the US plan to topple Saddam Hussein. In the event of confirmation, the US would have gone into Iraq with much more legitimacy. Nations like France and Russia, who were opposed to the war, would have been under no obligation to send troops, but there could have been no charges of unilateralism and US-european relations would be much less strained than they are today. Even countries in the middle east would have had to acknowledge that a majority of the world believed military action against Iraq was justified. This would cool anti-american sentiment and undermine charges of hypocracy.
In the event the proposal was voted down, the US would have been in a position where they were faced with clear, democratically expressed opposition to their plan, and if they chose to ignore the vote, they could have been subjected to economic sanctions or other punitive measures. Such options were impossible in today's UN, because they would automatically have been vetoed. There have been attempts in recent years to eliminate or limit the veto power, and all have been unsuccessful. A proposal to eliminate the power in 1997 was vetoed by Russia. A proposal by Uruguay to limit the veto power to non-procedural questions was withdrawn under threat of veto from the United States. A Mexican proposal to limit the power to issues covered under chapter 7 of the UN charter (international peace and security) also never made it to a vote. Most recently, a Chilean proposal to phase out the veto by 2030 was withdrawn under American pressure.
The justification for the rejections was that the political realities of the world must be expressed in the United Nations to ensure participation by all countries. It is argued that if the veto power was eliminated, a predicament like that which doomed the League of Nations would arise, where powerful nations who had decisions go against them simply walked away from the institution. To prevent this, powerful countries must be given power within the UN as well, hence the existence of the veto. I think that this argument is flawed, because as we have already established, the world is much more interconnected than it was in 1930, and that simply walking away from the UN is no longer a viable alternative for any major power. However, the reality is that the countries who have the power want to keep it, and therefore, veto abolition is likely an impossible goal, and any modification would have to be a part of a much larger system of reforms that gave each of the major countries something in return for a limitation of the veto power.
My proposal would look something like the following. The UN would reform itself into an organization modelled along the lines of a bicameral national system. This system would work alongside UN bodies like the International Court of Justice, UN Economic and Social Council and the UN Trusteeship council, which would remain essentially unchanged. The system would include three levels, with the "executive" level being the security council, and the "legislative" level being comprised of the General Assembly and a new entity, which I will call the UN Senate. The Senate would be composed of 203 delegates, with distribution based approximatley on world population. Each seat would represent approximatley 31 million people, proportioned as closley as possible to national population levels. Countries with less than a cutoff level of population..perhaps 28 or 30 million, would share a seat with other countries of similar size and would rotate in alphabetical order every 2 years. This would provide a UN that reflected political reality, with one branch being based on world power and influence (security council) one branch based on population and one branch being egalitarian (one member per country). The UN secretariat would be responsible for facilitating relations between the three branches.
The decision allocation process would remain the same, with some General Assembly decisions allocated to the Senate. However, in the event of an "divisive issue", defined as an issue where over 1/3 of the body charged with the decision votes against the prevailing opinion or if there is a veto in a security council decision, the issue would be referred to seperate votes in all three bodies. In order for a resolution to be passed in this case, it would require 50% support in two of the three bodies. In the event of a veto, the following rules would apply. If a single Veto was cast, it would nullify the resolution except in the case of a 2/3 vote in the security council and at least 50% approval in both other bodies. if two vetoes were cast, it would take 2/3 approval in all three bodies to pass. If three vetoes were cast, it would take unanimity among the reminder of the security council and a 75% vote in both bodies to overturn the veto. If four vetoes were cast, it would take 90% approval in both houses and security council unanimity (which, incedentally, would make a resolution impossible to pass if China was one of the vetoing countries). If all five major powers were to veto, the veto would be final and impossible to overturn. (This prevents furthur restriction or elimination of the veto after this)
This reform could be the foundation for a stronger UN that would be far more democratic and far less bound to the 1945 status quo. Of course, given the significant opposition to veto modification, this proposal would be unlikely to pass without additional concessions. The addition of the population-based Senate would be a significant power boost to China, probably removing a threat of their veto. The UK has never used their veto except in conjunction with the US, and France has used it only once, and that was a situation involving a French military action. I think given that it is a reasonable assumption that those two would go along with a US/Russia approval. That leaves only those two. I believe that Russia would support the new system if given a minimum of concessions, including continued and increased aid funds for development, gurantees of its oil rights and so on in the Caspian/Black Sea region and international support of its position on Chechnya, especially if it was faced with US pressure.
That leaves only the superpower, and being a superpower there is little that could be offered to the US in the way of concessions. The biggest one would be the massive increase in international support that such reform would result in, it would certainly help the United States recover its tarnished international image. Other possible concessions could include an extended ban on the trial of US nationals in the International Criminal Court (perhaps 25 years), or the position that any votes on issues to do with Israel/Palestine could be subjected to US veto without threat of overturning, as most of their vetoes in recent years have been on that issue. i think, however, that the ultimate choice will have to rest on the US administration and their willingness to forgo their own interest for the sake of the greater good in this particular case. Given the history of past US administrations, I would judge this to be unlikely, but I believe that without meaningful UN reform, beginning with restriction on the veto, the organization will continue to be marginalized and will eventually become irrelevant. I think that even in this case political integration will eventually have to occur, but it will take a long time, will definatley exacerbate world problems in the short term, and might even cause a Marxian "crisis".
As HG Wells said in his 1921 book An Outline of History, "I believe that men will one day be united under a single government, committed to peace as one people, but whether this is a peaceful process that takes a few generations or a long struggle involving many crises and many centuries more of toil will ultimatley be determined by the will and morality of the leaders of mankind." In the subsequent 80 years, I think Wells would have been disappointed with our progress. But progress had been made, and I believe that my generation has the potential to make an impact, because among the widespread disillusionment and cynicism that tends to run through people my age, especially with regard to politics, I have observed that there exists pockets of idealism. They are rare, even among the distinguished and brilliant people I have met both here at McGill and at home in Calgary, and they hide themselves well. Nevertheless, I believe that the people of my generation believe that a better world is possible and that they can contribute, perhaps more so than any generation since WWII. So I want to ask everyone who reads this to "examine yourselves, and let each of you discover where your true chance at greatness lies." Follow your dreams. To quote James T. Kirk (I know I'm a nerd),
"Never let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there, you can make a difference."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)