Our generation is experiencing an extraordinary historical phenomenon; it is reshaping culture, welfare, and prosperity at a global magnitude. The tyrannizing bounds of social contract, which have restrained us from freely trading and interacting, from acting as human beings in their state of nature, are now being torn off successively, and, most importantly, the change is being spearheaded at the government echelon. One after another, the countries that make up the world's financial system are making the shift to a market-based economy. The fairly revolutionary trend of democracy, capitalism, and globalization, has been gaining momentum and storming the earth continent at a time; it will continue to do so in the foreseeable forecast.
People of all tongues are coming to the realization that prosperity is a mutually dependent element, to reach it, we must plug in to the livewire of global trade and awareness. The barriers to entry are moderately low, the rewards are often abundant, immediately felt, and forerunners are vast. Thailand, China, and Poland are just three countries that have flirted with concepts of privatization and foreign trade; the rewarding effects were proven to be generous and relatively instant, as we shall now demonstrate.
Until about 1985 Thailand's economy was virtually closed to direct foreign investment. The only outside assistance that the country has benefited from was received at the government level. Outside aid flo...
The trend toward a more globalized market has become increasingly developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Emphasis on world trade has become a dominant figure in almost every Nation’s economy. Between 1970 and 2000 world trade has experienced an increase of almost 370 percent. Concurrently, world GDP increased by 150 percent. Trade is beneficial to Nations because it allows the creation of avenues that aid in efficient allocation of resources (Canas & Coronado). Countries can gain from trade when they specialize according to their comparative advantage. This is, when they create conditions where goods and services can be produced at a lower opportunity cost than in any other country. Along the same logic, countries can also make large profits by taking advantage of another countries comparative advantage.
In contemporary times, the rise of capitalism as a dominant economic trend and its ravenous demand to accumulate sources from new markets, has led to the idea of merging political and economic power into one, which is democratic capitalism or otherwise illustrated as “a system where markets allocate income according to efficiency while governments redistribute income according to political demand."(Iversen, 2006). The advancements mentioned earlier, have given ground for questions concerning the possible compatibility of the political ideology which is democracy and the economic ideology capitalism and how would they affect one another. This mergence could be examined in recent times, whereas in the past around the start of the nineteenth century it was considered as inappropriate and unlikely to happen. This paper aims to demonstrate to what degree are democracy and capitalism compatible, by examining the various areas of conflict of the two ideologies, how has capitalism affected the democratic system in the United States and does actually global capitalism have an impact on the developing countries democracies.
Tejapira, K. (2002). “Post-Crisis Economic Impasse and Political Recovery in Thailand The Resurgence of Economic Nationalism” Critical Asian Studies, 34(3), pp. 323– 356.
While free trade has certainly changed with advances in technology and the ability to create external economies, the concept seems to be the most benign way for countries to trade with one another. Factoring in that imperfect competition and increasing returns challenge the concept of comparative advantage in modern international trade markets, the resulting introduction of government policies to regulate trade seems to result in increased tensions between countries as individual nations seek to gain advantages at the cost of others. While classical trade optimism may be somewhat naïve, the alternatives are risky and potentially harmful.
Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident that command economies tend to oppress their citizens. Therefore, socialism, which allows for basic needs to be met and personal freedoms to be upheld, is the best economic system for all of a country’s citizens.
As Ian Fletcher pointed out in Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it And Why, nations need a well-chosen balance between openness and closure toward the larger world economy (Fletc...
Globalization, the acceleration and strengthening of worldwide interactions among people, companies and governments, has taken a huge toll on the world, both culturally and economically. It’s generating a fast-paced, increasingly tied world and also praising individualism. It has been a massive subject of matter amongst scientists, politicians, government bureaucrats and the normal, average human population. Globalization promoted the independence of nations and people, relying on organizations such as the World Bank and also regional organizations such as the BRICs that encourage “a world free of poverty” (World Bank). Despite the fact that critics can argue that globalization is an overall positive trend, globalization has had a rather negative cultural and economic effect such as the gigantic wealth gaps and the widespread of American culture, “Americanization”; globalization had good intentions but bad results.
Following the Great Recession, the world has been facing complex global transformations. Dani Rodrik’s “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy” portrays the challenges of the implications that our current model of globalization relies upon. Rodrik’s work reveals both the implications and connections of the relationships between markets, the states, and globalization in the currently changing world. Throughout the book, Rodrik argues the validity of five key points: markets require regulatory institutions, such institutions take on a variety of forms, societies should orient their market-supporting institutions to their own unique needs, markets that are responsive to democracy can avoid institutional convergence, and a world that is responsive to democracy will not reach full globalization. This book has made me question the long term sustainability of the already evolving economic globalization process. Rodrik explains that the process of globalization must be managed so that the entire world can benefit.
2. Columbia.edu. A Good Look at the thai Financial Crisis in 1997-98. 28 July 2013.
During the twentieth century, the world began to develop the idea of economic trade. Beginning in the 1960’s, the four Asian Tigers, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, demonstrated that a global economy, which was fueled by an import and export system with other countries, allowed the economy of the home country itself to flourish. Th...
Many historians and sociologists have identified a transformation in the economic processes of the world and society in recent times. There has been an extensive increase in developments in technology and the economy as a whole in the twentieth century. Globalization has been recognized as a new age in which the world has developed into what Giddens identifies to be a “single social system” (Anthony Giddens: 1993 ‘Sociology’ pg 528), due to the rise of interdependence of various countries on one another, therefore affecting practically everyone within society.
...mployment are still on the rise. The top twenty percent of the total population rules over sixty-nine percent of the country’s wealth. The lowest twenty percent of the population only controls just one percent of the nation’s wealth. The bottom twenty’s average income per month consists of just approximately 1,440 baht, which is equivalent to about forty-five U.S. dollars. Labor jobs are very low in payment generally. That is why you see Japanese car-producing companies transferring manufacturing operations to Thailand. That allows their profits to increase exponentially, that is because wages for jobs of labor are very poor in Thailand. All of this has led to rioting by the lower class. Riots have taken place outside of government buildings; these riots have led to harsh responses by the military. Just in 2014, twenty citizens and 5 military men have died in riots.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
For the first time, causing many to wonder, “What is globalization exactly, and why are the protesters so against it? “ “What are the mysterious institutions the WTO, the IMF, and the Bank- that the media keep? “ “And what could be so problematic about free
Shawki, Ahmed, Paul D’Amato (2000), “Briefing: The Shape of World Capitalism,” International Socialist Review, [http://www.isreview.org/issues/11/world_capitalism.shtml], accessed 19 May 2012.