In his book Political Order and Political Decay, Francis Fukuyama proffers many compelling argument that support his overall push towards a domestic liberalism. One such argument is that the social mobilization of a given nation’s people (especially the middle class) is one of the primary causes for that nation’s development and success. We believe this argument falls short under examination from logical consistency and under evidence from counterexamples. In Saudi Arabia, we see a high amount of development (using the metrics of national wealth increase and foreign trade) but we see low social mobilization. Similarly, in many rural parts of South American countries, we see a vibrant culture and much work towards social betterment but these areas are not very developed. We will first break apart Fukuyama’s idea of social mobilization to see what exact role it has in development, then we will look at these counterexamples in greater detail to extract their application to our thesis, and finally we will examine the applications and …show more content…
They simply shed light on the further complexity beyond three simple factors in recognizing what it takes to bring a society into the modern age. Practically speaking, this shows us three things. The first is that there is no single, easily transferrable solution that will lead to the development of a nation. The second is that development is largely an emergent property of complex nation-statehood, blossoming from a myriad of largely ungeneralizable factors. And the third is that we must look at intermediary steps when pushing towards development. In this way, we can build within developing societies the criteria Fukuyama proposes and we can also integrate nation-specific factors, taking into consideration that mass democratization may not be the ultimate end goal, nor a necessary stepping-stone in
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
There are thousands of years of history that have taken place. History is not like art(less subjective), but there is still plenty of room for speculation, criticism, and debate among historians, professors, as well as average citizens. However, not all these moments are documented, or done successfully specifically. Some of these moments end up becoming movies, books, or even historical fiction novels, but what about those fundamental moments that aren’t readily documented? In the book The Birth of Modern Politics Lynn Hudson Parsons claims that the 1828 election was momentous in the history of both political history, as well as our nation. Parsons not only discusses the behind the scenes of the first public election of 1828, but the pivotal events in Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams’ lives leading up to the election as well. Parsons succeeds in proving her thesis that the 1828 election was crucial to American politics as we know it today, as well as provoking evidence from various sources with her own logic and opinions as well.
Routledge, P. "Resisting and reshaping destructive development: social movements and globalising networks." Geographies of Global Change (2002): 310-327.
These entire factors can eventually open up all the possibilities for more and more emerging adults to experience life and explore their independence, as countries become wealthier chances are that more young people can go to school and move in to a dorm and have a semi independent lifestyle until they reach adulthood. This can benefit our future generations to come and potentially increase the life expectancy and become achievable adults that live a longer and prosperous life. This will be a new evolution for the young people now and the young people to come, this means more educated people, which call change the way our jobs, economy, and development of our countries can be. More young people will explore their horizons and develop to be the best they can be instead of being forced to work a full time low paying job and hit a dead end. Perhaps one day the new
shining images of prosperity: the fact that democracy empowered the people, but only if they
Is Democracy Threatened by Social Unrest and the Rise of Latin America’s Left? What many have been calling “The Pink Tide” in Latin America has caused some changes in Latin America that some expert deem are good for democracy while others say it is a threat to democracy. The rise of the left has been one of the main points of contention between people from different political spectrums both in Latin America, the United States and elsewhere. One thing is for sure, this “pink tide” has ha a ripple effect throughout Latin America in recent years and it has caused some polarization between different political spectrums.
Cooper, F. and R. Packard, (eds). International Development and the Social Science. University of California Press; 1997.
Paul Collier’s book is about the future of the world. Most of the world is on the positive trajectory set by growth and prosperity. The 21st Century is the age of the middle class. For most of the world, things are looking up. However, Collier is concerned with a group of countries that are not part of this trajectory. Collier is concerned with approximately 58 countries that constitute about one billion people, or 20 percent of the earth’s population (Collier 7). This “bottom billion” group belongs to countries that are not progressing with the rest of the world’s pace; in fact, they seem to be diverging and falling apart when everyone else around them are growing. The purpose of the book is to show these countries are, in fact, diverging. He shows them caught in four different “traps.” After proving this, Collier has the challenge of making the case for reform and what can be done to fix these countries and put them on the course towards growth and prosperity. Finally, Collier has to show why the western world should care about supporting these countries and reversing their decline and how their current poor trajectory represents a drain on the global economy and security environment. The Bottom Billion is written for a broad audience; essentially all citizens of democratic countries. Collier encourages action by all levels but recommendations are made for policymakers in G8 countries that are responsible and interested in achieving improvement for impoverished countries.
Rodney’s argument is broken down into six chapters each consisting of several subdivisions and case studies supporting his principle argument. The first chapter works towards defining the terms of development and underdevelopment and argues the comparative nature of these terms; a country is only ‘underdeveloped’ by European standards. This chapter begins by tracing European development from its early stages of communalism through feudalism and finally capitalism. Then, he works towards developing an understanding of the term ‘underdevelopment’ and through an analysis of a variety of development indices what it constitutes in present day society: “In Niger, one doctor must do for 56, 140 people; in Tunisia one doctor for every 8,320 Tunisians”(18). The Marxist concept of inherent inequalities within the international capitalist system un...
...ous situations, possibly because these studies have attributed motive and action to the states rather than to the decision-makers within them. Thus, foreign relations and policies can truly be strengthened when people can view and truly appreciate international issue in many different perspectives, such as realist, idealist, liberalist, constructivism, feminist, world economic system analysis, etc. When people are able to see issues and solutions to problems in many different ways world peace might be reachable.
Extractive institutions are used throughout this book to explain that the upper class extracts resources and goods from the lower class. They don’t allow growth or competition, but rather they just exploit the rest of society into doing their labour. It’s used to please a few, rather than the majority, and can still be seen in most places in the world. Whereas, inclusive institutions are the ideal way nations should be run, allowing for fair economical systems, property ownership, educational facilities and allowing all citizens to participate in the growth of the economy. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that this is the main factor in distinguishing the rich countries from the poor and, moreover, how they treat their citizens. This system is relatively used in North America and Western Europe.
As noted in the previous paragraph, when considering industrialization, State Intervention in the economy can create positive results when there is a State capable of doing so, like in the case of a Cohesive Capitalist State. However, in terms of social justice and the impact on the population’s quality of life, State Intervention cannot be the most apparent answer to the question of ‘how does a State increase its industrialization’. In a Neopatrimonial State, essentially all State Intervention is unable to contribute to long-term and sustainable economic development. The poorly structured bureaucracy, corrupt and personalistic leaders, and absence of a cohesive national goal, all ensure that the general population does not experience any positive benefits invested in the economy. In the case of a Cohesive Capitalist State, because the government needs to ensure that the entire population stands squarely behind its national goal, it will frequently employ repressive tactics. To do this, Cohesive Capitalist States systematically discipline and restrict the labor force through brutal and repressive measures, inevitably creating an obedient labor force that is willing to work in poor conditions for little to no pay. When taking into account the quality of life that citizens are forced to endure in a Cohesive Capitalist State, it becomes much more difficult to suggest State Intervention as a completely worthwhile and beneficial endeavor. Because of this point, a serious consideration between the human rights violations and the positive benefits resulting from economic growth is needed before a definitive conclusion can be made on behalf of State Intervention as it affects everything, not just relation to
Populism refers to the political philosophy that pits the downtrodden masses against the apathetic ruling elite. La Moral refers to the conformity to the code of conduct set by employers. Modernization is the transformation from a traditional, rural society that primarily relies on agriculture to an urban, industrialized society. The emergence and flourishing of modern society has been inextricably linked with the development of industries, infrastructure and cities. Sociologists and political analysts agree that “urbanization and industrialization were the main causes of populism in Latin America.” (Conniff and Roberts 6)
Smith, R.K. (1996). Understanding third world politics: theories of political change and development. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Modernization is defined as the conversion from the former civilizations in society to contemporary society; as it is establish today in the West. It models a perspective of economic, social, and cultural progress that enlightens the global disparity in terms of modifying levels of scientific improvement between societies. By presenting modern approaches in underdeveloped countries, societies will be knowledgeable of solidifications in their economies. This dominant theory refers to a variety of believers of Karl Marx’s perspectives that encourage the explanation of improvement or underdevelopment of countries. Everyone isn’t a fan of Karl Marx’s perspective. The mutual features between Max Weber and Emile Durkheim also interpret the developmental illustration of this theory. Development implies the bridging of these gaps by an imitative process, occurring in stages, such that traditional sectors and/or countries gradually assume the qualities of the 'modern' western. Max Weber observed that with modern civilization the societies would only profit from rationality. The title of Durkheim’s book, Division of Labor in Society, basically summarizes how he views modernization. Durkheim’s believes that with modernization will be the creation of a growing division of labor. He expects the flop of modern social unions in modernization might lead to anomie. Elevation in anomie will eventually cause a growth in crime rates. The theory is in fact a unilinear, ethnocentric theory and it is with all its shortcomings which one can conclude that it provides an unworkable guide to Caribbean development.