IV MPAS2001 TheColdWarAndTheMode rnizationParadigm

100 %
0 %
Information about IV MPAS2001 TheColdWarAndTheMode rnizationParadigm
Entertainment

Published on December 19, 2007

Author: Olivier

Source: authorstream.com

MPAS 2001 IV - The Cold War and Modernization Paradigm :  MPAS 2001 IV - The Cold War and Modernization Paradigm Constructs on Political Economy and East Asia Background in the Academia: the Cold War and Asian Studies The Modernization Paradigm East Asian “Economic Miracles” East Asian Development Model Critique on the EAM and Modernization Theory The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies The Cold War and competing paradigms: Marxism vs. modernization theory The division of the World into the ”Free World” and ”Socialist Block” and also into First, Second, and Third World Super power rivalry over newly independent colonies Mostly under-developed regions of the world The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies The West needed models to explain its adversary (the USST, Red China…), but also to offer an alternative to the third world countries vulnerable to socialism Heavy involvement of the US government, military and intelligence in the creation of area studies Combining the older traditional studies (Sinology, Japanology, Koreanology) to modern social sciences The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies Began during the WW II The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) employed area specialist to analyse the enemy societies (Germany, Japan) Studies used for propaganda and occupation purposes (e.g. Ruth Benedict, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946) After the WW II the US became the centre of modern area studies, including Asian studies The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies Economic and political power shaped the Western studies of the “non-Western World” Funding for Area Studies increased manifold Took place through universities and foundations connected to the US security and military establishment The Social Science Research Council influential in Cold War America Funding for projects and scholars using certain paradigms, such as modernization theory, totalitarian model, etc. The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies This was not a conspiracy, but something more complicated It is a common thing in academia that outside interests guide the direction of social research, if not the outcome of the work Significant in paradigmatic sense i.e. making alternative views unavailable The government finds ”right” persons to do research The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies Therefore, in the early Cold War many of these “right persons” had connections to the security establishment In the CIA the research and operations branches copied from the OSS Research branch became the academic arm of the US intelligence service Very influential in area studies Of Asia Scholars, John King Fairbank and Barrington Moore Jr., inter alia, were members of the OSS Later moved to back to academia The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies Big US foundations (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford) worked with the intelligence community to fund projects and research centres and in some cases laundered CIA funding to them Major universities targeted: Harvard, Columbia Area studies scholars were themselves subjects of FBI investigations, especially emigrants Screening for Communist sympathizers The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies:  The Cold War and Asian Studies: The Creation of Area Studies The basic books on research on modernization studies and comparative politics that became basic reading in American universities were funded by Ford Foundation, in close consultation with the CIA E.g. W.W. Rostow’s view of phases of modernization one of these central works On totalitarian model, Zbigniew Brzezinski connected to the Institute for Defence Analysis (IDA, a major academic arm of US government security agencies) Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Modernization paradigm Developed during this time in the West, mostly in the US universities and academic think thanks to provide a counter-theory to Marxism The newly established area studies the natural field to apply the theory Also development studies, international studies and communist studies part of this Other social sciences (such as political science) also important (e.g. totalitarian model) Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Influential model by W.W. Rostow: The Stages of Economic Growth as the sequences of modernization The question is where growth is taking us: to Communism or “to the affluent suburbs, nicely rounded out with social overhead capital.” Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Constitute an alternative to Karl Marx’s theory of modern history as heading towards socialism The alternative was naturally the liberal democratic industrial, and post-industrial capitalism 5 phases scheme of modernization: 1. The traditional society 2. The preconditions for take-off 3. The take-off 4. The drive to maturity 5. The age of high mass-consumption Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Compare to Marx’s slave society, feudalism, bourgeois capitalism, socialism and communism. Rostow argued that Communist countries were technically capable of reaching the drive to maturity phase, but politically incapable to do so Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Argued that Marx did not / could not study transformative nation state, also Asia was beyond his competence and interest Further criticism: State socialism meant inversion of Marxism: not economic power, but political power decided everything Communism defined as “a disease of the transition” by Rostow Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm The communist takeover happens in the pre-condition period when the required capital and know-how is there, but also traditional resistance Centralised dictatorship may be able to provide the modern state organisation that take-off requires, but with a high price and not as a historical necessity Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm As Rostow saw it, the challenge for the West was in the developing countries and the roads they would choose to their development Free market superior to socialism in development that is inevitable and good Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Following this, during the Cold War in East Asian political economy was studied from certain points of view Japan presented as the success story of modernization, China as the example of abortive development ROK studied thru modernization theory, while DPRK studied under communist studies -> different understandings of these countries regarded natural regardless of their may similarities Modernization Paradigm:  Modernization Paradigm Until the 70s East Asia remained a case in larger area studies research that applied its paradigms to it East Asia in the receiving end of the process Slowly things would began to change East Asia would become a model for development, not its target anymore Refers to East Asian economic miracles East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” The rapid economic development of East Asian countries took place between 1950 – present Japan first, then ROC, South Korea and HK, PRC last, North Korea still waiting for economic growth East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Japan Kick-off during the Korean War Government heavily involved in investment policy Heavy industry and alter electronics prioritized Large private companies closely connected to the state Export-oriented growth East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Relatively well-educated and industrious work force, high savings and investment rates Cosy relations with government bureaucrats and big business Company labour unions Market economy East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Growth rates: 10% / a average in the 1960s, 5% /a average in the 1970s and a 4% / a average in the 1980s Already in the 70s Japan would start to transfer less technology-intensive production to East Asian countries, such as ROC (and later PRC) East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Reached low growth in early 90’s, with an economic slump and bursting of the economic bubble Before this Japan was seen as the model for the developing nations According to the “flying geese metaphor”, Japan led the East Asian economic development East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” ROC: The Land Reform in early 1950 Substantial US Aid until mid 1960s The 1960s witnessed the change of the engine of growth from the agriculture to industry: In 1960s industrial growth rate averaged 17 % / a The size of the industrial sector increased almost by 30 times from 1950 to the early 80s East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” High rate of savings and investment Good infrastructure and efficient planning Pro-growth government policies Pro-growth policies: tax incentives for foreign investments, special ‘export processing zones’ Led to increased investments from the US, Japan and overseas Chinese communities East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Investments on education created gradually large highly skilled work force Close connections between the KMT and big business KMT a major owner in many modern industrial sectors Heavy government involvement in the modern sector East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” In mid 60s Taiwanese economy took off and became the fastest growing national economy in the world for two decades Helped to make Taiwan a Newly Industrialised Country (NIC) by the early 70s East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” The ‘Third transition’ of Taiwanese economy came in the 80s-90s: From an industry-based to a knowledge-based economy since the 80s By the 90s Taiwan had become a mature industrial economy that already was losing low tech jobs to less developed countries, especially to the mainland China Slide29:  Picture 1) Modernization in Pictures: KMT Propaganda pictures on (real) industrial success (Source: A Pictorial History of the Republic of China Vol. II) East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” South Korea Resembled Japanese and ROC examples Fastest growth and industrial development during the reign of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-wan US aid important in the beginning State involvement in heavy industries, investments in infrastructure and education East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Export-oriented growth Keeping labour unions week Government - big business nexus strong Japanese model carefully studied East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” PRC Maoist development in 1949 – 1978 Centralised economy High industrial development with substantial population growth In 1978 PRC notably behind Japan and ROC Deng Xiaoping and economic ”four modernisations” in 1978 Opening up of the PRC to world trade Catching up with he West in science and technology Dismantling Maoist economic structures East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” Gradual privatisation of the state led economy Gradually abandoning centralised economy Dismantling socialist welfare state OECD: in 2003, 59 % of all economic output was produced by private sector Growth rates annually about 9 – 10 % Per capita income increased 20-fold (nominally) East Asian “Economic Miracles”:  East Asian “Economic Miracles” If the outlines above have seemed repetitive, this was exactly the point The experiences of economic development in East Asia have given rise to the so called East Asian (Development) Model (EAM) East Asian Model:  East Asian Model EAM first suggested related to Japan in the 70s (Ezra Vogel; Japan as No. 1) EAM Features: State-led modernization of the economy with big private enterprises and free market component Social stability important No need for democracy, autocracy is often enough Gradual opening to world markets Weak labour unions Priority of economic growth over environment and other social concerns East Asian Model:  East Asian Model Weak public social insurances, family-based Role of Asian (Confucian) values and social order? = ”Authoritarian capitalism” Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM The EAM has attracted different types of critiques: Bruce Cumings: ‘fallacy of disaggregation’ The EAM is also about regional co-operation / interdependence Wrong to attempt to observe economic success of only one particular country in the region at time Networking among firms, the exchange of technology and developmental assistance across the region important Countries learning form each other Truly an East-Asian model in this sense Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM Post-structuralist critique: the modernization theory and the EAM are a new form of Orientalism Too much emphasis on free markets as the ultimate and natural state / goal of social development The IMF, OECD, World Bank seen as the proponents of such pro-market views based on modernization theory Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM Can non-Western societies not find ways to economic development without becoming the sweatshops of the world and targets of globalized exploitation? Western free market economies are the implicit standard whereby the countries are measured Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM Free market criticism: too little free market in the EAM The EAM lays too much stress on state intervention in the markets and its role in development in general Attempts to explain economic miracles as market driven Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM Most recent alarm raised concerning ”authoritarian capitalism” Here the EAM is seen as the excuse for authoritarianism Apart from Japan, in all other East Asian countries economic growth took place under authoritarian regimes PRC is showing that it can became modern and rich without democracy? = Capitalism does not need democracy after all? Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM Leads to the situation where the Western silence on the authoritarianism of ROC, ROK, Singapore and other ”Tiger economies” during the Cold War now comes to the fore The modernization theory might have been partly correct (growth to economic maturity needs free markets), but the political development component to it (democracy is the natural outcome of such development) may have been incorrect Criticism on the EAM:  Criticism on the EAM In the Cold War, the authoritarianism of allies to the US was tolerable, but now the new global threat to the West may come from autocracy (PRC) Exporting the EAM to other autocracies seen as a threat Middle-East, Central Asia, Pakistan, Russia? East Asia and EAM are very much in the core of this argument that will continue Also connected to the Asian Values debate (lecture V) Exercise IV :  Exercise IV In the reader, Hui Wang’s “Reclaiming Asia from the West” represents a critical analysis of the modernization theory. How does the writer criticise the Western perception of modernity and what is his main argument about how it should be changed?

Add a comment

Related presentations