Economic Policies and How they Work

 

In most developing countries, there are three main models of economic growth that have been implemented in varying levels. Among these are import-substitution industrialization (ISI), structural adjustment programs (SAPs), and the developmental state. These economic policies differ in a diverse number of ways, and this is especially in the manner through which they are implemented. ISI involves countries seeking to ensure that there is the imposition of import restrictions in order to bring about the promotion and protection of domestic industries. This economic policy aims at making sure that there is the establishment of measures aimed at advancing domestic consumption of locally made goods and services. SAPs, on the other hand, essentially promote a liberal economic policy in which governments are not directly involved in any economic activities and the economy is left in the hands of the free market (Orvis and Drogus 532). The free market ensures that only the strongest and most viable industries are able to survive while the weaker ones, because of the competition from international businesses, are forced towards improving their performance to ensure their survival. The developmental state is a situation where the government makes a direct intervention in those industries that it considers critical to the economy. It ensures that these industries are protected to further their growth, but take the necessary steps to remove the protective measures as soon as possible.

The developmental state has been the most successful economic model because it involves government support for industries until such a time that they are ready to stand on their own feet. This model is fundamentally important because it ensures that the economy has the necessary freedoms it needs to compete with others while at the same time allowing individuals to undertake their business activities without government interference. The implementation of this policy has especially been successful in Japan and South Korea, both of which rose from the economic devastation of the Second World War to become among the greatest success stories of the twentieth century. Both of these countries, especially the latter adopted export oriented policies, which sought to encourage the growth of local industries that were able to produce high demand goods that could be exported to other countries. A consequence is that the countries that have adopted the developmental state model have been successful in the achievement of rapid economic growth to such an extent that it has become possible for them to achieve the status of developed states. Thus, while South Korea and Ghana were essentially at the same economic level in the 1960s, the former has been able to achieve a per capita gross domestic income of $22,670 in comparison to the latter’s $1550 today (Orvis and Drogus 536). This achievement by South Korea shows the considerable success that can be brought about by the developmental state model as well as the need to balance between government intervention and the free market. Without the interventions undertaken in the developmental state model, the system becomes highly unstable to such an extent that critical sectors become subservient to international competition.

In most cases, regime type often has a lot to do with economic outcomes. This is especially the case when it comes to the manner through which the regime makes decisions concerning how the economy should be managed. In stable democracies, for example, there are often greater economic freedoms to such an extent that they end up in a situation where markets are freer and different sectors are forced to improve themselves in order to remain competitive. Authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, tend to have a tighter grip on the economy to such an extent that it is the state, rather than private businesses, that are major players in the economy (Orvis and Drogus 432). This situation can be considered to be the reason behind such a country as North Korea is having considerable economic problems that are essentially unsustainable. The communist regime within this country, because of lack of competition for the domestic industry, has essentially made its economy quite weak because there are hardly ever any improvements in the locally produced products.

In conclusion, the North Korean economic situation can be contrasted with that of Japan, which has achieved considerable growth over the years because it has adopted a developmental state model where the government only intervenes when the sector involved is critical to the economy and lets it go as soon as it achieves a level of stability. Japan is a democratic state with all the freedoms that come with it; ensuring that its people in the private sector, rather than the government, are the main drivers of the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Orvis, Stephen, and Carol Ann Drogus. Introducing Comparative Politics: Concepts and Cases in Context. CQ Press, 2013. Print.

 

Zimbabwe: its history and fight for independence

The land of Zimbabwe was settled by the British in 1890 and named Rhodesia after its founder, Cecil John Rhodes, who believed that the British had the right of imperial rule in Africa because they were the “first race in the world and therefore the more of the world they inhabited, the better it would be for the human race”. It is this ideology which served as the basis of the discriminatory colonial policies that were set up to serve the interests of the white minority which had settled most of the best land in the country, and excluded the African majority who had virtually no rights in their own land. These policies led to the demand for change by the Africans within the limitations of the colonial constitution and when this did not work, the African nationalists became more radical when they realised that violence and bloodshed were inevitable if there was to be any change in the country. It was the stress of this oppression that forced the people of Zimbabwe to take up arms as the only solution to their problems. The armed struggle was led by two political parties namely the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had splintered from ZAPU. These two nationalist organisations got a lot of support from external forces which contributed to the success of the liberation movement in Zimbabwe.

These external forces consisted mainly of neighbouring independent African states – known as the frontline states, other armed liberation movements in neighbouring countries, and the Communist bloc led by China and the Soviet Union. The Communist bloc through the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) gave aid to the Zimbabwean liberation movements in the form of arms and money. Some also provided training for the liberation combatants within their territories such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Algeria, and Tanzania. These countries further provided instructors who trained the recruits in the camps who had come from Zimbabwe to join the struggle for majority rule. Furthermore, organisations such as the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and certain left-wing organisations in the west and in Scandinavia gave moral and financial support.

The Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was the armed wing of ZAPU which was formed in the 1960s and had camps in Angola and in Lusaka, Zambia which were provided by the Zambian government to help in the liberation of their fellow Africans in Zimbabwe. ZIPRA’s crossing points to and from Zimbabwe were at Feira in Zambia opposite Mashonaland East. It was more influenced by the Soviet Union than by China as it adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles of mobilising the urban workers rather than the Maoist principles of mobilising the rural peasantry pursued by the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of ZANU. ZIPRA was also in a formal alliance with Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress in South Africa. In the mid-1960s, these two allied organisations mounted a celebrated mission into Southern Rhodesia, although this mission was not militarily successful. This mission, known as the Wankie fiasco, saw several hundred ZIPRA and MK freedom fighters enter Rhodesia through the uninhabited areas of Wankie and these were either killed or captured by a joint Rhodesian-South African force. Other countries, such as North Korea, had its military officials train the Zimbabwean freedom fighters how to use explosives and arms at a camp near Pyongyang.

ZANLA, on the other hand, was formed in 1965 in Tanzania and was heavily influenced by the Maoist guerrilla tactics that had been used very successfully by FRELIMO in Mozambique, that is, by infiltrating combatants into Zimbabwe, politicising the peasantry, and participating in ‘hit-and-run’ ambush operations. Even before Mozambique’s independence from Portugal, FRELIMO had supported ZANLA by allowing it to use the territory it controlled in Tete district along the Rhodesian border as a base of operations against the Rhodesian government. Because of its close ties with Mozambique’s FRELIMO, ZANLA gained a lot of support after Mozambique’s independence when its government permitted ZANLA to open training and supply camps along the Mozambican-Zimbabwean border which greatly assisted in the recruitment and training of troops.

The OAU member states’ meetings and resolutions concerning the white minority regime in Rhodesia induced Britain to push the United Nations to invoke mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia in 1968. However, these sanctions had many failings which included: the long period of time which had elapsed since Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1961 which had enabled the white regime to make adjustments and arrangements for the evasion of sanctions; the refusal of South Africa and Portugal to apply sanctions by continuing normal trade with Rhodesia and acting as go-betweens to market its goods and import on its behalf; and the general lack of political will on the part of most members of the United Nations to make sanctions work effectively. These sanctions against Rhodesia, although they did not work, helped to give a moral boost to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, because despite the internal divisions within it, the OAU supported their fellow Africans in their struggle for freedom. Through its Liberation Committee, the OAU co-ordinated the material and financial support sent to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe from independent African states and from abroad. It also sought to reconcile the differences between ZANU and ZAPU, the main revolutionary groups in Zimbabwe so as to unify their forces against the common enemy. Both ZANU and ZAPU had gotten embroiled in the struggle within the Communist bloc between China and the Soviet Union about the latter’s leadership of the bloc. Each of these nationalist movements had adopted the communist doctrines of its main sponsor, such that ZAPU had adopted those of the Soviet Union while ZANU had adopted those of China. This resulted in the difficulty that kept these movements apart as well as various battles between their military wings.

The coup against the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974 and its subsequent decolonisation policy helped the liberation movement in Zimbabwe a great deal because the white minority government lost one of its most important outlets for its exports namely, the ports of Mozambique. This coup also shocked the white regime and its main ally, South Africa, into the realisation that the African liberation movements could, through long and sustained armed struggle, force a colonial power to decolonise. This led the government of South Africa to adopt a more conciliatory approach to its relations with the newly independent black African states as well as its commitment to a political solution to the crisis in Rhodesia. South Africa was in a key position to influence Rhodesia because its roads and railways were the lifeline of the Rhodesian economy and as such was the only government in the region that was capable of putting pressure on it. The moderation of the policies of its chief ally towards its enemies led the embattled Rhodesian government to start negotiations with the African nationalists in Zimbabwe and finally to the beginning of majority rule in the country.

Filial Piety in Korea

Filial piety is one of the most fundamental concepts in many cultures in the world, and it has existed in these societies since time immemorial. While this is the case, this concept has come to fall into disuse since the beginning of the spread of the era of globalization. This is because of the fact that many of the young people are slowly becoming independent and they do not observe the traditional way of life like they once used to.  While this has been the case elsewhere, it does not apply to Korea, where the idea of filial piety is still extremely strong and it is, in fact, one of the strongest ideals of the nation. Korea has been greatly influenced by Confucian thought concerning filial piety, which according to this philosophy is not only a virtue through the showing of respect for one’s parents, but it is also a means through which one shows respect for one’s ancestors.

According to the Confucian thought, it is one’s duty to be good to his or her parents, to take care of them, and to display good behavior both within and without the home so that the ancestors and parents can have a good name or standing in society. Furthermore, it is one’s duty to ensure that one does one’s job well so that material means can be acquired to ensure that one’s parents are well taken care of and that sacrifices have been provided for the ancestors. Filial piety requires an individual not to be rebellious towards his parents and it also requires him to show love not only for his parents but also for his siblings as well. One of the duties of filial piety also requires an individual to give wise advice to his parents in case they are involved in activities which are unrighteous. It is an individual duty to ensure that they display sorrow in case of his parent’s sickness or death, and carry out sacrifices for them after they die.

In Korea, filial piety is considered to be one of the basic tenets of society because it is said that the family, not the individual, is the basic unit of the nation. Because of this, morality is said to come from directly from the family and as such, filial piety plays an extraordinarily important role. Filial piety is what brings order within the family because it establishes the necessary hierarchy for the survival of the nation. A strong family is one which has abundance of filial piety and in Korea; it is the basic responsibility of its entire people to observe it. This idea is taught to all the children in the nation and this process has been ongoing for many centuries since its founding. It is an idea which many are taught to take to heart and observe all their lives. the power of this idea is so great that it is believed that the observance of filial piety is what determines whether the nation can be governed or not. If families can not be governed, then the nation too would be ungovernable. Filial piety is in Korea is also believed to be a major contributing factor to peace since filial duty within families is believed to be a source of peace in society.

One of the aspects of filial piety is devotion, and this implies that children are required to be devoted not only to their parents but also to their ancestors. In the traditional Korean society, for example, all children were required to live with their parents until such a time as they got married. Even though this was the case, even after marriage, it was the responsibility of the oldest son to live with and continue taking care of the parents until they met their deaths. With the coming of the modern age, however, this has changed since the old lifestyle of a large family living in a large house has changed considerably. Nowadays, families live in small apartments which would make one’s living with one’s parents impractical once they reach adulthood. The younger generation is becoming more independent as they move out of their parents’ home and start living their own lives. Despite this, many children still observe filial piety and they still come home often to fulfill their filial duties to their parents because it is still a powerful force in their lives. In Korea, it is a fact that those people who work in any sector of the economy have to fulfill their filial duties if they want to have success in their work. Those who are known not to perform their filial duties despite their excellence in their work tend to be passed over in promotions, and in some cases even end up losing their jobs because Koreans have no respect for such people.

Hierarchy is extremely essential in Korean society because it is believed that a hierarchical structure is immensely important for the stability of society. Filial piety is considered to be one of the most vital factors that determine this structure since the basic component of Korean society is the family. In the modern Korean society, children are supposed to make time for their parents even if they live a long distance away from them. It is not uncommon for people to travel at least once a year to the home of their eldest brother so that they can be able to spend time with their parents and siblings. On such occasions, it can be observed that the younger generations show immense respect for their elders, performing all the duties that are required of them. The elders, on the other hand, acknowledge what their children and grandchildren do for them with the dignity that their status affords them. Such gestures of respect as allowing the elders to enter a room first before the younger generation are strictly observed because not to do so would be a sign of great impropriety on the part of the younger generation. In this way, filial piety in Korea is still strong and this ideal is likely to continue for many generations to come.