Trust

[NALs]

For folks interested in how the world's economic balance is changing very fast, with opportunities and perils for all of us to either plan and move to the forefront of the competitive line or lose steam and remain in the back forever; I strongly recommend reading THE WORLD IS FLAT by Thomas L. Friedman. The book details what happened to the world in the very 1st few years of this 21st century and how it is goinf to impact the global workforce for many years to come. it also makes recommendations for the US (and why not, for other nations too) on how to take advantage of these changes.
- Tordok

Thomas Friedman's books, starting with "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" to his latest one "The World is Flat" are good reads, but filled with error and assumptions that are one-sided, to put it nicely.

For example, in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" the entire book was a super-optimistic view of globalization. There is nothing wrong with optimism (I consider myself to be such), but there is a fine line between optimism and wishful thinking and I think Friedman has surpassed such line and is well into the wishful thinking side.

Well, the only thing that saves him from such designation is that he acknowledges the reality of globalization in his books, but he makes such acknowledgements in smooth ways which most readers will never notice.

For example, in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" Friedman repeats multiple times that "nobody is in charge of globalization". He does such a good job in explaining why "nobody is in charge" and uses such explanation to reason why so many people are "afraid" of globalization, that it becomes easy to be dazzled by such view of this real global force and simply accept it as such. He believes that globalization is irreversible, inevitable, etc. All those beliefs are plain simply wrong!

Globalization IS irreversible and its certainly NOT inevitable. A country can go backwards (take a look where the DR went under Hipolito, a president who was popularly elected by the masses after Leonel propelled the DR into full blown globalization with exceptions).

But, as I said, Friedman makes subtle suggestions to the reality of globalization. Despite the fact that he repeats multiple times that globalization is controlled by no one, he does makes it clear at the end of the book that without the global military presence of the United States, globalization is unsustainable. That is certainly a fact. The current form of globalization is a system that is largely protected and expanded by the U.S.

Now, the question is this: How can globalization be a system that runs on its own with no one in charge and yet, be protected and propelled by the most powerful country on earth?

If globalization is really irreversible, why do so many developing countries manage to vote presidents who "un-do" what "globalization friendly" predecessors managed to accomplish?

If globalization is inevitable, why is it being sold to the world? Something that is inevitable doesn't need to be sold... it's coming regardless. Why does it needs to be protected if its inevitable?

Thomas Friedman is a journalist who got part of the globalization story, but he's selling it as if he understand it all and that is certainly not the case.

No one fully understands this system, but some people do understand it better than others and, in my opinion, he is not one of them.

"The World is Flat" is a good book, but... :ermm:

-NALs

 

[bilijou]

Different societies have different cultural norms which affect how the members behave. Many of these norms have strong influence from religious beliefs...
Exact same policies are put into effect in different cultural settings and we find radically different outcomes.

Is it so farfetched that some societies have cultural norms that are more advantageous for economic development and democratic viability than others?

 

[Tuan]

NALS: "How can globalization be a system that runs on its own with no one in charge and yet, be protected and propelled by the most powerful country on earth?"

The same way that no one controls the rain, which is also inevitable, but a military force could prevent people from getting to umbrellas when it comes down on them.

A silly and logically null argument leading nowhere.

 

[NALs]

Different societies have different cultural norms which affect how the members behave. Many of these norms have strong influence from religious beliefs...
Exact same policies are put into effect in different cultural settings and we find radically different outcomes.

Is it so farfetched that some societies have cultural norms that are more advantageous for economic development and democratic viability than others?

It's not farfetched.

The question now should be: What leads some societies to develop cultural norms that are more advantageous for economic development and democratic viability?

-NALs

 

[NALs]

NALS: "How can globalization be a system that runs on its own with no one in charge and yet, be protected and propelled by the most powerful country on earth?"

The same way that no one controls the rain, which is also inevitable, but a military force could prevent people from getting to umbrellas when it comes down on them.

A silly and logically null argument leading nowhere.

Good point.

The difference in your rain analogy is that if people can't get their umbrellas, they will simply get wet, not marginalized as is the case for countries which refuses to engage in globalization. That is only true if it was a country lucky enough to not be coerced into such system one way or another.

Also, rain may fall at its own will or depending on various other factors in climate, geography, etc; but globalization does not expands, does not occurs, and does not maintain itself. Globalization is something that needs to be propelled and maintained by someone or something.

Protection is only needed for things that can be destroyed, thus its not inevitable or uni-linear.

Expansion is only needed for things that don't naturally expand.

Maintenance is only needed for things that are not able to take care of itself and yet, need such care.

The presence of any of those three is a sign of how un-natural such system is. Unfortunately for those who claim globalization is "natural", inevitable, and uncontrollable; it has those three "features" and more. There is a conflict in the general belief globalization's "inevitability" and the things it need from a global super power in order to remain in existence!

BTW, globalization is a relatively new term for something that has been around for centuries. In the past it was called many things including imperialism, colonialism, so on and so forth.

Also, I'm in favor of globalization, but let's look at this for what it is and not the way its being sold. Every time we buy something, we only truly know what the heck we bought after the sale was made. Of course, we can always return an item we buy (with exceptions) if we are not happy and get a refund or an exchange. I'm not sure if that is case for countries which are coerced or choose on their own to buy this globalization.

Despite that, many people continue to say that globalization is inevitable and uncontrollable and yet the system needs a military/cultural/economic hegemon which will guarantee the survival and expansion of what is suppose to be a "natural" inevitable thing.


-NALs

 

[macocael]

It's not farfetched.

The question now should be: What leads some societies to develop cultural norms that are more advantageous for economic development and democratic viability?

-NALs

And one of the more interesting answers to that question is Jared Diamond's Gun, Germs and Steel, a must read. It is generally categorized as a work of "environmental" history as it takes environmental factors into account, but it is really an outgrowth of the longue dur?e school of French Historians exemplifed by Fernand Braudel. Interesting stuff. You can get the short account on the Wikipedia, which actuallly is not bad.

 

[George Holmes]

Just avoid Diamond's more recent work 'collapse', with its erronenous chapter on the DR environment and why the DR is more developed than Haiti.

With regards to globalisation, it has a very particular geography. I am currently in Santo Domingo, where I feel very connected to my employer in Europe - it is easy to exchange capital (i.e. get paid or settle bills), information is exchanged with the press of a phone dial or the click fo a mouse. On the other hand, getting money and information from Santo Domingo to where I live in the campo near Constanza is much more difficult. The DR has parts which are globalised - the cities with their communications infrastructure, the tourist areas and expat zones such as Cabarete with their strong links with North America and Europe, and especially the Zona Francas, where orders can come in from across the world instantly, and products shipped out almost as quickly. Yet a few miles from there in the Cibao or the mountains globalisation hasn't touched. It is easier to communicate between Europe and Santo Domingo than between Santo Domingo and the campo, despite the geographical distance being less than 100 miles, rather than 1000's.

This is where Friedman's argument falls to pieces - he fails to recognise that globalisation is geographically unequal. Some places are geographically close, yet in terms of globalisation, very far away, and vice versa.

 

[Tordok]

Nals,
Re. the book I recommended, I didn't find his views as dogmatic or predetermined, even if he is quite selective in his use of references, like any author trying to illustrate an idea would do. The edition to which I refer is the 2006 updated version of TWIF (initial release in 2005). In it, Friedman pretty much acknowledges some of the limitations of his 1st edition observations about the current processes of virtual shrinking of the world and empowerment of individuals. He also is quite candid about the several scenarios that could bring the globalization to a halt or even put it in reverse. Cultural and political factors would largely be responsible for that. Of course it is impossible for any one social observer - be it Friedman, Diamond, Fukuyama, Kissinger, Nals, or Bin-Laden- to get the "whole picture" or encompass every possible permutation of where our world is headed. Prophets are famously wrong when they get too specific and amazingly accurate when the prognostications are diffuse and bland. The main contribution of the book is that it provides real-life anecdotes on how quickly and how substantially different our current level of interdependence has become. And THAT is hard to argue against. The fact that we're having this dialogue on DR1 proves that we are part of a community that could not have existed only a handful of years ago. I'll agree that Friedman is somewhat bombastic and show-biz, but the general idea is that this new era is different from other significant techno-sociological booms of the past. So the lesson I take is that many of these processes are well set into motion in such nontraditional ways that they offer new opportunities and challenges for people and countries that learn how to cope and thrive under rapid changes on the field. In the DR we always have had many challenges and few opportunities. This new world Order (or Chaos depending on how we look at it) offers opportunities that should not be ignored.
- Tordok

 

[Tordok]

And one of the more interesting answers to that question is Jared Diamond's Gun, Germs and Steel, a must read. It is generally categorized as a work of "environmental" history as it takes environmental factors into account, but it is really an outgrowth of the longue dur?e school of French Historians exemplifed by Fernand Braudel. Interesting stuff. You can get the short account on the Wikipedia, which actuallly is not bad.

Thanks Macocael, I'm not familiar with Braudel, but I'll look that up.

I certainly would support the idea of making Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel high-priority reading in high schools around the world. It might give people an opportunity to have a common, basic understanding of how our socioeconomic and technological disparities are not the result of recent phenomenons driven by the likes of Plato, Guttenberg, Jesus, Edison, or Marx; but really stemming from the prehistory of mankind when nameless "brutes" learned from their environment and took the very first steps towards developing sustainable societies and how some parts of the world had habitats that precluded them, from the get-go, of moving beyond semi-nomadic, chronic survivalism.

- Tordok

 

[Tordok]

This is where Friedman's argument falls to pieces - he fails to recognise that globalisation is geographically unequal. Some places are geographically close, yet in terms of globalisation, very far away, and vice versa.

George,
I'm not sure why you make this statement. I've read the book, and it is pretty clear that he recognizes the very issue that you bring up. He understands (in the 2nd edition at least) that these processes have been markedly unequal. Even in the midst of his most triumphant views on India and China, the author readily admits that around the few urban islands of innovation and wealth-creation, there are still a large majority of disenfranchised individuals and widespread coruption in those societies. In my view, the important aspect is that we have new tools and momentum that could produce -but do not guarantee -favorable global change.
- Tordok

 

[Mirador]

Ok, going back to the OPs original post, which suggests that Dominicans rejection of their African heritage contributes to societal distrust, and since it has been established that globalization blurs cultural diversity (including along ethnic lines) and concomitantly subculturalism which discourages social trust and cooperation, and also considering that the more people attributing themselves different racial identities living in the same community, actually show the most social distrust, as many studies conclude, than shall we consider subversive the promotion of ethnic identities that will split Dominicans along ethnic lines?..

 

[bilijou]

The question now should be: What leads some societies to develop cultural norms that are more advantageous for economic development and democratic viability?

Rather than asking what leads them to develop such cultural norms, we should first identify what ARE these cultural norms which aid economic development and democratic viability...
I've said before that it all comes down to TRUST.

If it religion LED to these cultural norms (as many scholars have suggested), then we wouldnt want to convert a whole country but instead take (or mimick) those traits that are beneficial. If anything, globalization would ease this process.

 

[qgrande]

Bilijou, I only just read the first part of the thread, interesting topic. Your argument seems more or less a reflection of Fukuyama's point in his book 'Trust'. He distinguishes high-trust societies (US, Germany, Japan) and low-trust societies (China, Italy, France, Latin America). The first have strong civil societies and thriving economies, the latter rely on strong family connections, and from time to time a strong state and/or religious institutions. He does warn the US for not losing that high-trust society, more or less like Putnam does in 'Bowling alone'. Is the similarity a coincidence? BTW, some posts do mix up trust as social capital and (one-way) trust in political leaders, which are different things, even opposites according to Fukuyama's and the OP's first post argument. So far so good, but then, since Fukuyama wrote that book, China has become an economic giant too, France isn't exactly poor, and Northern Italy's small family-owned high-tech businesses have been something of an economic model, all this still in a low-trust society. My guess is it is quite impossible to find a single set of magic cultural norms, and present those as the key to economic succes, to be introduced by interested countries throughout the world. Such theories make great best-sellers though...

 

[bilijou]

Bilijou, I only just read the first part of the thread, interesting topic. Your argument seems more or less a reflection of Fukuyama's point in his book 'Trust'. He distinguishes high-trust societies (US, Germany, Japan) and low-trust societies (China, Italy, France, Latin America). The first have strong civil societies and thriving economies, the latter rely on strong family connections, and from time to time a strong state and/or religious institutions. He does warn the US for not losing that high-trust society, more or less like Putnam does in 'Bowling alone'. Is the similarity a coincidence? BTW, some posts do mix up trust as social capital and (one-way) trust in political leaders, which are different things, even opposites according to Fukuyama's and the OP's first post argument. So far so good, but then, since Fukuyama wrote that book, China has become an economic giant too, France isn't exactly poor, and Northern Italy's small family-owned high-tech businesses have been something of an economic model, all this still in a low-trust society.

Fukuyama, along with Putnam, has been one of the main proponents of the importance of trust, embodied in the concept of Social Capital. Except, I don?t think he mentions France as a low trusting society. Last time I checked, the French value and trust their fellow Frenchmen so much that they are considered snobs by the rest of the world.
Italy is the example everybody uses because of Edward Banfield?s book ?The Moral Basis of a Backward Society?. Anybody who has gone to Italy can see the contrast between the North and the South. Many say Southern Italy is considered low trusting, poor and corrupt, while the North is quite the opposite.
China is an economic giant because of its size, but much of the country is still poor, low trusting and backwards.

And yes, I condensed trust in institutions and trust in political actors for simplicity?s sake.

My guess is it is quite impossible to find a single set of magic cultural norms, and present those as the key to economic succes, to be introduced by interested countries throughout the world. Such theories make great best-sellers though...

These theories dont just sell books, they also start whole new departments in multilateral organizations like the IMF and WB.

It doesn?t happen by ?magic?. The right political and economic policies have to be in place. But as we?ve learned from the 20th century, even when the right policies are in effect, culture stands in the way for many countries. Once again I ask: is it so farfetched for there to be certain cultural norms that aid the efficiency of (or impede) these policies?

Look at DR, if the right policies were set in place, would they work as efficiently as they would in a poor country with the cultural equivalent of the US, France or Japan where they value their fellow citizen?
(BTW, I'm not saying they wouldnt work.)

 

[Mirador]

...It doesn?t happen by ?magic?. The right political and economic policies have to be in place. But as we?ve learned from the 20th century, even when the right policies are in effect, culture stands in the way for many countries. Once again I ask: is it so farfetched for there to be certain cultural norms that aid the efficiency of (or impede) these policies? ...

Actually, very farfetched! I thought the policies had to be designed to fit the culture, not the other way around: building the culture around the policies. Policies can only be ?right? inasmuch as they promote the 'positive' values of culture. And before you go deciding for yourself what are the ?positive' values of this society, what do you think of democracy, as a means of letting society decide for itself what values it wants to promote?. Yes, there have been cases where sound or ?round? policies were forced upon wrong or ?square? societies, with disastrous results, for example Stalinist Russia, or Pol Pot?s Cambodia...

 

[bilijou]

Actually, very farfetched! I thought the policies had to be designed to fit the culture, not the other way around: building the culture around the policies. Policies can only be ?right? inasmuch as they promote the 'positive' values of culture. And before you go deciding for yourself what are the ?positive' values of this society, what do you think of democracy, as a means of letting society decide for itself what values it wants to promote?. Yes, there have been cases where sound or ?round? policies were forced upon wrong or ?square? societies, with disastrous results, for example Stalinist Russia, or Pol Pot?s Cambodia...

When it comes to policies, the ?right? ones (and the ones I?m only concerned about) are those that bring about democracy and economic development, not ?positive values of culture?. "Positive values of culture" is obviously relative, our goal (economic development and democracy) is universal.

What happens when a culture is at odds with democracy and economic development? (as I believe is the case of DR) Should we make the policies fit the culture deviating from our ultimate goal, or should we change the culture to fit the policies to achieve it?

 

[Mirador]

When it comes to policies, the ?right? ones (and the ones I?m only concerned about) are those that bring about democracy and economic development, not ?positive values of culture?. "Positive values of culture" is obviously relative, our goal (economic development and democracy) is universal. ...

You are absolutely wrong! Cultural values can never be considered relative, and the ideals of economic development and democracy are not shared universally. It is this mistaken belief that has led the U.S. to its current cuagmire in Iraq.

 

[bilijou]

You are absolutely wrong! Cultural values can never be considered relative, and the ideals of economic development and democracy are not shared universally. It is this mistaken belief that has led the U.S. to its current cuagmire in Iraq.

You didn?t answer my question in my last post.

Once again, culture is relative? what we want, economic development/democracy, is not? These are the universal goals that every government in the world strives for. If they aren?t, as in the case of Iraq, it is because of some sort of corruption. Even though I condemn the US for invading, I don?t think Saddam was any good for the country. His backing wasn?t based on the welfare of the state (i.e., democracy and economic development) but his religious affiliation to Sunnis.

And I?m not talking about ?ideals of economic development? but economic development itself, which I don?t think one person in this planet is opposed to. When poverty starts stinging, nobody is against economic development.

Democracy is a bit trickier, but it has triumphed where other forms of government have failed. Most countries in the World today are democratic, while 50 years ago barely half were. Maybe it is because people consider it the fairest.

You might be satisfied with DR not striving for democracy and economic development, because maybe Dominicans don?t share those ?ideals?. but I?m certainly not. I think any one of our leaders should do anything possible to achieve those two goals whether by changing the institutions or culture.

 

[Mirador]

You didn?t answer my question in my last post.

Once again, culture is relative? what we want, economic development/democracy, is not? These are the universal goals that every government in the world strives for. If they aren?t, as in the case of Iraq, it is because of some sort of corruption. Even though I condemn the US for invading, I don?t think Saddam was any good for the country. His backing wasn?t based on the welfare of the state (i.e., democracy and economic development) but his religious affiliation to Sunnis.

And I?m not talking about ?ideals of economic development? but economic development itself, which I don?t think one person in this planet is opposed to. When poverty starts stinging, nobody is against economic development.

Democracy is a bit trickier, but it has triumphed where other forms of government have failed. Most countries in the World today are democratic, while 50 years ago barely half were. Maybe it is because people consider it the fairest.

You might be satisfied with DR not striving for democracy and economic development, because maybe Dominicans don?t share those ?ideals?. but I?m certainly not. I think any one of our leaders should do anything possible to achieve those two goals whether by changing the institutions or culture.

?Democracy? and ?economic development? are not categorical concepts, they mean different things to different peoples. You have not defined what ?democracy? and ?economic development? means to you, and you do not know what these concepts mean to different people around the world. And yet you categorically state that ?every government in the world strives for? and ?no one person in this planet is opposed to? democracy and economic development?

 

[bilijou]

Fair enough, I haven?t been specific.

Democracy is a form of government by the will of the people. There are several forms of Democracy. In Fukuyama?s book ?The End of History and the Last Man? he claims that after a long ideological struggle, with the end of the Cold War, the world has arrived at Liberal Democracy as the ?final form of human government?. Liberal Democracy is a ?representative democracy? which also emphasizes Equality and Liberty. It makes sense and it works. While I don?t see it as dramatically as Fukuyama puts it, it is evident that most governments are progressing towards Liberal Democracy.

Economic development is an increase in living standards per capita mostly through economic growth. All democracies try to keep their people happy by constantly improving living standards and promoting growth.