NEWS,08.08.2012

Will Manufacturing Make China a Democracy?

 

The other day, I had lunch with an economist I respect and admire. I asked him, what would it take for China to become a modern democracy and build a strong middle class? OK. I didn't ask him that. I told him that China would need strong institutions of civil society, and a deeper sense of Social Contract to become a stable modern democracy with a dynamic middle class.In America's early history, we had strong institutions of civil society, such as free press, good education, and strong national identity. We wrote individual freedoms into our Constitution. We had respect for the rule of law, not much bribery, respect for science, and technical progress. We had social and economic mobility, opportunity and fairness. Well, at least for white males who owned property. But you see where I'm going with this. A robust civil society gives voice to workers, families and communities. It serves as a counter-balance to wealthy and powerful economic interests.China has a rich culture and strong national identity, but income inequality is growing in China, no free press, no unions, no environmental groups, and no real political system to make tough tradeoffs between wealthy powerful economic interests and the public good. Workers have no economic bargaining power. China's leaders have limited respect for the rule of law, and little willingness to enforce rule of law. China has done an exceptional job of acquiring the means of production. Not so much for human rights, labor rights, public health, or environmental protections. My economist friend told me, "No! Not buying it." China will modernize simply through economic transformation. I'm not sure what he meant, exactly. Maybe he meant that industrialization and democracy were the same thing, more or less. You get one with the other. My point was that you don't get one with the other. You might get a banana republic. You might get Egypt or something like Egypt, or Victorian England without a history of individual freedoms. Russians got plutocracy, corruption, murdered journalists, and a political system with zero credibility. You might get a lot of things, depending on what kind of civil society you have. National politics is really a contest between short-term investor interests and long-term public interests. Investors will act in their short-term interest. Public good often works in the long term. Market forces will not protect public good. For that, you need an effective political system. Colombia is a poster child for dysfunctional political and economic systems. Their culture and national identity are proud enough, but working Colombians are kidnapped, intimidated and killed routinely, as punishment for political involvement. Prosecutors, judges and justice ministers live in the shadow of violence. The last thing Colombia needed was a so-called Free Trade Agreement, which increases rights and powers for global businesses and weakens rights and powers for civil society. Now, Colombia faces worsening inequality and more social disruption. Japan, Germany, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and other modern democracies have strong social cohesion, strong institutions of civil society and strong middle classes. These outcomes are not accidental. They are the result of deliberate political choices these countries made. I asked my friend about China becoming a modern democracy. My real question wasn't about China, or Colombia, for that matter. I was really asking about America. What happens to our prosperity, our middle class, and our institutions of civil society? In the last 30 years, our civil society has weakened. Political and economic power are concentrating in the hands of the top 1%. Our respect for science has been replaced with ideology and denial. We disparage public education, and public employees. Our social cohesion is so weak that we envy our neighbors who still have pensions. Rule of law is becoming situational - it doesn'treally apply to big banks or foreclosure robo-signers. Political campaigns are so expensive that elected officials literally cannot afford to govern for the public good. They can only govern for the wealthy and powerful. Within this 30-year decline for civil society, our so-called free trade policy steadily lowers the bar for democratic political process, substituting global business interests for public interest.In his new book, Nobel laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz, calls globalization, as we've managed it, "global governance without global government." In Western democracies, we solve tough social and political problems through a political process. However, in so-called free trade agreements, global businesses write the rules, then we send disputes to anonymous tribunals. Democratic problem-solving does not happen in the trade agreements. It won't happen in Colombia. I don't see how it will happen in China. It's becoming more difficult in America. This is really about political and economic power. In the conclusion to his book, Stiglitz offers two possibilities. One is that we in the 99%, can recognize our predicament and reclaim our political birthright. Alternatively, the 1% can recognize their "self-interest, properly understood," and lead the way back to a sustainable democracy. Stiglitz traces this back to Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn't just good for the soul - it's good for business. The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn't seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn.Yeah. That would be good.

 

Blair concerned about UK exit from the EU

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair told a German newspaper he was "deeply worried" Britain might opt to leave the European Union in a referendum, particularly if too many powers were transferred to Brussels without democratic legitimacy.Talk of Britain leaving the EU was once far fetched, but the euro zone debt crisis and the prospect of the currency bloc forging a closer political union have convinced some senior UK politicians it is time to demand a new relationship with Brussels.Current Prime Minister David Cameron said last month it was a "perfectly honourable position" to call for an immediate referendum on Britain's EU membership - something polls show a majority of British people would vote to reject - but that he would never campaign for an "out" vote because leaving the EU would not serve British interests.Blair told Die Zeit it was clear that the euro zone crisis would lead to a "powerful political change of the EU", adding: "And on this point, I am deeply worried that Britain could decide by referendum to leave the whole process.""If more competences are transferred to the EU, then its democratic legitimacy must be built up too," he said, according to a German transcript of the interview which is due to be published on Thursday. "Britain must play a strong role in this. Because we need a balance between European institutions and the nation states.""If this is done wrongly, we could create a political crisis that could become just as a big as the euro crisis. People will not go along with the abolishment of the nation state."Cameron has tried to stave off demands for an immediate vote on Britain's EU membership by holding out the prospect of a referendum some time in the future and by promising a new relationship with the EU.He vetoed a new EU fiscal treaty in December, forcing euro zone states to set their new rules outside the formal EU structure, while using its institutions.Sceptics say EU regulations shackle Britain's $2.5 trillion economy and that leaving the 27-nation bloc would allow London to restore its sovereignty while saving billions of dollars in membership dues.However, supporters of membership argue Britain would lose influence if it left the EU, its biggest trading partner, and that its economy would still be influenced by rules made in Brussels anyway.

HK Airlines to quit London service

 

Hong Kong Airlines will end its service between Hong Kong and London due to poor demand, reports said on Wednesday, another blow to the carrier after authorities banned its expansion. "The last flight from London to Hong Kong will be on September 10," Hong Kong Airlines General Manager Albert Chan told Dow Jones Newswires, meaning the service will have run for just seven months. The airline uses three Airbus 330-200 planes for the flights which are fitted exclusively with business-class seats. The service costs around HK$10m ($1.3m) a month to run, the South China Morning Post newspaper reported. The airline did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The move followed an unprecedented aviation authority ban last month on the airline's expansion, limiting the types of aircraft the company can operate until the airline meets all safety requirements for operating a larger fleet.The airline said it supported the conditions, adding they were sensible for a company at their stage of growth."Given the profitability of our regional routes, we believe that we now have the optimal fleet to continue to build a business... focused on Asia Pacific," an HKA spokesperson told AFP on Monday.Hong Kong Airlines was established in 2006 and operates 21 aircraft flying to locations in mainland China and international destinations ranging from Tokyo to Bangkok.HKA flights were severely delayed and cancelled when a typhoon lashed Hong Kong last month, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded.