Liberal Economics or the Japanese Approach

1) All countries strive to become more developed. Does this process of development necessarily lead to a more peaceful world? Why or why not? Explain in detail.

No, the process of development does not necessarily lead to a more peaceful world. Development is a broad term that can refer to a variety of different processes, from economic development to social and political development, and each of these processes can have different effects on peace. Thus, generally speaking, the process of development does not necessarily lead to peace. Although development can involve improvements in economic growth, social equality, and political stability—all of which are important components of a more peaceful world—it can also create competition that can ultimately lead to conflict between states. Many developing nations who depend on natural resources struggle with the so-called resource curse; when development hinges on the accumulation and utilization of resources found within their borders, it often leads to inter- and intra-state violence directly related to struggles over access to those resources. Consequently, although varying processes of development have the potential to create a more peaceful environment, this is not necessarily always the case.

Furthermore, economic development is often seen as a positive factor in promoting peace, as it can lead to greater economic stability, improved living standards, and increased opportunities for trade and investment. However, it can also lead to increased competition between countries, which can lead to increased tensions and even conflict. In addition, economic development can also lead to disparities in wealth and power, which can create issues of inequality and social unrest.

Likewise, social and political development can also have a positive effect on peace, as it can lead to improved civil rights and greater political representation, as well as improved access to education and health care. However, it can also lead to increased political polarization, which can create tensions between different groups and potentially lead to violence. Overall, the process of development does not necessarily lead to a more peaceful world, as the effects of different types of development can be positive or negative. In order for the process of development to lead to a more peaceful world, it is important for countries to focus on developing in a way that promotes social and economic equality, as well as political stability and respect for civil rights.

2) Which system of promoting development works best (has had the most success so far) the “official” neo-liberal approach, used in Latin America and elsewhere, or the “NIC way” (i.e. the “copy what Japan did” way) used mostly in Asia? Why?

It is generally accepted that the NIC approach has had greater success in terms of reducing poverty and increasing per capita income in Asian countries for the past several decades. This is mainly attributed to heavy state involvement with strategic industrial policies, from investments in infrastructure and technological upgrading to fiscal incentives leading to fast-paced exports and effective stimulus programs that have intensified growth. On the other hand, neo-liberal approaches tend to emphasize free markets, competition, and decentralization of economic decision making; yet their application suffers from a lack of dedicated resources for social services and economic support resulting in a slow economic recovery. It can be argued that ultimately it depends on the context as well; some countries may find that frequent changes in leadership lead to lack of consistency in policy implementation while others may benefit from quick response times towards external shocks. Overall, while both systems have been effective in promoting development, tying context into individual cases might best inform decision makers on which route to pursue.

Still, it is possible to say that the NIC way has had the most success so far. That is because this approach involves a close partnership between the state and the private sector, with the state playing a coordinating and facilitative role. This model has been used successfully in East and Southeast Asia, where governments have taken an active role in shaping their economies, providing macroeconomic stability, and creating the infrastructure and institutions necessary for sustained economic growth. This model has also been successful in ensuring social equity and reducing poverty. The NIC model has been credited with helping to create vibrant and dynamic economies in many countries, including South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan.

In contrast, the neo-liberal approach has had mixed results. This approach involves relying on the free market to drive growth, and reducing the role of the state in the economy. While this approach has led to some successes, it has also been associated with higher levels of inequality and slower economic growth. Furthermore, in many cases, the state has been unable to provide the necessary infrastructure and support for sustained economic growth.

3) What role does national culture and religion play in development, if any? Do they influence how easily a country can democratize?

National culture and religion play a vital role in development, as well as how easily a country can democratize. Culture and religion are intertwined with the political, economic and social constructs of a society, meaning that any change to one is likely to have an effect on the other two. Events such as the Arab Spring demonstrate how the push for democracy is often intrinsically linked to the societal, cultural and religious ideology of each region. Religion can also be used by leaders to impede reform and solidify their own hold on power; using it strengthens ideological heterodoxy or conformism and can act as both a hindrance and enabler to democratization in certain states. All of this suggests that national culture and religion do have an influence when assessing how soon a country can democratize, albeit not always in the expected manner.