Rethinking the Politics of Development

Rethinking the Politics of Development in Developing Countries

This paper discusses developing countries and their politics, largely based on a speech at the Business as Usual Conference in Melbourne earlier this year. The speaker opens her commentary by saying, "The rise of public and scholarly interest in globalization and politics is a new phenomenon. Over the past decade, the liberalization of trade, finance, and investment across the world has opened vast new territories to dynamic economic actors" (Berger 2010, 40). This new dependence on global solutions gives rises to political and social changes that are only just being contemplated. As countries become more interdependent financially, how do they keep their politics separate from their business concerns?

For this author, the borderlines between countries are disappearing, and so is the integrity of the nation's governments, at least as viewed by the people. The author states that many of the most powerful nations show signs their citizens no longer trust their governments, and she believes this is largely in part due to globalization and the worldwide spread of business and industry, because it reduces the power of the politician, replacing it with the power of the businesspeople. New technologies and communication processes allow businesses to spread around the world and develop exponentially, changing the way both developing and developed nations connect and work with each other. Ultimately, many scholars cannot agree on whether changes in the current global economic environment are being caused by globalization, or by some other aspect of the global economy.

Next, the author questions whether globalization has the ability to change politics. After discussing globalization experts and their theories, the author maintains that eventually, political struggles over globalization in countries around the world will eventually evolve into struggles between labor and capital. She maintains that governments are more flexible in offering businesses incentives to locate in their areas, and as a result, labor will shoulder more of the tax burden, leading to more dissatisfaction with government. She also believes that neoliberal doctrines that have spread around the world have an effect on government's effectiveness in dealing with and controlling economic factors and product distribution. She cites China as an example of a country with a changing policy that has opened itself to capitalism, while still holding on to its Communist beliefs.

The growing ability of multinational corporations to supply goods and services may crowd out many local suppliers, and it will reduce the need for corporations to deal with local suppliers or train them to create their products. She also believes that as the global economy broadens, it could lead to the demise of the welfare state. In a "race to the bottom," low wages and few social programs in newly developing countries will drive prices and wages down worldwide, and with lower wages come lower taxes, bigger deficits, and the loss of social programs, which we see occurring in many countries around the world right now in reaction to the global recession. There are many different forms of capitalism practiced around the world, and each country reacts differently to financial crises and gains.

Finally, citizens fear that globalization will reduce the effectiveness and control of their governments to easily manage issues such as immigration, Internet pornography, outsourcing, and other social and economic issues, because of the ease that information flows between boarders. It is much more difficult to regulate and manage these issues when information travels at the speed of light and has no borders or boundaries. Because of this, globalization does affect politics, as the author's argument clearly indicates.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss, and analyze the topic of developing countries. Specifically it will discuss the politics of development in these countries, through an article delivered at the Business as Usual Conference in Melbourne earlier this year. This speaker and other speakers discussed the global crises that countries face. Some are physical, such as the earthquakes and floods that have hit the world in recent years, or the devastating brush fires that hit our country last year. However, many more are human-based crises, like the global economy crisis facing the world today. We also face many other manmade threats, from nuclear war to climate change, as well. This affects how we deal politically with other countries, and what we will do to manage these risks in the future.

A developed country is one with an advanced economy, a stable government, and affords its citizens protection in an environment that fosters growth, productivity, and opportunity for advancement, such as Australia or the United States. A developing country is generally a Third World country that is attempting to recreate itself as a thriving, developed country. India is a good example of a country that is utilizing technology to reinvent itself, and eventually reach developed nation status for nearly all its residents. Specific measurements, such as population, life expectancy, and literacy are all measured when defining a developed or developing country, as well. A majority of countries in the world are considered to be developing countries, while developed countries are far fewer, and they include Australia and New Zealand, most of Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

Managing risks has changed as the world becomes more globalized, and that has affected everything from world economics to the world political situation. Speaker Berger notes, "In this new literature of the 1990s, there is a common understanding of globalization as a set of changes in the international economy that tend to produce a single world market for goods, services, capital, and labor" (Berger 2010, 44). This single world market is changing the way countries do business, how they engage politically, and even world power domination. For example, even ten years ago, many forecasters would not have predicted China would become such a dominant world power, engaging in lending that would shore up economic giants such as the United States. Speaker Berger notes, "The growing capabilities of developing countries have led to the rise in exports from low-wage to high-wage societies as well as to new possibilities for foreign direct investment and outsourcing from high-wage to low-wage economies: (Berger 2010, 47). China has become extremely dominant in the world economy, and has changed politically as a result. The country is much more modern today, and while still under Communist control, in many areas it looks much more like a western country than an Asian one. However, they still suffer many of the same risks the rest of the world does, as last year's earthquake indicates. In that area, no country has an advantage over another.

Politically, globalization poses many problems and issues. Another writer notes, "In often politically-charged international negotiations, developing countries have constructed themselves in contradistinction to developed countries, a divide which has become institutionalized in international climate change politics and policy" (Perkins 2008). Climate change is one area where countries simply cannot agree, and it has made meetings like the recent summit in Copenhagen emotionally and politically charged. It was difficult for countries to come to an agreement in Copenhagen, and while many experts say the summit created a clear course of action for the future, others call it a spectacular failure. This indicates how emotional and political simply agreeing on solutions can be, and that means crises like these will continue to plague the world.

One of the things that has allowed countries to grow exponentially into globalized powers is the spread of communications and technology. Two other writers note, "Third, major technological breakthroughs have made communications easier and affordable across the world, leading to a widespread uniformity in perceptions and understandings about financial and economic matters" (Hafsi and Farashahi 2005). This technology has set countries free in many ways, allowing them to explore areas that would never have been open to them even twenty years ago. It has also helped modernize many countries (China and India come to mind). Two writers note, "A growing number of developing-country multinationals also undertake direct investment in advanced countries, notably high technology Indian firms such as Wipro, Infosys, and Satyam, as well as many Korean enterprises" (Tarzi 2005). Yet, that modernization is helped to develop global crises like climate change that the world seems totally incapable of managing effectively. Some feel that will lead to the eventual destruction of the planet, while others believe us, as global residents, will eventually learn to manage this crisis, and many others that face the globe.

It seems logical that people have to recognize human-made crises are normal. Throughout world history, crises have occurred, and it has been humankind's job to manage them. That does not mean that we manage them effectively all the time, but we do manage them eventually. This conference and the speaker raise the issue of world wars. They have been human-made crises that changed the world, but eventually the people managed them and finally ended them. Many other situations, from climate change to water pollution have been effectively managed, even in developing countries. It seems that human-made crises will always endure, no matter how advanced humans become. It is simply how the world works, and how humans interact with the world.

One of the speaker's main points is that developing countries alter their political and government arenas as they develop. She believes that the government, which regulates taxes and other economic incentives, has the power to attract or repel business investment in their developing countries. She writes, "If taxes, industrial policy, environmental regulation, or industrial relations in any society are too costly or constraining, investors will pull up stakes and transfer them elsewhere; workers cannot move so easily" (Berger 2010, 51). She contends that as government leaders gain more power through technology, taxes, and investment in their country, they become less trustworthy to their citizens. Another group of writers note, "More than anybody else, government officials, as defined above, are responsible for words and action that influence the developmental direction of society. The decisions that they have to make are not merely in immediate response to demands from groups in society" (Hyden, Court, and Mease 2003, 3). This is becoming extremely difficult for many governments, as their citizens begin to distrust them as they bring growth and change to their society. Author Berger continues, "The other is the argument that the extension of market relations across national borders diminishes the citizen's attachment to national authority, leading to a decline in the legitimacy of central governments" (Berger 2010, 58). If this distrust continues in developing countries, it could lead to unrest and political backlash, as what is going on in Thailand right now between protesters and the government. The group of authors back up Berger's assertions. They write, "For governments around the world, defining the public interest in ways that balance substance with procedure continues to be a governance challenge with consequences for the public perception of the legitimacy of the regime" (Hyden, Court, and Mease 2003, 9). How does the government gain back the trust of the people? There are several interesting theories.

Clearly, developing countries and their governments are intertwined, and the success of that government relies on several factors. Governments can maintain control and regain the trust of their people by using five methods, according to Hyden, Court, and Mease. These are ensuring the people are not fearful of the government, their physical and emotional needs are met, the government is ready to make hard decisions, there is a good relationship between the government and the military, and the overall government attitude is peaceful (Hyden, Court, and Mease 2003, 12-13). Many developing countries, such as Jordan and Chile, score remarkably high in these five indicators, according to these authors' assessment.

Another argument the author states is that globalization can ultimately bring change to the welfare state. She writes, "Indeed, the argument is not only that these constraints will over time undermine the welfare state, but that they are already the principal source of pressures that have led to cuts in social spending across the advanced industrial countries" (Berger 2010, 55). This is happening around the world as this paper is written. Greece and the European Union are facing massive social change due to the economy; the United States is suffering from major economic woes including unemployment and a massive budget deficit, while here in Australia our economy is relatively stable when compared to other countries around the world. The author seems to have accurately predicted how the global economy would melt down, and how it would affect industrialized nations in many ways.

What are the implications of these observations for the future of developing countries? All of the experts cited here agree that developing nations are facing difficult times in many areas. Along with the natural crises discussed, which could occur at any time and without warning, there are political and economic difficulties facing many countries. The current situation in Thailand, where a group of protesters called the "Red Shirts" are fighting the country's military, because they see the government as "elitist" and out of touch with the people, is a textbook example of these difficulties. The protesters preferred the former prime minister, and feel the current regime is unaware of the people's needs, as well. This is exactly what these authors were portraying in their assessment of developing countries and their governments. Experts believe that a rouge military general, recently shot in the head, was behind the protest. This completely matches the assertions by the three authors and their ideas on the five things governments must do to maintain the trust of their people.

Climate change, as discussed earlier, is an extremely important measure facing developing nations. As they develop, they are creating much more pollution and carbon dioxide, which is adding to climate change. Many of these nations simply do not have the resources to stop the spread of climate change, while others do not believe they have to make changes. The recent discussions in Copenhagen illustrate the depth of the problem. During the summit, the participating countries could not agree on what amount to lower vehicle emission standards. Eventually, the reached an agreement, but it was far short of what many countries wanted or expected to make a real change in the world. Three reporters note, "But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries which had been holding out for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century" (Vidal, Stratton, and Goldenberg 2010). Reluctantly, China and India eventually stated they would adhere to the agreement's standards, but even President Obama, who helped broker the agreement, said it was "not enough" (Vidal, Stratton, and Goldenberg 2010). In the future, countries are going to have to make tough choices about global issues such as climate change, and the countries that are strong enough to make those difficult choices and then adhere to them are the ones that will survive and thrive as developing nations.

Poverty is one of the biggest issues facing many developing nations and it hampers their growth in many ways. When the government can or will not provide for the people's needs, they breed unrest. However, they also breed a society that is poor, cannot take care of itself, and has no other choices. Many poor developing countries in Central America and of course, Mexico, fit into this scenario. In Mexico, many poor people do not have the skills or education to become employed at a viable level. That is one reason so many attempt to escape to the United States, to better themselves and their condition. In relation to that, much of government is corrupt, and drug lords are in power in many areas of the country, terrorizing the citizens and making their own laws. The country is violent, and the government clearly is not in control. In countries like these, there is a huge propensity toward violence, retribution, and corruption, rather than the five elements of success discussed previously. The people are afraid, they are in need, they are unable to better themselves, and there is no peace in their lives. They are primary candidates for reform, rebellion, and an overthrow of the inept government. Many other developing countries face the same conditions, making analysts wonder just which countries will survive, and which countries will fail as they attempt to reach modern industrial standards.