Urpelainan and Global Public Administration

¶ … Urpelainan maintains that citizens in a democracy can hold their government accountable for the consequences of international cooperation. Based on the examples raised in the other articles, and on examples you can come up with, do you agree or disagree with him? Has that influence changed over time? Why?

I do not agree that citizens in a democracy can hold their governments accountable for the consequences of international cooperation. The unpredictable nature of the macroeconomic environment most nations operate in today, is simply too uncertain. All possible benefits or consequences from a particular action are very difficult to ascertain in the future. Even if citizens did hold government accountable, to what extent should they do so? Should the government of 2000 be held accountable for the global economic collapse of 2008 (Lall, 2008)? The financial crisis was an example of international cooperation going awry. International government believed that mortgage backed securities were AAA rating and therefore spent billions of dollars of pension fund, and retirement money into the securities. Subsequently, the financial crisis has resulted in the loss of trillions of dollars around the world, a global recession, unrest in Europe, and slowing China. Should government be held accountable for this? If so, which congress should be held accountable? Should those in power in 2000 be held accountable or those in 2004? The answer depends mainly on the subjective nature of the evaluation process. Nobody will be able to pinpoint with any accuracy, which was ultimately responsible for the calamity of 2008. The government did have its hand, but so too did consumers, international firms, banks, and other parties. To therefore hold the government solely accountable is in my view, neither prudent nor viable.

Ignoring, the economic aspects of international cooperation mentioned above, it believe it is very difficult to judge the other parties motives in regards to international cooperation. Ultimately, our international partners are going to do what is in the best interest of their respective countries. Even if this action is a detriment to the United States, our partners will take action to protect their own interests. China is a prime example of this. Their currency is artificially high in relation to the dollar in an effort to boost export activity. With a devalued currency, China is better able to export cheaper goods to more developed nations such as America and Europe (Robb, 2013). This devaluation however, causes American manufacturers to go out of business or settle for relatively small margins. Due to these small margins, an economic downturn such as that occurring in 2008 will ultimately put some firms out of business. As such, American manufacturers of televisions, electronic devices, clothing, textiles, and more have all gone out of business. In this instance, China and the United States have a relationship. However, China is acting in its own interests to the detriment of United States business.

Should the government be held accountable for this? Some say that the government should respond with imposing tougher sanctions and tariffs on China. This however, is ill advised as China could then respond with sanctions and tariffs of its own. Therefore, the government has to think of the long-term viability of the U.S.- China relationship when thinking of taking aggressive action. In this case, the United States needs China, and China needs the United States. However, within the context of this relationship, China will obviously do what is in its best interests. To expect the government to be able to control China in regards to international relations is very difficult. Therefore, I don't think the citizens should hold the government accountable for aspects of international relations that are beyond its control. America can not ultimately control China, it therefore should not be held accountable.

The article indicates that the rationale for delegating public authority to the government is the influence of special interests. The article also argues that to mitigate the factions created that occur through society, the government should have more control. This argument is rationale. The world in which we live is irrational however. Special interests and factions will always arise as society has a natural self serving bias. Citizens within a capitalistic society often pursue their own self-interest. As a result factions and special interests arise. Holding the government accountable, will do little to mitigate this natural occurrence. The article also suggests that citizens do not have sufficient information in regards to international affairs. I believe this to be untrue. The entire nation is predicated on international affairs. Our diverse demographics require international relations on a grandiose scale. As such, I disagree with the article. I believe the citizens would indeed have sufficient information to help create international cooperation rules and regulations. The article also argues that international cooperation is initiated by governments and therefore authority should be given solely to these respective governments. I agree to a certain extent. The people ultimately dictate government action, rules and regulations. People are often fickle and irrational. They can be easily swayed with propaganda and special interest groups. As such, I think government should be help accountable for aspects with their direct control. International cooperation in my view does not constitute an area of direct control for government.

Third, I believe the short-term nature of government action will also make it difficult to hold government accountable for international cooperation. Terms of congress are relatively short. Politicians, have constituents in their respective states that placed them in office. Therefore, politicians often act in a short-term manner in an effort to get reelected and to fulfill campaign promises. International cooperation and relationships are often a very long-term process. They do not occur overnight (They can however be destroyed overnight, which I find very ironic). As such the short-term nature of government action is juxtaposed against the long-term notion of holding government accountable for international cooperation. A quick glance at our current government provides ample evidence towards the short-term nature of government action.

As those around the world know, our government constantly bickers over what they believe to be correct policy. This arguing however has resulted in lack luster performance. The solutions that have occurred are short-term in nature. For example, the government extended the debt ceiling…for three months contingent on budget plans. These budget plans, although attempting to look long-term, are focused primarily on the short-term. In addition, the Federal Reserve is continuing to print money while ignoring the long-term consequences of inflation (Frank, 2000). Our government has overspent beyond its means and now has incurred a very significant debt. This accumulation of debt however didn't occur overnight. Instead short-term government action, ignoring the long-term consequences took precedence. Now our generation must now sacrifice for the short-term decisions of governments of years past. As citizens, if our government can even handle its own finances, why then should be we expect them to look long-term in regards to international cooperation? Would citizens even have the motivation to do so? If the citizens should hold the government accountable for anything, its fiscal and monetary policy, both of which, unlike international cooperation, are within its control.