á |
In the business community of the West there is a
growing concern that the failure of most of the rest of the world to implement
capitalism will eventually drive the rich economies into recession. As millions
of investors have painfully learned from the evaporation of their emerging
market funds, globalization is a two-way street: if the Third World and former
communist nations cannot escape the influence of the West, nor can the West
disentangle itself from them. Adverse reactions to capitalism have also been
growing stronger within rich countries themselves. The rioting both in Seattle
at the meeting of the World Trade Organization in December 1999 and a few
months later at the IMF/World Bank meeting in Washington, DC, regardless of the
diversity of the grievances, highlighted the anger that spreading capitalism
inspires. Many have begun recalling the economic historian Karl PolanyiÆs
warnings that free markets can collide with society and lead to fascism. Japan
is struggling through its most prolonged slump since the Great Depression.
Western Europeans vote for politicians who promise them a æthird wayÆ that
rejects what a French bestseller has labelled LÆhorreur Tconomique.
These whispers of alarm, disturbing though they
are, have thus far only prompted American and European leaders to repeat to the
rest of the world the same wearisome lectures: stabilize your currencies, hang
tough, ignore the food riots, and wait patiently for the foreign investors to
return.
Foreign investment is, of course, a very good
thing. The more of it, the better. Stable currencies are good, too, as are free
trade and transparent banking practices and the privatization of state-owned
industries and every other remedy in the Western pharmacopoeia. Yet we
continually forget that global capitalism has been tried before. In Latin
America, for example, reforms directed at creating capitalist systems have been
tried at least four times since independence from Spain in the 1820s. Each
time, after the initial euphoria, Latin Americans swung back from capitalist
and market economy policies. These remedies are clearly not enough. Indeed,
they fall so far short as to be almost irrelevant.
When these remedies fail, Westerners all too
often respond not by questioning the adequacy of the remedies but by blaming
Third World peoples for their lack of entrepreneurial spirit or market
orientation. If they have failed to prosper despite all the excellent advice,
it is because something is the matter with them: they missed the Protestant
Reformation, or they are crippled by the disabling legacy of colonial Europe,
or their IQs are too low. But the suggestion that it is culture that explains
the success of such diverse places as Japan, Switzerland and California, and
culture again that explains the relative poverty of such equally diverse places
as China, Estonia and Baja California, is worse than inhumane: it is
unconvincing. The disparity of wealth between the West and the rest of the
world is far too big to be explained by culture alone. Most people want the
fruits of capital, so much so that many, from the children of Sanchez to
KhrushchevÆs son, are flocking to Western nations.
The cities of the Third World and the former
communist countries are teeming with entrepreneurs. You cannot walk through a
Middle Eastern market, hike up to a Latin American village or climb into a taxi
in Moscow without someone trying to make a deal with you. The inhabitants of
these countries possess talent, enthusiasm and an astonishing ability to wring
a profit out of practically nothing. They can grasp and use modern technology.
Otherwise, American businesses would not be struggling to control the unauthorized
use of their patents abroad; nor would the US government be striving so
desperately to keep modern weapons technology out of the hands of Third World
countries. Markets are an ancient and universal tradition: Christ drove the
merchants out of the temple 2,000 years ago, and Mexicans were taking their
products to market long before Columbus reached America.
á
|