The Brand value of Globalization is under a Recession now. The Indian Judiciary is now siding with the Labour these days.
The Supreme Court has expressed anguish at courts’ apathy to the plight of workers being retrenched in the guise of globalisation and economic liberalisation.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, in different but concurring judgments, regretted that there was a visible shift in the courts’ approach to cases involving interpretation of social welfare legislation.
Justice Singhvi said: “The attractive mantras of globalisation and liberalisation are fast becoming the raison d’etre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic to the plight of industrial and unorganised workers.”
He said: “In a large number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally retrenched by creating bylanes and sidelanes in the jurisprudence developed by this court in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment/engagement of the workman-employee was contrary to some or the other statute or that reinstatement will put an unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment.”
Harjinder Singh, appointed in the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation in March 1986, was dismissed in July 1988. Acting on a writ petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the order and he continued in service. Finally in September 1992, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
In November 1992, another order was passed sacking 22 workers including the appellant. While the labour court directed their reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages, a single judge of the High Court, entertaining an appeal, ordered compensation of Rs. 87,582. The present appeal is directed against this judgment.
Justice Singhvi pointed out that “Courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrongdoer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong, ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. It needs no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory.”
Statutory goal
In a separate judgment, Justice Ganguly said: “I am in clear agreement with Justice Singhvi that this court has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory goal and not to frustrate it.”
He said: “In doing so, this court should make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections in view of the clear constitutional mandate. Social Justice, the very signature tune of our Constitution and being deeply embedded in our constitutional ethos, in a way is the arch of the Constitution which ensures rights of the common man to be interpreted in a meaningful way so that life can be lived with human dignity.”
He said: “I share the anxiety of Justice Singhvi about a disturbing contrary trend which is discernible in recent times and which is sought to be justified in the name of globalisation and liberalisation of economy. Any attempt to dilute the constitutional imperatives in order to promote the so-called trends of globalisation may result in precarious consequences. Reports of suicidal deaths of farmers in their thousands from all over the country, along with escalation of terrorism, throw a dangerous signal.”
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Bullets trains for US
The Automobile Lobby is said to be behind the absence of state-of-the art trains in the US. With Oil Price Peaking, things seems to change. Could mass-adoption of Trains the next thing world over?
Wired:Believe it: Bullet trains are coming.
After decades of false starts, planners are finally beginning to make headway on what could become the largest, most complicated infrastructure project ever attempted in the US. The Obama administration got on board with an $8 billion infusion, and more cash is likely en route from Congress. It’s enough for Florida and Texas to dust off some previously abandoned plans and for urban clusters in the Northeast and Midwest to pursue some long-overdue upgrades. The nation’s test bed will almost certainly be California, which already has voter-approved funding and planning under way. But getting up to speed requires more than just seed money. For trains to beat planes and automobiles, the hardware needs to really fly. Officials are pushing to deploy state-of-the-art rail rockets. Next stop: the future.
Wired:Believe it: Bullet trains are coming.
After decades of false starts, planners are finally beginning to make headway on what could become the largest, most complicated infrastructure project ever attempted in the US. The Obama administration got on board with an $8 billion infusion, and more cash is likely en route from Congress. It’s enough for Florida and Texas to dust off some previously abandoned plans and for urban clusters in the Northeast and Midwest to pursue some long-overdue upgrades. The nation’s test bed will almost certainly be California, which already has voter-approved funding and planning under way. But getting up to speed requires more than just seed money. For trains to beat planes and automobiles, the hardware needs to really fly. Officials are pushing to deploy state-of-the-art rail rockets. Next stop: the future.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Basu pushed land reforms but left Bengal as industrial wasteland
Economic Times about Jyoti Basu, who strode the nation’s political landscape like a colossus, passed away this afternoon at a Kolkata hospital. Basu, who missed being the prime minister in 1996 because of the CPM’s ideological rigidity, was in charge of West Bengal for a record 23 years and, in the process, became the longest-serving chief minister of any state.
Basu, who put the emphasis on the bread and butter goals of communism, leaves behind a mixed legacy — while he was credited with decentralisation of power and land reforms, the state became an industrial wasteland during his tenure. Along with his senior colleagues EMS Namboodiripad and H S Surjeet, he scripted his party’s political pragmatism in 1989 and later in 1996 by aiding the formation of two non-Congress coalitions at the Centre. Despite hailing from a party seeped in dogmatism, he was credited with running a coalition through consensus politics.
Basu, who became the unanimous choice of the United Front to lead the government at the Centre in 1996, was denied the opportunity by his own party’s central committee which rejected the proposal by three votes. Incidentally, it were Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury and S Ramachandran Pillai, who had mobilised support against the proposal in the central committee meeting. Basu, known for whiplash candour, told the media in December 1997 that the decision of the party was a “historic blunder”.
Basu, who put the emphasis on the bread and butter goals of communism, leaves behind a mixed legacy — while he was credited with decentralisation of power and land reforms, the state became an industrial wasteland during his tenure. Along with his senior colleagues EMS Namboodiripad and H S Surjeet, he scripted his party’s political pragmatism in 1989 and later in 1996 by aiding the formation of two non-Congress coalitions at the Centre. Despite hailing from a party seeped in dogmatism, he was credited with running a coalition through consensus politics.
Basu, who became the unanimous choice of the United Front to lead the government at the Centre in 1996, was denied the opportunity by his own party’s central committee which rejected the proposal by three votes. Incidentally, it were Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury and S Ramachandran Pillai, who had mobilised support against the proposal in the central committee meeting. Basu, known for whiplash candour, told the media in December 1997 that the decision of the party was a “historic blunder”.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Aamir, 3 Idiots and Pursuit of Excellence
Film-making is very similar to entrepreneurship. The role of a film producer is analogous to that of a venture capitalist. Good producers, like smart venture capitalists, know that it's not just about writing a check and it's not just about big stars and quality music. In the same way, simply providing venture funding or throwing money at a start-up cannot ensure success, and it's not necessarily a great thing for entrepreneurs to have lots of work experience and domain expertise in their industry. The actors and the director, like entrepreneurs, work to bring the script and business plan to life. More than anything else, making a good film and building a business from scratch both require oodles of creativity.
Mr. Khan's recent cinema has sensitized millions of parents to let their children become what they want to, rather than forcing them to be doctors, lawyers or engineers. The subtext of why parents would wish so for their children is, however, missing from the narrative.
In a socialist India with strict government control over economic activity, those vocations were likely the only ones which came with a certain guarantee to a minimum standard of living. Since the liberalization of 1991 and the boost to economic freedom given by the BJP-NDA government from 1998-2004, career opportunities have expanded dramatically. Today, young Indians can be productively employed as radio jockeys, artists or sportspeople. Popular attitudes haven't caught up with the growth of opportunity and the majority of Indians continue to believe that what you study in college should dictate what you do in life. It is incomprehensible to the pre-1980s generation why someone might choose to study literature, or why an engineer might want to be a photographer. This stems from the perceived or real lack of economic opportunity in "unconventional" career choices, and the solution is economic liberalization.
Creating an environment that allows people to pursue excellence in a field of their choosing is what makes for a prosperous and happy society. The importance of effective policy design and implementation cannot be over-stated to achieve that end. In that context, last year's Right to Education bill was a major letdown. It does not allow individuals and communities to run schools as they would deem fit, favoring needless government control instead. It focuses on rationing existing supply instead of sowing the seed for capacity expansion.
My Take : Pursuing Excellence has been sure way of disaster for "Leaders" in my generation of Indians. Nothing has changed with Globalization in India means migrating to US, Europe or Singapore. Pursuing Excellence for the current teenage upper middle class Indians is a distant possibility (but more practicality) with private colleges commoditizating Engineering degrees.
Mr. Khan's recent cinema has sensitized millions of parents to let their children become what they want to, rather than forcing them to be doctors, lawyers or engineers. The subtext of why parents would wish so for their children is, however, missing from the narrative.
In a socialist India with strict government control over economic activity, those vocations were likely the only ones which came with a certain guarantee to a minimum standard of living. Since the liberalization of 1991 and the boost to economic freedom given by the BJP-NDA government from 1998-2004, career opportunities have expanded dramatically. Today, young Indians can be productively employed as radio jockeys, artists or sportspeople. Popular attitudes haven't caught up with the growth of opportunity and the majority of Indians continue to believe that what you study in college should dictate what you do in life. It is incomprehensible to the pre-1980s generation why someone might choose to study literature, or why an engineer might want to be a photographer. This stems from the perceived or real lack of economic opportunity in "unconventional" career choices, and the solution is economic liberalization.
Creating an environment that allows people to pursue excellence in a field of their choosing is what makes for a prosperous and happy society. The importance of effective policy design and implementation cannot be over-stated to achieve that end. In that context, last year's Right to Education bill was a major letdown. It does not allow individuals and communities to run schools as they would deem fit, favoring needless government control instead. It focuses on rationing existing supply instead of sowing the seed for capacity expansion.
My Take : Pursuing Excellence has been sure way of disaster for "Leaders" in my generation of Indians. Nothing has changed with Globalization in India means migrating to US, Europe or Singapore. Pursuing Excellence for the current teenage upper middle class Indians is a distant possibility (but more practicality) with private colleges commoditizating Engineering degrees.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Clusters. not cities, the strength of India
S Gurumurthy was ridiculed when he spoke about swadeshi in 1991. Ten years down the line many now accept that it is necessary to have someone with this viewpoint in a globalised India. In rediff, Gurumurthy talks about globalization :
Who is talking about globalisation today? Today, it’s just not environmentally, ecologically and culturally sustainable. I have always maintained that it was not economically sustainable, because it is contrary to the very meaning and definition of economics which is associated with frugality.
It is an executive class economics different from the economy class which brings out the difference between economics and excessiveness.
Moreover, globalisation disregards the existence of countries; they talk about a global society, global rule, global citizens, global villages, etc. It was an absolutely idealistic idiosyncrasy. That is gone.
Who is talking about the WTO? I told you long ago that the WTO will not last. If you create an artificial structure, it will not stand. People in different parts of the world have their own models of living; you cannot homogenise them, make them wear the same dress, eat the same food, or see the same cinema or have the same goals. This is what West-centric globalisation attempted, and got the first taste of it in the last four, five years.
S. Gurumurthy, the convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch also speaks about the Indian economy and the success stories that small industrial centers like Tirupur, Namakkal and Sivakasi have turned into.
You have been talking about the entrepreneurial successes of small places like Tirupur, Namakkal and Sivakasi. But what about the closure of several textile units in Tirupur? Or the adverse effect of the cut in excise duty on factory-built truck bodies on units in Namakkal?
As far as Namakkal is concerned, the body building units and large truck manufacturers need to work together. This is not what is happening.
In fact, if these small operators get some kind of affiliation or franchise rights, it will ensure better quality work and a more organized way of working. They will also get assured work.
We, thus, need to work out a Japanese model of outsourced work. For example, Ashok Leyland [ Get Quote ] can outsource its body building work from units in Namakkal.
How do you react to the lowering of excise duties on truck bodies?
There is some sense in this tax. Earlier, you paid tax only when the company built the body, not otherwise. This is a kind of evasion. So, by plugging this, the government has made escaping excise duty net difficult.
Are you happy with the way the government is taking care of the centres of excellence?
My complaint against the government has been that it is not aware of what is happening. Many people in the finance ministry do not know what people in Tirupur are doing.
The Swadeshi Jagran Manch, therefore, suggested that the government must announce an industrial cluster policy, which it has now done. They (the government) have chosen Tirupur as the knitwear industrial cluster, Coimbatore as the casting and pump set-making industrial cluster. Similarly, some 42 such clusters have been chosen in India. This is only because of the campaign started by the Swadeshi Jagran Manch.
We also fought for Sivakasi. If not for us, Sivakasi would have been destroyed completely. Who was destroying Sivakasi? Not the government, but non-governmental organizations. And the media.
And for each of these clusters, they have named a monitoring agency. For example, they have named the Tirupur Exporters Association as the monitoring agency in Tirupur because it is predominantly an export centre.
The government is allocating Rs 50 crore (Rs 500 million) for the development of these centres.
So, I would say, we are seeing a more focused policy from the government.
You said the finance ministry was not aware of what was happening in Tirupur when it was bringing in large amounts of money through exports...
Why do you blame the government alone? Was the media aware? What has the media done to Karur, Tirupur, Namakkal and Sivakasi?
Media and some NGOs have only tried to destroy these places by focusing on child labour. The media in this country can only ask questions.
The belief that the government must know everything is a socialist one. The market too must know everything; and local administration, businessmen, professionals and media are part of the market forces.
What do you attribute the success of such small places to?
Hard work.
The more deprived a place is, the more hard working its people are. Thanjavur district did not develop industrially because it is not a deprived place. Wherever you find water shortage, wherever there is no irrigated land, you find the people of that area very hard working. They take to industry, businesses and manufacturing.
Is deprivation the only reason for their hard work and success in their endeavours?
People of India have the capacity to do things. Each community has done something admirable. These are community-driven models.
I would say, IITs and IIMs (Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institutes of Management) are not the ones that generate centres of enterprise in India; it is the communities.
People who set up businesses are very ordinary people. Of 300 families which export knitwear from Tirupur, 90 per cent do not even know English.
For example, in Tirupur, people had some skills, which they needed to exploit. First, they were cotton cultivators. From cotton cultivating, they went to ginning, from ginning to spinning, from spinning to weaving, and from weaving to knitting. This is how the entire area moved ahead. They developed skills in stages.
What kind of help are these communities getting?
I don't think they are getting any help. They succeeded through their own hard work.
In fact, I don't want the government or media or NGOs to disturb them at all. The greatest disturbance comes from the NGOs and the media, and then from government officials.
Why did the Swadeshi Jagran Manch ask the government to have an industrial cluster policy? Will it not disturb them?
The government has recognised that the clusters do good work. Cluster policy recognises that there is an atmosphere for development and growth in clusters.
They wanted to create an artificial industrial centre near Madurai [ Images ] as a knitwear centre. There are only sheds available now! Nobody has made any knitwear there. Why? Because you cannot artificially construct business.
Businesses have to evolve with the skill and hard work of the people. So, repeating Tirupur near Madurai failed.
This is not the work of the market; this is the work of the community. Which place has the highest per capita income in India? Not Mumbai [ Images ], Delhi [ Images ], Chennai or Bangalore. It is Morvi in Gujarat, where they make Ajanta wall clocks!
Can anyone help evolve such skills in an area? If so, how?
I think it is only social capital which can do it. In my view, the community is the social capital in India. Take Tamil Nadu, for instance. The Naidus, the Kongu Goundars, the Nadars, and the Rajus took to commerce there. These communities developed financially, educationally and socially.
The Thevar community and Vanniyar community took to politics. They became government dependent in their mindset. If you become dependent on the government, your development will stagnate.
Community structure is, thus, the social capital through which the country can develop. It is being wasted in politics.
I also would say that the media has failed to highlight community success stories. The intellectuals and media have a responsibility in helping communities evolve. But they have failed in their duties.
What does the Swadeshi Jagran Manch plan to do in future?
We are not planning to do anything. We are studying; we are trying to understand the social and political situation in India.
This is our open air university. Once we empirically study and understand, we will begin forming opinions. We have no money or expertise. We only create awareness. We are generating the desire for self effort through awareness campaigns.
I feel traditional skills are suffering from lack of recognition by the establishment; be it the government, or the judicial system, or the media. They can't understand that Indians can function only in small collectivities, they cannot function as atomized individuals.
For example, in the West, there is social security which is an atomized plan. In India, it is the families that take care of social security.
But what policy do we have for the family? You are treating the Indian individual like a Western one and taxing him. Here, he is taking care of five to eight people. But policy makers, economists and media are completely ignorant of this fact. You need a very different approach to India.
Against the backdrop of globalisation, how difficult is it to talk to people about swadeshi?
India is one sixth of humanity. Opinion formation takes a long time here; particularly when you have Westernised people to run the country and make opinions.
Why did you think of swadeshi?
Globalisation and liberalization were the reasons. With socialism, we were committing one type of mistake. With globalisation, we were committing another.
The government's socialist policies have already stifled this country's enterprise. This also created very poor work culture.
The Western belief -- that the government will do nothing and the market will do everything -- is also wrong. In India, the delivery mechanism is not just the market; it is the family, it is the community, it is the state and the market.
The market is only one of the institutions of delivery and it is not the sole institution. This was the base of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. And, now we are proving to be right.
Are you happy with what the finance minister has offered in his Budget?
See, there is nothing in the Budget for agriculture, especially when agricultural production has dropped by 15 to 16 per cent. This is a serious omission.
The Budget is made according to the opinion of the middle, upper-middle and educated classes. Budgets mainly look to satisfying them.
What kind of impact will the neglect of agriculture have on Indian economy?
If the bottom of the pyramid is not taken care of, it is going to have a long-term impact on the economy.
Besides ignoring agriculture, the Budget also doesn't talk about an agenda for the textile industry which is going to face international competition in 2005. It is also an omission.
What about competition from China?
India has inherent strengths. Unfortunately, it has not been properly augmented. You must know the basic strength of India doesn't lie in Mumbai, Delhi or Kolkata [ Images ].
India's strength is its industrial clusters.
India is already a global player. Doesn't China have poverty? But they are not talking about poverty. Here, you are talking all the time about India's poverty. Indians must understand India first. They must begin talking well of India.
It doesn't matter to me at all to hear that India's share of global trade is 0.75 per cent. Global trade is not the index of a country's development. So long as India can generate domestic demand, India can be a big player.
In fact, one sixth of humanity cannot depend on global trade. It has to be largely dependent on domestic trade. So we are applying norms applicable to small countries like Japan [ Images ], Korea, and Taiwan, to India. That is because you don't have originality. You set wrong benchmarks and suffer in comparison.
My Take: Unfortunately, the Industrial Clusters address the needs of lower-middle/lower class people only. The low wages and long work hours of Industrial Clusters cannot support and sustain middle class. The Government is underplaying the clusters segment completely due to this reason. How can we build a knowledge economy on the basis of these clusters.. like integrate the fashion industry with the knitwear industry and create a affordable fashion, a huge market across the globe would form the right answer.
Who is talking about globalisation today? Today, it’s just not environmentally, ecologically and culturally sustainable. I have always maintained that it was not economically sustainable, because it is contrary to the very meaning and definition of economics which is associated with frugality.
It is an executive class economics different from the economy class which brings out the difference between economics and excessiveness.
Moreover, globalisation disregards the existence of countries; they talk about a global society, global rule, global citizens, global villages, etc. It was an absolutely idealistic idiosyncrasy. That is gone.
Who is talking about the WTO? I told you long ago that the WTO will not last. If you create an artificial structure, it will not stand. People in different parts of the world have their own models of living; you cannot homogenise them, make them wear the same dress, eat the same food, or see the same cinema or have the same goals. This is what West-centric globalisation attempted, and got the first taste of it in the last four, five years.
S. Gurumurthy, the convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch also speaks about the Indian economy and the success stories that small industrial centers like Tirupur, Namakkal and Sivakasi have turned into.
You have been talking about the entrepreneurial successes of small places like Tirupur, Namakkal and Sivakasi. But what about the closure of several textile units in Tirupur? Or the adverse effect of the cut in excise duty on factory-built truck bodies on units in Namakkal?
As far as Namakkal is concerned, the body building units and large truck manufacturers need to work together. This is not what is happening.
In fact, if these small operators get some kind of affiliation or franchise rights, it will ensure better quality work and a more organized way of working. They will also get assured work.
We, thus, need to work out a Japanese model of outsourced work. For example, Ashok Leyland [ Get Quote ] can outsource its body building work from units in Namakkal.
How do you react to the lowering of excise duties on truck bodies?
There is some sense in this tax. Earlier, you paid tax only when the company built the body, not otherwise. This is a kind of evasion. So, by plugging this, the government has made escaping excise duty net difficult.
Are you happy with the way the government is taking care of the centres of excellence?
My complaint against the government has been that it is not aware of what is happening. Many people in the finance ministry do not know what people in Tirupur are doing.
The Swadeshi Jagran Manch, therefore, suggested that the government must announce an industrial cluster policy, which it has now done. They (the government) have chosen Tirupur as the knitwear industrial cluster, Coimbatore as the casting and pump set-making industrial cluster. Similarly, some 42 such clusters have been chosen in India. This is only because of the campaign started by the Swadeshi Jagran Manch.
We also fought for Sivakasi. If not for us, Sivakasi would have been destroyed completely. Who was destroying Sivakasi? Not the government, but non-governmental organizations. And the media.
And for each of these clusters, they have named a monitoring agency. For example, they have named the Tirupur Exporters Association as the monitoring agency in Tirupur because it is predominantly an export centre.
The government is allocating Rs 50 crore (Rs 500 million) for the development of these centres.
So, I would say, we are seeing a more focused policy from the government.
You said the finance ministry was not aware of what was happening in Tirupur when it was bringing in large amounts of money through exports...
Why do you blame the government alone? Was the media aware? What has the media done to Karur, Tirupur, Namakkal and Sivakasi?
Media and some NGOs have only tried to destroy these places by focusing on child labour. The media in this country can only ask questions.
The belief that the government must know everything is a socialist one. The market too must know everything; and local administration, businessmen, professionals and media are part of the market forces.
What do you attribute the success of such small places to?
Hard work.
The more deprived a place is, the more hard working its people are. Thanjavur district did not develop industrially because it is not a deprived place. Wherever you find water shortage, wherever there is no irrigated land, you find the people of that area very hard working. They take to industry, businesses and manufacturing.
Is deprivation the only reason for their hard work and success in their endeavours?
People of India have the capacity to do things. Each community has done something admirable. These are community-driven models.
I would say, IITs and IIMs (Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institutes of Management) are not the ones that generate centres of enterprise in India; it is the communities.
People who set up businesses are very ordinary people. Of 300 families which export knitwear from Tirupur, 90 per cent do not even know English.
For example, in Tirupur, people had some skills, which they needed to exploit. First, they were cotton cultivators. From cotton cultivating, they went to ginning, from ginning to spinning, from spinning to weaving, and from weaving to knitting. This is how the entire area moved ahead. They developed skills in stages.
What kind of help are these communities getting?
I don't think they are getting any help. They succeeded through their own hard work.
In fact, I don't want the government or media or NGOs to disturb them at all. The greatest disturbance comes from the NGOs and the media, and then from government officials.
Why did the Swadeshi Jagran Manch ask the government to have an industrial cluster policy? Will it not disturb them?
The government has recognised that the clusters do good work. Cluster policy recognises that there is an atmosphere for development and growth in clusters.
They wanted to create an artificial industrial centre near Madurai [ Images ] as a knitwear centre. There are only sheds available now! Nobody has made any knitwear there. Why? Because you cannot artificially construct business.
Businesses have to evolve with the skill and hard work of the people. So, repeating Tirupur near Madurai failed.
This is not the work of the market; this is the work of the community. Which place has the highest per capita income in India? Not Mumbai [ Images ], Delhi [ Images ], Chennai or Bangalore. It is Morvi in Gujarat, where they make Ajanta wall clocks!
Can anyone help evolve such skills in an area? If so, how?
I think it is only social capital which can do it. In my view, the community is the social capital in India. Take Tamil Nadu, for instance. The Naidus, the Kongu Goundars, the Nadars, and the Rajus took to commerce there. These communities developed financially, educationally and socially.
The Thevar community and Vanniyar community took to politics. They became government dependent in their mindset. If you become dependent on the government, your development will stagnate.
Community structure is, thus, the social capital through which the country can develop. It is being wasted in politics.
I also would say that the media has failed to highlight community success stories. The intellectuals and media have a responsibility in helping communities evolve. But they have failed in their duties.
What does the Swadeshi Jagran Manch plan to do in future?
We are not planning to do anything. We are studying; we are trying to understand the social and political situation in India.
This is our open air university. Once we empirically study and understand, we will begin forming opinions. We have no money or expertise. We only create awareness. We are generating the desire for self effort through awareness campaigns.
I feel traditional skills are suffering from lack of recognition by the establishment; be it the government, or the judicial system, or the media. They can't understand that Indians can function only in small collectivities, they cannot function as atomized individuals.
For example, in the West, there is social security which is an atomized plan. In India, it is the families that take care of social security.
But what policy do we have for the family? You are treating the Indian individual like a Western one and taxing him. Here, he is taking care of five to eight people. But policy makers, economists and media are completely ignorant of this fact. You need a very different approach to India.
Against the backdrop of globalisation, how difficult is it to talk to people about swadeshi?
India is one sixth of humanity. Opinion formation takes a long time here; particularly when you have Westernised people to run the country and make opinions.
Why did you think of swadeshi?
Globalisation and liberalization were the reasons. With socialism, we were committing one type of mistake. With globalisation, we were committing another.
The government's socialist policies have already stifled this country's enterprise. This also created very poor work culture.
The Western belief -- that the government will do nothing and the market will do everything -- is also wrong. In India, the delivery mechanism is not just the market; it is the family, it is the community, it is the state and the market.
The market is only one of the institutions of delivery and it is not the sole institution. This was the base of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch. And, now we are proving to be right.
Are you happy with what the finance minister has offered in his Budget?
See, there is nothing in the Budget for agriculture, especially when agricultural production has dropped by 15 to 16 per cent. This is a serious omission.
The Budget is made according to the opinion of the middle, upper-middle and educated classes. Budgets mainly look to satisfying them.
What kind of impact will the neglect of agriculture have on Indian economy?
If the bottom of the pyramid is not taken care of, it is going to have a long-term impact on the economy.
Besides ignoring agriculture, the Budget also doesn't talk about an agenda for the textile industry which is going to face international competition in 2005. It is also an omission.
What about competition from China?
India has inherent strengths. Unfortunately, it has not been properly augmented. You must know the basic strength of India doesn't lie in Mumbai, Delhi or Kolkata [ Images ].
India's strength is its industrial clusters.
India is already a global player. Doesn't China have poverty? But they are not talking about poverty. Here, you are talking all the time about India's poverty. Indians must understand India first. They must begin talking well of India.
It doesn't matter to me at all to hear that India's share of global trade is 0.75 per cent. Global trade is not the index of a country's development. So long as India can generate domestic demand, India can be a big player.
In fact, one sixth of humanity cannot depend on global trade. It has to be largely dependent on domestic trade. So we are applying norms applicable to small countries like Japan [ Images ], Korea, and Taiwan, to India. That is because you don't have originality. You set wrong benchmarks and suffer in comparison.
My Take: Unfortunately, the Industrial Clusters address the needs of lower-middle/lower class people only. The low wages and long work hours of Industrial Clusters cannot support and sustain middle class. The Government is underplaying the clusters segment completely due to this reason. How can we build a knowledge economy on the basis of these clusters.. like integrate the fashion industry with the knitwear industry and create a affordable fashion, a huge market across the globe would form the right answer.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Case for more states : New miracle economies: Bihar, poor states
SA Iyer of Swaminomics says:
ndia achieved record annual GDP growth, averaging 8.45%, in the five years, 2004-05 to 2008-09. But was this inclusive, and did it benefit the poor masses?
We have no data on poverty beyond 2004-05. But the CSO has current data on the economic growth of the states. Historically, the chronically poor states were Orissa plus the BIMARU quartet (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh), of which three have been sub-divided. Have these eight poor states participated in India’s boom?
Yes, absolutely. Indeed, five of India’s eight ultra-poor states have become miracle economies, defined internationally as those with over 7% growth. The best news comes from Bihar, historically the biggest failure. From 2004-05 to2008-09, Bihar averaged 11.03% growth annually. It was virtually India’s fastest growing state, on par with Gujarat (11.05%). That represents a sensational turnaround. Nitish Kumar deserves an award for the most inclusive revolution of the decade.
Other poor states have done very well too. Uttrakhand (9.31%), Orissa (8.74%), Jharkhand (8.45%) and Chhattisgarh (7.35%), have all grown faster than the standard miracle benchmark of 7%.
India today has 28 states. Assuming 20% population growth since the last census, Uttar Pradesh has 198 million people, more than Brazil, Russia or Pakistan. Maharashtra has 106 million, West Bengal 96 million and Andhra Pradesh 90 million. All are much bigger than France or Britain. At the other end of the scale, Sikkim has just 0.6 million people, Mizoram 1.1 million and Arunachal Pradesh 1.3 million. Clearly, statehood has been determined by political expediency, not logic.
Is there an economic case for carving smaller states out of large ones? Some analysts say small states won’t be economically viable. Others believe small states will fare better, since ordinary people will have better access to power elites. Consider the record of three states carved out of larger ones in 2000 - Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. Ignore data for the first few transitional years. Instead, focus on the average growth rate of gross state domestic product for the last five years, from 2004-05 to 2008-09.
Amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31% growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and Chattisgarh 7.35%. All three states belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone, a slough of despond where humans and economies stagnated. Out of this stagnant pool have now emerged highly dynamic states.
I am supporter for smaller states, especially in South India/Tamil Nadu.
ndia achieved record annual GDP growth, averaging 8.45%, in the five years, 2004-05 to 2008-09. But was this inclusive, and did it benefit the poor masses?
We have no data on poverty beyond 2004-05. But the CSO has current data on the economic growth of the states. Historically, the chronically poor states were Orissa plus the BIMARU quartet (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh), of which three have been sub-divided. Have these eight poor states participated in India’s boom?
Yes, absolutely. Indeed, five of India’s eight ultra-poor states have become miracle economies, defined internationally as those with over 7% growth. The best news comes from Bihar, historically the biggest failure. From 2004-05 to2008-09, Bihar averaged 11.03% growth annually. It was virtually India’s fastest growing state, on par with Gujarat (11.05%). That represents a sensational turnaround. Nitish Kumar deserves an award for the most inclusive revolution of the decade.
Other poor states have done very well too. Uttrakhand (9.31%), Orissa (8.74%), Jharkhand (8.45%) and Chhattisgarh (7.35%), have all grown faster than the standard miracle benchmark of 7%.
India today has 28 states. Assuming 20% population growth since the last census, Uttar Pradesh has 198 million people, more than Brazil, Russia or Pakistan. Maharashtra has 106 million, West Bengal 96 million and Andhra Pradesh 90 million. All are much bigger than France or Britain. At the other end of the scale, Sikkim has just 0.6 million people, Mizoram 1.1 million and Arunachal Pradesh 1.3 million. Clearly, statehood has been determined by political expediency, not logic.
Is there an economic case for carving smaller states out of large ones? Some analysts say small states won’t be economically viable. Others believe small states will fare better, since ordinary people will have better access to power elites. Consider the record of three states carved out of larger ones in 2000 - Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. Ignore data for the first few transitional years. Instead, focus on the average growth rate of gross state domestic product for the last five years, from 2004-05 to 2008-09.
Amazingly, all three new states have grown fabulously fast. Uttarakhand has averaged 9.31% growth annually, Jharkhand 8.45%, and Chattisgarh 7.35%. All three states belong to what was historically called the BIMARU zone, a slough of despond where humans and economies stagnated. Out of this stagnant pool have now emerged highly dynamic states.
I am supporter for smaller states, especially in South India/Tamil Nadu.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The End of (American) Influence
Excerpts from "The End of Influence"
BY BRAD DELONG, STEPHEN COHEN | DECEMBER 23, 2009
For more than a quarter century now the countries of the world have been dreaming the neoliberals' dream. They have been trying to shrink their states back to their core competencies to promote economic efficiency, global economic integration, and growth, and to slash through red tape, rent-seeking, and simple corruption. They have been actively privatizing state holdings. They have hugely reduced their ownership and their active involvement in "national champion" companies. They have cut back on interventions to affect market outcomes and on regulation to scrutinize and control market players.
But now they are waking up. And the neoliberals' dream is at an end.
To understand why, we need to journey back to the mid-20th century. The coming of World War II ensured that whatever money still remained in Britain left quickly. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ruled an isolationist country that he wished to cajole into engaging in the war with Hitler as early and as completely as he could. But part of Roosevelt's strategy (and a not-altogether unwelcome consequence, for many who worked in the State, War, and Navy Building-a Victorian-era structure just west of the White House that looked like a French brothel) was to make Britain broke before American taxpayers' money was committed in any way to the fight against Hitler. Only after Britain had sold off the family silver to pay for the nozzle would America "lend" Britain its garden hose to fight the Hitlerian fire.
America did come to the aid of its closest, cherished, and most important embattled overseas ally after Britain was broke. The Grand Alliance was the great moment in the grand story of the English-speaking nations. It does remain Churchillian in the inherited grandeur of its narrative. And America did come to the rescue of England, and together-with enormous although unloved assistance from the Red Army of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin-America did save the world from the horrors of the Nazis. But while we were gearing up to come to the rescue, we squeezed the British, and when World War II was over, the United States, not Britain, had the money. When the British borrowed money from us, it had to be repaid in dollars, not in sterling. And imports into Britain had to be rationed well into the 1950s.
Will the United States be similarly squeezed? No. We are not engaged in a total war. We do not domestically produce only 1,200 calories of food per citizen per day. We are still by far the world's largest national economy. The United States is technologically powerful and resourceful and is still the center of world finance. World finance is still transacted in dollars. And the United States remains the world's only military superpower, whatever that may turn out to mean.
But the United States is losing the money. America is now massively in debt to foreigners and will be more in debt with each passing year as far into the future as forecasters can see. It will not be squeezed as it squeezed Britain, but it will be constrained.
Back when the United States had the money, it used it to pay attention to other governments only when it chose and to make certain that other governments paid attention to the United States even when they wished to not so choose. With the Marshall Plan, America made Western Europe an offer that all but forced Western Europe to adopt the mixed-economy social-democratic order of the post-World War II North Atlantic. It financed and arranged "regime change" in lesser countries to remove governments that seemed to be veering off into serious error. In all this, the United States used the leverage of having the money exclusively for the global greater good.
Who has the money now? What can they do with it? What are they holding? The smallest big batch of money held by other people is simply cash: greenbacks. Perhaps $450 billion, perhaps more, circulates abroad in cash, in hundred-dollar bills. Some countries, such as Panama and Ecuador, have formally gone over to a dollar economy. In other countries (such as Lebanon), cash dollars are widely used. Then, of course, many individuals and organizations prefer the anonymous convenience of hundred-dollar bills: drug dealers; arms merchants; Russian operators; Argentines and Eastern Europeans with doubts about their local currency; rich and not-so-rich Chinese, who live in a cash economy where the largest Chinese currency note in circulation is 100 yuan (about $15). Though not often discussed in polite company, seigniorage, that is, the ability to coin or print cash (the right held by a feudal seigneur) and have other folks hold it, is valuable: Those who hold the $100 bills have, for many, many years, been providing a substantial loan to the U.S. government -- and it's interest free!
The bigger big batches of dollar-denominated and U.S.-located assets -- and they are very big indeed -- are not cash but are rather investments. A great deal is held by private foreign individuals and organizations: Japanese housewives, German doctors, Scottish pension funds, Dutch companies, Colombian drug lords, Japanese insurance companies, sons of Gulf sheiks, and Russian "businessmen."
This money is private money. It belongs to market players -- people, companies, organizations, and institutions looking for the highest returns at the lowest risk. Much of the money is in the hands of the governments and rulers of oil-producing states (or in the hands of whatever or whoever holds their money). Truly great piles of U.S. obligations are in the hands of the governments of Asia. Japan holds about $1 trillion in reserves (which comes to almost $9,000 per U.S. household). Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore together hold something like $500 billion. Korea sits on another $200 billion.
But it's China that is the biggest holder of U.S. obligations, with some $2.5 trillion in "reserves," the lion's share of it in U.S. debt obligations. America owes unimaginably large amounts of money to lenders (such as China), about $20,000 per American household, three-fourths of China's GDP, a fact worth repeating, a fact that makes rapid repayment impossible.
Proverbs 22:7 instructs us: "The borrower is servant to the lender." But the lesson requires some exegesis to fit smoothly into context. The burden of the U.S. foreign debt may be better explained by the oft-repeated Wall Street wisecrack, which we repeat: When you owe the bank $1 million, the bank has got you; when you owe the bank $1 billion, you've got the bank.
Neither side can walk away; we're locked. The debt binds China especially and other governments that have the money. Selling the debt would send the dollar way down and thereby destroy the value of their dollar holdings and severely damage their economies' massive export-based sectors. Worse yet, sell it for what? Their "reserves" are so huge that there is nothing else they can hold them in, not at that scale. From a Chinese viewpoint, it's exasperating.
The U.S.-China economic imbalance has forced the two powers into a very intimate and not very desired embrace, something Lawrence Summers once called a financial balance of terror. This is all to the good: The two powers must learn to work as partners, and not just in economic matters -- global warming and global order also need positive Sino-American cooperation, and they are much more important long-term issues. Sino-American partnership, in managing the complex mess of their imbalanced economic codependency, can constitute a good beginning for managing the utterly unhinged problems of world balance and order. We have no acceptable choice but to get good at it, and that will take some doing on both sides.
As money alters power relations, the United States is not simply becoming dependent -- but it is no longer independent, either. That is a major change. And China is no longer helpless and cowed in face of the superpower hegemon; it has got a grip on it. Indeed, while the world peeks in, the two countries are realizing that they have thrown themselves into an intimate economic embrace with, to say the least, very mixed feelings.
For the past 30 years, America rather successfully propagated to itself and others a worldview of unfettered markets and "re-fettered" states: Expand the realm of markets in society and roll back the reach of other institutions, especially government. They backed that worldview with money and, until it crashed, this American outlook was willingly adopted by more and more people and governments around the globe. Soft power -- not military might, not straight-out money, but the ability to inspire acceptance and imitation -- was a vital component of American international dominance. It soothed the abrasiveness of military and economic power and made the wielders of such power feel good.
Money, of course, is power. Because America had the money -- had it solidly, rightfully, self-assuredly, and durably -- for about 100 years, people all over the world wanted to be like Americans: successful, modern, loose-jointed, efficient, democratic, socially mobile, leggy, clean, powerful, and, of course, rich. Money brings a nation power, not just the power to command, or at least influence, the behavior of other nations. And when the money accumulates over time and as a result of real economic success, and not just windfalls from guano or oil deposits, it brings the power to propagate, consciously or not, the ideas, concerns, fashions, norms, interests, amusements, and ways of displaying and behaving that come out of its culture. These penetrate deep down into other cultures as well as its own; they become part of daily life. This is luxuriant power: It doesn't have to be exercised willfully or even consciously, and it doesn't even cost anything extra. It was clearly the way to be.
As the United States emerged in the aftermath of World War I as the top power and giant money master, American jazz swept through Europe, faster than Ford and Kodak. Later, especially after World War II, Europeans eagerly welcomed the onslaught of American movies. Most Europeans encountered America at the movies, but two generations of rather privileged Europeans traveled to America to see for themselves (many sponsored by the State Department), to behold the skyscrapers of New York, the George Washington and Golden Gate bridges, and the houses of rather ordinary people with huge shiny cars, washing machines, televisions, and the orthodontically enhanced smiles on tall, milk- and meat-fed women.
American cultural dominance has continued to grow. Teenagers around the globe now uniformly dress in styles pioneered by American teens and have even adopted the same body language. They eat on the street. The American-designed, Asian-manufactured iPods fill their heads with the same harsh music; they instant-message, blog, and Tweet. And the English language -- not altogether an American cultural invention -- is not merely the international language, but also the second language for a vast global population: Languages carry more than their words and grammar; they carry cultural form and content.
America will be less and less the origin of new cultural trends or global memes: First, because the others now have the money. But also, because while America remains especially modern, the modern is no longer especially American; it is rapidly becoming semiglobal and if not old, at least very mature. There is no need to leave China to see skyscrapers; there are more of them in Shanghai than in New York, and they are newer, taller and bolder. The energy -- that key element in New York 1920s literature (e.g., Dos Passos) has, with the money, shifted its residence. For the foreign traveler now arriving at New York's Kennedy airport, the ride into Manhattan is still eye-opening, but in a new way: litter and slums line the Van Wyck Expressway through Jamaica, Queens, where rust and graffiti festoon the old transit trains and bridges; the roads are poor; there is no proper train into town -- let alone something as sleek and fast as in Hong Kong or Shanghai. Hollywood no longer has an inherited, built-in meganarrative -- the presentation of life in modernity in all its weird and quotidian forms: How women walk and speak, houses, murder, seduction, sex, kitchens, raising children, "making it," excursions, courtrooms, shopping centers, schools, hospitals, universities, and office buildings -- the world, perhaps of your future.
The culture created by America and exported by its movies is not gone; it's not even going. It has simply gone universal and is now open to a vastly expanded range of contributors. This is very likely to be a good thing for American and world culture, an opening to new ideas, talents, and energies. And America's ambient culture is being enriched by foreign imports ranging from soccer to sushi, not to mention energetic Ph.D.'s in material and biological sciences.
America is sure to remain a leader in cultural power, but there is a difference between being a cultural leader and an easy, almost un-self-conscious cultural dominance. Our research universities are the envy -- and model -- for the world. So too are our high-tech, biotech, and nanotech genre Silicon Valley-type firms, with their multinational, multiracial, and monocultural workforces of the bright, ambitious, educated, and driven. And there is also a powerful emergent American cultural force best represented by Barack and Michelle Obama: America might yet develop new meganarratives to succeed the world of modernity that will seize the world's hearts, fears, longings, and energies. But no matter how creative its creative people become, as in the realms of economic and political power, America is unlikely to remain the cultural hegemon, the overwhelmingly dominant source of cultural memes
BY BRAD DELONG, STEPHEN COHEN | DECEMBER 23, 2009
For more than a quarter century now the countries of the world have been dreaming the neoliberals' dream. They have been trying to shrink their states back to their core competencies to promote economic efficiency, global economic integration, and growth, and to slash through red tape, rent-seeking, and simple corruption. They have been actively privatizing state holdings. They have hugely reduced their ownership and their active involvement in "national champion" companies. They have cut back on interventions to affect market outcomes and on regulation to scrutinize and control market players.
But now they are waking up. And the neoliberals' dream is at an end.
To understand why, we need to journey back to the mid-20th century. The coming of World War II ensured that whatever money still remained in Britain left quickly. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ruled an isolationist country that he wished to cajole into engaging in the war with Hitler as early and as completely as he could. But part of Roosevelt's strategy (and a not-altogether unwelcome consequence, for many who worked in the State, War, and Navy Building-a Victorian-era structure just west of the White House that looked like a French brothel) was to make Britain broke before American taxpayers' money was committed in any way to the fight against Hitler. Only after Britain had sold off the family silver to pay for the nozzle would America "lend" Britain its garden hose to fight the Hitlerian fire.
America did come to the aid of its closest, cherished, and most important embattled overseas ally after Britain was broke. The Grand Alliance was the great moment in the grand story of the English-speaking nations. It does remain Churchillian in the inherited grandeur of its narrative. And America did come to the rescue of England, and together-with enormous although unloved assistance from the Red Army of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin-America did save the world from the horrors of the Nazis. But while we were gearing up to come to the rescue, we squeezed the British, and when World War II was over, the United States, not Britain, had the money. When the British borrowed money from us, it had to be repaid in dollars, not in sterling. And imports into Britain had to be rationed well into the 1950s.
Will the United States be similarly squeezed? No. We are not engaged in a total war. We do not domestically produce only 1,200 calories of food per citizen per day. We are still by far the world's largest national economy. The United States is technologically powerful and resourceful and is still the center of world finance. World finance is still transacted in dollars. And the United States remains the world's only military superpower, whatever that may turn out to mean.
But the United States is losing the money. America is now massively in debt to foreigners and will be more in debt with each passing year as far into the future as forecasters can see. It will not be squeezed as it squeezed Britain, but it will be constrained.
Back when the United States had the money, it used it to pay attention to other governments only when it chose and to make certain that other governments paid attention to the United States even when they wished to not so choose. With the Marshall Plan, America made Western Europe an offer that all but forced Western Europe to adopt the mixed-economy social-democratic order of the post-World War II North Atlantic. It financed and arranged "regime change" in lesser countries to remove governments that seemed to be veering off into serious error. In all this, the United States used the leverage of having the money exclusively for the global greater good.
Who has the money now? What can they do with it? What are they holding? The smallest big batch of money held by other people is simply cash: greenbacks. Perhaps $450 billion, perhaps more, circulates abroad in cash, in hundred-dollar bills. Some countries, such as Panama and Ecuador, have formally gone over to a dollar economy. In other countries (such as Lebanon), cash dollars are widely used. Then, of course, many individuals and organizations prefer the anonymous convenience of hundred-dollar bills: drug dealers; arms merchants; Russian operators; Argentines and Eastern Europeans with doubts about their local currency; rich and not-so-rich Chinese, who live in a cash economy where the largest Chinese currency note in circulation is 100 yuan (about $15). Though not often discussed in polite company, seigniorage, that is, the ability to coin or print cash (the right held by a feudal seigneur) and have other folks hold it, is valuable: Those who hold the $100 bills have, for many, many years, been providing a substantial loan to the U.S. government -- and it's interest free!
The bigger big batches of dollar-denominated and U.S.-located assets -- and they are very big indeed -- are not cash but are rather investments. A great deal is held by private foreign individuals and organizations: Japanese housewives, German doctors, Scottish pension funds, Dutch companies, Colombian drug lords, Japanese insurance companies, sons of Gulf sheiks, and Russian "businessmen."
This money is private money. It belongs to market players -- people, companies, organizations, and institutions looking for the highest returns at the lowest risk. Much of the money is in the hands of the governments and rulers of oil-producing states (or in the hands of whatever or whoever holds their money). Truly great piles of U.S. obligations are in the hands of the governments of Asia. Japan holds about $1 trillion in reserves (which comes to almost $9,000 per U.S. household). Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore together hold something like $500 billion. Korea sits on another $200 billion.
But it's China that is the biggest holder of U.S. obligations, with some $2.5 trillion in "reserves," the lion's share of it in U.S. debt obligations. America owes unimaginably large amounts of money to lenders (such as China), about $20,000 per American household, three-fourths of China's GDP, a fact worth repeating, a fact that makes rapid repayment impossible.
Proverbs 22:7 instructs us: "The borrower is servant to the lender." But the lesson requires some exegesis to fit smoothly into context. The burden of the U.S. foreign debt may be better explained by the oft-repeated Wall Street wisecrack, which we repeat: When you owe the bank $1 million, the bank has got you; when you owe the bank $1 billion, you've got the bank.
Neither side can walk away; we're locked. The debt binds China especially and other governments that have the money. Selling the debt would send the dollar way down and thereby destroy the value of their dollar holdings and severely damage their economies' massive export-based sectors. Worse yet, sell it for what? Their "reserves" are so huge that there is nothing else they can hold them in, not at that scale. From a Chinese viewpoint, it's exasperating.
The U.S.-China economic imbalance has forced the two powers into a very intimate and not very desired embrace, something Lawrence Summers once called a financial balance of terror. This is all to the good: The two powers must learn to work as partners, and not just in economic matters -- global warming and global order also need positive Sino-American cooperation, and they are much more important long-term issues. Sino-American partnership, in managing the complex mess of their imbalanced economic codependency, can constitute a good beginning for managing the utterly unhinged problems of world balance and order. We have no acceptable choice but to get good at it, and that will take some doing on both sides.
As money alters power relations, the United States is not simply becoming dependent -- but it is no longer independent, either. That is a major change. And China is no longer helpless and cowed in face of the superpower hegemon; it has got a grip on it. Indeed, while the world peeks in, the two countries are realizing that they have thrown themselves into an intimate economic embrace with, to say the least, very mixed feelings.
For the past 30 years, America rather successfully propagated to itself and others a worldview of unfettered markets and "re-fettered" states: Expand the realm of markets in society and roll back the reach of other institutions, especially government. They backed that worldview with money and, until it crashed, this American outlook was willingly adopted by more and more people and governments around the globe. Soft power -- not military might, not straight-out money, but the ability to inspire acceptance and imitation -- was a vital component of American international dominance. It soothed the abrasiveness of military and economic power and made the wielders of such power feel good.
Money, of course, is power. Because America had the money -- had it solidly, rightfully, self-assuredly, and durably -- for about 100 years, people all over the world wanted to be like Americans: successful, modern, loose-jointed, efficient, democratic, socially mobile, leggy, clean, powerful, and, of course, rich. Money brings a nation power, not just the power to command, or at least influence, the behavior of other nations. And when the money accumulates over time and as a result of real economic success, and not just windfalls from guano or oil deposits, it brings the power to propagate, consciously or not, the ideas, concerns, fashions, norms, interests, amusements, and ways of displaying and behaving that come out of its culture. These penetrate deep down into other cultures as well as its own; they become part of daily life. This is luxuriant power: It doesn't have to be exercised willfully or even consciously, and it doesn't even cost anything extra. It was clearly the way to be.
As the United States emerged in the aftermath of World War I as the top power and giant money master, American jazz swept through Europe, faster than Ford and Kodak. Later, especially after World War II, Europeans eagerly welcomed the onslaught of American movies. Most Europeans encountered America at the movies, but two generations of rather privileged Europeans traveled to America to see for themselves (many sponsored by the State Department), to behold the skyscrapers of New York, the George Washington and Golden Gate bridges, and the houses of rather ordinary people with huge shiny cars, washing machines, televisions, and the orthodontically enhanced smiles on tall, milk- and meat-fed women.
American cultural dominance has continued to grow. Teenagers around the globe now uniformly dress in styles pioneered by American teens and have even adopted the same body language. They eat on the street. The American-designed, Asian-manufactured iPods fill their heads with the same harsh music; they instant-message, blog, and Tweet. And the English language -- not altogether an American cultural invention -- is not merely the international language, but also the second language for a vast global population: Languages carry more than their words and grammar; they carry cultural form and content.
America will be less and less the origin of new cultural trends or global memes: First, because the others now have the money. But also, because while America remains especially modern, the modern is no longer especially American; it is rapidly becoming semiglobal and if not old, at least very mature. There is no need to leave China to see skyscrapers; there are more of them in Shanghai than in New York, and they are newer, taller and bolder. The energy -- that key element in New York 1920s literature (e.g., Dos Passos) has, with the money, shifted its residence. For the foreign traveler now arriving at New York's Kennedy airport, the ride into Manhattan is still eye-opening, but in a new way: litter and slums line the Van Wyck Expressway through Jamaica, Queens, where rust and graffiti festoon the old transit trains and bridges; the roads are poor; there is no proper train into town -- let alone something as sleek and fast as in Hong Kong or Shanghai. Hollywood no longer has an inherited, built-in meganarrative -- the presentation of life in modernity in all its weird and quotidian forms: How women walk and speak, houses, murder, seduction, sex, kitchens, raising children, "making it," excursions, courtrooms, shopping centers, schools, hospitals, universities, and office buildings -- the world, perhaps of your future.
The culture created by America and exported by its movies is not gone; it's not even going. It has simply gone universal and is now open to a vastly expanded range of contributors. This is very likely to be a good thing for American and world culture, an opening to new ideas, talents, and energies. And America's ambient culture is being enriched by foreign imports ranging from soccer to sushi, not to mention energetic Ph.D.'s in material and biological sciences.
America is sure to remain a leader in cultural power, but there is a difference between being a cultural leader and an easy, almost un-self-conscious cultural dominance. Our research universities are the envy -- and model -- for the world. So too are our high-tech, biotech, and nanotech genre Silicon Valley-type firms, with their multinational, multiracial, and monocultural workforces of the bright, ambitious, educated, and driven. And there is also a powerful emergent American cultural force best represented by Barack and Michelle Obama: America might yet develop new meganarratives to succeed the world of modernity that will seize the world's hearts, fears, longings, and energies. But no matter how creative its creative people become, as in the realms of economic and political power, America is unlikely to remain the cultural hegemon, the overwhelmingly dominant source of cultural memes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)