Lecture 12 POLS2402 (Beijing consensus)

Lecture 12 POLS2402 (Beijing consensus) - POLS2402 Final...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
POLS2402 Final lecture (L12) 26 October 2011 Essay topic (due 7 November): In view of the issues and controversies raised in the course materials, critically comment on whether domestic or national political possibilities have or have not been constrained by the upsurge in global economic activity since the mid-1970s. i.e. you should reflect the views you’ve formed on the following matters: - whether there’s something properly called a ‘global economy’ with a logic of its own and which national states (polities) are unable to control - whether capitalist economies have always constrained domestic ‘political possibilities’ (and whether they should) - whether ‘globalization’ makes this political project harder. The 3 major traditions of analysis in political economy – liberalism, marxism, conservatism – produce 3 different answers to these questions: Liberalism claims globalization is inevitable and desirable; marxism claims globalization is inevitable but undesirable; and conservatism claims globalization is neither inevitable nor desirable. Liberal political economy claims wealth is enhanced by market mechanisms (free enterprise, free trade, individual decisions, minimal political interference); it obviously prioritizes freedom and claims that this is the best guarantor of development/ prosperity. Marxian political economy also claims that market mechanisms and free enterprise (unimpeded capitalism) have been responsible for wealth- generation, but claims that capitalism’s success is compromised by its exploitative (& anti-democratic) aspects and by its perpetual crisis tendencies – which will eventually be responsible for its demise. National or conservative political economy , sometimes referred to as the mercantilist perspective, claims the liberal economists have always underestimated the importance of politics in economic development; the tradition isn’t too worried about exploitation but claims orthodoxy simply doesn’t want to acknowledge that the state always played a major role in wealth-creation.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
So the course, and the assessment, demands that you take a stand on these conceptual aspects of the questions that preoccupy political economy. You might want to illustrate parts of your answer with empirical or historical examples, e.g. cross-national movements of finance (mainly speculative) internationalization of production (division of labour) increased trade (as % of total economic activity), but the main task is to reflect on more general, timeless, recurrent, difficult intellectual conundrums – should political institutions have the capacity to disrupt market forces?
Background image of page 2
The ‘Beijing consensus’ China’s own path (self-conscious, politically-chosen development) for integration with the international economy - in a way that preserves independence
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/16/2012 for the course POLS 2402 taught by Professor Dow during the Three '11 term at Queensland.

Page1 / 8

Lecture 12 POLS2402 (Beijing consensus) - POLS2402 Final...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online