Dani Rodrik’s pessimism on democracy: let the debate begin!

“the capitalists will use their wealth to buy votes to get power to exploit the masses”
sounds to me like a good analysis of the US during the Bush period…

Nice tipoff, I’ll be keeping an eye out for this.

Its not quite the same question but I do wonder whether Dani’s book will look directly or otherwise at long-term trends of increasing income inequality, declining social mobility and, perhaps most critically, declining real incomes in the lower two quintiles of households. These trends are most unambiguous in the UK and US, but are also evident elsewhere to varying extents, and are likely to accelerate in the decade or so following the financial crisis.

Even before the crisis, these trends seemed quite at odds with sustainable democracy.

Interesting point. If those two evils cancel each other out within the confines of the democratic capitalist nation-state then what occurs at the international level? Would it be fair to say that that global economic order, which is almost entirely capitalistic, has no democratic restraints for keeping in check the abuse of power by the wealthy?

In the mid summer of 2008, Russia invaded a neighbouring sovereign country, in order in its view to protect a separatist region of Georgia that is sympathetic and loyal to Russia. Whilst the premise for the invasion of Georgian territory by Russian troops was based on defensive retaliation and a perceived collective security obligation by Russia for the people of south Ossetia the separatist region in Georgia with a Russian majority population, the real dilemma that the conflict presents to the international community, is the issue regarding territorial sovereignty and integrity, the importance of sovereignty by the international community is demonstrated by the founding principle of the U.N charter under article 2.8 and 2.4. Which stresses the important of territorial integrity for any member of the U.N . Yet since the end of the cold war questions and problems have surrounded the principle of sovereignty. There are numerous cases where the inviolability of sovereignty in international relations, with states has been totally disregarded, not only with Russia but with many of the great power, the U.S invasion of Iraq also raises questions over the importance of sovereignty. the actions of nations in the 21st century appear to necessitate a revision on the concept of sovereignty and more importantly its inviolability in the 21st century. Many examples within international relations appear to diminish the importance of sovereignty, such as the evolution of the E.U, which places greater emphasis on mutual inter-dependence amongst its members rather than clearly defined territorial boundaries that has been a feature of Europe since the treaty of Westphalia.
The U.N appears to be a inadequate mechanism and framework for its members in enforcing and respecting sovereignty. Especially since the end of the cold war and the idea of humanitarian intervention becoming an increasingly important paradigm for international affairs, with cases such as Sierra Leone and Kossovo, demonstrating the need for intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations, a seemingly direct contravention of the Sovereignty centric UN charter.

There has been many calls recently to conduct major reform of the UN structure and its principles no less from the former UN secretary general Kofi Anan in 2005, the main arguments if for altering the security council in order to better serve the new international order and to better represent the shifting power of certain states in the world, if this were to happen then the issue of sovereignty should be placed on the reform agenda of the UN, the dilemma the reformists face is whether there Should be a more muscular UN that could inhibit the actions of the great powers such as Russia and the U.S who at times disregard the principle of sovereignty according to their whim. Or should the U.N no longer focus on the centrality of sovereignty in international relations thus reflecting the nature of an anarchical international system?

Its difficult to predict and determine how the shifting hegemony’s in the world will affect the international community whats clear is whilst the U.S retains the title of a hyper-power, which as yet is not rivalled, there are challengers, most notably China, but also the other BRICs, (Brazil Russia and India , and perhaps also South Africa. Yet whilst world power is shifting it is important to stress that China, Russia and U.S were the three great powers who emerged after the Second World War being gifted along with Britain and France with permanents seats at the UN Security Council, it seems most probable that they will be great powers in 100 years times, albeit with a few extra companions. this is crucial as it is these nations that have built the U.N on the basis of sovereignty as the central ideal of the international community, even if at times they ignore and abuse that principle. Thus this would suggest that sovereignty still has a place in the 21st centrality. yet this story is incomplete, if sovereignty is to remain as a pillar of international relations then many issues will remain unresolved, much of this related to the processes of globalisation that in many quarters such as global communication and the spread of the inter-net has transcended the conventional barriers that guarantee sovereignty for a nation , a case in point is the row between Google and China that has erupted in 2010, Google has been desperate to dictate it own ideological belief based on freedom and access to information when operating in China, against the will of the sovereign PRC government. It is non-state entities such as google that have the capacity and audacity to challenge conventional attitudes and view of sovereignty in the world.

One compelling argument put forward by Robert Kagen is the idea of complementing the U.N with a new organisation that places not the nation state and its sovereignty at the heart of the international community, but the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy where nations can unite with the same principles and beliefs for furthering the well-being of humanity this would set a new paradigm, he calls this the League of Democracies. This League would perhaps support Google’s actions against the sovereign will of China for the furtherance of the ideals it supports.

Yet as yet the issue of sovereignty and its place in the 21st is still unresolved the current global financial crisis, has demonstrated that states are primarily realist and will behaves not in a collective manner but individually albeit co-dependently. If the majority of states still follow the principles of Realism, then they will protect the principle of sovereignty as a mean to guarantee their self interest. In 2010 this appears more the case than ever, yet the wind of change is in the air and as the Russian Novelist Yamyatin once said “there are no final revolutions, revolutions are infinite.

Democracy, globalization, the nation state are not mutually compatible, you can only pick 2 out of 3.

This isn’t a fair treatment of the argument. Which is simply that there are trade offs between deep global integration, the nation state and democracy. So you can easily have some globalisation and maintain democratic systems, but you can also push it too far. There’s a tension, a balancing act and Rodrik simply argues that we make decisions based on the whole picture.

Also, if you want examples of globalisation cramping democracy you need only look to your previous post on China – China now has significant economic clout in most of the developed world. Something which it uses to constrain speech and protest it doesn’t like. In other words, globalisation infringing on democratic spaces.

This doesn’t mean globalisation is bad, or that trade with China is bad, it just means that trade offs are involved and that we should make decisions in light of these.

I thought economists were meant to be good with the whole trade off thing?

What is so interesting to me is that the book seems to be picking up on decisions that will be made as the 21st century progresses. For instance, technology in the present would readily allow locals to interact globally in democratic ways, with limited need for economic patterns of the old nation/state paradigm of the last several hundred years.

Didn´t Joseph Schumpeter argue that Democracy and Capatilism are incompatible? Must re-read Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, just to see what old ideas are rehashed here.

‘we do observe a lot of diversity of policies in the rich globalized economies, and they became rich all the same.’

Looking at this from a legal and historical perspective, I find that argument rather disingenuous. The states who became ‘rich and globalized’ did not have to deal with the international constraints — the legal underpinnings of economic globalization — that are currently imposed on developing and emerging countries.

They could default their way out of debt crises, destroy their environment, enslave their own or other populations, repress labor, be non-democratic in general, and use war to pursue political (and economic) aims, etc.

The Dutch, the British, the French and the US did not become ’success stories’ by following the rules that are today impose don other countries.

I suspect this is what Rodrik is going for, but I’ll just have to wait to read him.