Category: A Different View

The term ‘Economic Growth’ has, in the collective consciousness, rapidly evolved into the answer towards all social issues, from poverty to unemployment. The term has flooded the popular narrative to such an extent that even laymen tend to use it frequently and quite facilely. In effect, it has become such a natural and ‘common sense’ term that no one deems it necessary to critically unpack it. Undoubtedly, it was the historical process of theoretical and practical ideas about how capitalism ought to work that made this term such a popular one. But this begs the question: When we speak of economic growth, do we intend a rise in GDP or rather socio-economic development? Are we referring to an increase in output or to the way this impacts on the socio-economic welfare of society?

For the purpose of this discussion, and in order to distinguish between the two, it is necessary to provide a definition of both terms. Economic growth refers to an increase in output (of services and goods) and is usually measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). On the other hand, economic development refers to the standard of living and economic health of a region, including factors such as human capital, level of education, infrastructure, social inclusion and the quality of healthcare among others. It is usually measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). Economic development is therefore a wider concept than economic growth, which is why Amartya Sen argues that “economic growth is one aspect of the process of economic development.”

Although GDP could be quite useful as a measurement of analysis, at other times it suffers from serious limitations. A critical understanding of what it means and when it should be used or not is crucial in order to generate an objective picture of what is being measured. A cross-country comparison by GDP would immediately suggest which country is faring better economically and which less so. A comparison of countries by GDP over a period of years would seemingly show which countries are growing most/least economically over the years measured. At face value, statistically, it would seem to generate a perfectly adequate picture (and for an initial, crude idea it would probably be sufficient). Yet if one means to scrutinise the object of investigation in an intellectually honest and nuanced way, the rather simplistic GDP measurement would be simply insufficient, which is why it is only an indicator of a country’s economy.

Economic growth, therefore, only considers the overall amount of products and services. It fails to provide an understanding of the way these resources are allocated. Whether it is the distribution of income or access to services such as healthcare and education, the measure of growth is simply not capable of measuring for them. Let us consider the latter example. If both healthcare and education are privatised to their large extent, a portion of the social stratum of those under the poverty line could potentially be driven into a situation where it would be incapable of gaining access to such resources. From a macroeconomic point of view, the economy might be growing (because hospitals and schools are being built, and services diversified); yet because they are privatised, access to them is partially restricted. Apart from the social injustice argument, from a socio-economic point of view, this is not tangibly improving the standard of living of every stratum of society. Incidentally this is one reason why economically liberal countries such as the U.S are falling behind countries such as Norway (when it comes to social progress), even if Norway does not even begin to compare with the U.S in terms of GDP.

To be sure, economic growth does hold the potential for bettering human development. In most cases it in fact does manage to translate into a higher human development index (and therefore it is, generally speaking, a good indicator of the level of development). Yet, potential does not imply certainty; it is not a logical cause-effect phenomenon. Let us take another example for consideration: If economic growth does manage to increase employment, but this employment is not regulated and/or is not up to standard, poverty will not decrease. Technically economic growth did lead to higher employment but tangibly it did nothing to improve the lives of the people. So quantity is not synonymous to quality. Neither does productivity automatically increase wages. In the last 30 years, in the U.S, the gap between productivity and wages keeps soaring, while the cost of living also kept rising. This means that one factor of economic growth could fail to improve the standard of living. A better measurement of the standard of living is, in such cases, the GNI per capita (Gross national income as divided by the number of people).

The problem with the GNI per capita (even when adjusted for inflation and/or for purchasing power parity – PPP) lies in its being an average. The relationship between economic growth, inequality and poverty is, in the context of such a discussion, of a crucial nature. The GNI per capita, just like the GDP, ignores the distribution and allocation of resources – in this case income. Let us imagine a scenario where a country is experiencing wide income inequality between the rich and the poor. Even if at a point in time economic growth is realised it could, hypothetically speaking, get absorbed into the top stratum of society, and neither the average GNI nor the GDP would account for the welfare it has achieved, or lack thereof (see Piketty’s argument where the rate of return on capital is higher than the rate of economic growth). Not only would they not account for it but, on the one hand, the GDP would show a healthier state of the economy, while from the GNI per capita, because of its being an average, one could erroneously infer that per capita (for each head/person) income has increased. For this reason, generating a median GNI rather than average would be more accurate in depicting the income distribution of a country or region.

If growth is absorbed by a small percent of society, its benefits could fail to materialise in a more distributed way. The rest of society, therefore, experiences no positive effects from this generated growth. This argument is reminiscent of critics of trickle-down economics who argue that the whole concept of trickle-down economics was absurd at best and Machiavellian at worst. They contend that a reduction in taxes for the sake of generating investment (which positive effects would then trickle-down onto the rest of the populace) would only be of benefit to those investing. The practical experiences and long-term effects of the liberal market economies such as the U.S and the U.K  generally seem to support this argument- a significant argument if there ever was one, especially in the context of growing economic inequality in developed countries.

The crux of the argument is, however, that economic growth is no guarantee of across-the-board welfare. Indeed, rising income inequality in tandem with economic growth throws light on the ‘paradox of economic growth’. The case of Indonesia shows how a country could experience a significant level of growth, yet be plagued by income polarisation (measured by the GINI coefficient). This is not simply a problem of developing countries, but is also acute in developed ones. Even if one argues that income equality should not be something to strive for, especially if everyone is becoming better off, one should posit the question: Is the statement ‘everyone is becoming better off’ embedded in factual data? Because the one thing that the experiences of more economically liberal countries have taught us in the last few decades is that even in peak periods of growth, it is possible for wages to remain stagnant – certainly not in tandem with productivity and even more so with the cost of living.

Further concerns with regards to the implications of the GDP measurement are environmental issues (where a higher ouput level could affect negatively the environment – eg. in coal and gold mines, see the Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea or the controversial Newmont Corporation in Peru); corruption issues (where a higher GDP could be absorbed by elites in rents through a corrupted system ); and incarceration issues (where the privatisation of the prison industry could create a situation where a higher rate of incarceration translates into a higher GDP level). What this essentially means is that a country could experience economic growth while at the same time human development and the standard of living become sluggish or at worst deteriorate.

The mantra ‘growth for growth’s sake’ therefore seems, in such a discussion, rather irrational. The policy towards the pursuit of economic growth has become so natural to our way of doing things, and such an automatic response to any ailment and problem of society, that somewhere along the way the end-goal of development was lost into its means. In order to regain the purpose, the sensible answer would be to take a step back and think critically on what we mean by ‘economic growth’; on the limitations of ‘economic growth’; on what the GDP measures and implies; on how to provide for the best institutional environment in which the positive effects of ‘economic growth’ could be achieved and distributed to all; on, after all, why ‘economic growth’. As the Human Development Report 1996 underlines, “human development is the end – economic growth is the means”.

Image Source: Simon Cunningham

Related content

Political myths of post-socialist Eastern Europe (continuation) – The Intellectual-PoliticianJets and PoliticsThe Use and Abuse of the AnalogiesOutsourcing the migrants’ crisis

The devastation of an atom bomb displayed in the closing moments of the Second World War in Japan, was an indicator of the monstrosity of modern warfare and its indiscriminate effects on civilians. The ferocity of modern warfare has thus prompted states to settle differences through negotiations and peace accords to avoid unnecessary devastation to human life. A foreign policy tool that has been used frequently in recent years, is the application of economic sanctions to states that break international laws. Economic sanctions suppresses or excludes national economies from participating in the global trade system, where states trade with each other to increase their relative gains. However, the application of sanctions directly threatens the well-being of poor people in the sanction receiving country. In this article I explore the morality of applying economic sanctions to countries which are deemed a security risk for the world.

The most recent and ongoing economic sanctions are those that have been imposed on Russia by the US and the European Union. The sanctions targeted Russia’s state finances, energy and arms sectors which are mostly controlled by President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle on Russia’s alleged proxy war in Ukraine. In 2002, the EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe for electoral fraud and human rights abuses under the watch of President Robert Mugabe. However, the EU has since eased some restrictions of the sanctions but have maintained an assets freeze and travel ban for Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace for another year.

The most long running examples of economic sanctions are Cuba, North Korea and Iran. North Korea after signing the armistice which halted the Korean War in 1953, is possibly the most economically and politically isolated country in the world. In 1979 after the Islamic revolution in Iraq, the US imposed sanctions on Iran and in 1984 the US altogether broke off diplomatic relations due to a hostage crisis which ensued that year between the two nations. Cuba was also hit with sanctions by the US and they have been operational for about 53 years. Other countries that have been sanctioned are Syria and Sudan just to name a few.

Economic sanctions can be applied in two forms which are selective or comprehensive. The selective form of sanctions targets certain elements of an economy, to try and force the intended resolution out of countries. The comprehensive form of sanctions cuts of a country’s economy from participating in international trade.
How are economic sanctions relatable to human rights?

The United Nations website briefly summarises the principle tenets of human rights:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly in 1948, sets out basic rights and freedoms to which all women and men are entitled — among them the right to life, liberty and nationality; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to work and to be educated; the right to food and housing; and the right to take part in government.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights is built on the concept of individualism where each and every individual is granted the right to live a quality life. In this theory, no human being is to be discriminated against on the grounds of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or any other differences a human being inhibits.

The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights a think tank for the United Nations Commisions on Human Rights ceased to exist in 2006. However, The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights In its resolution 1997/35 of 28 August 1997, entitled “Adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights”, criticised the effects of applying economic sanctions to countries. In this discussion, four major points were made in relation to the application of economic sanctions:

They should always be limited in time, (1) (fourth preambular paragraph);
(ii) They most seriously affect the innocent population, especially the most vulnerable (fifth preambular paragraph);
(iii) They aggravate imbalances in income distribution (sixth preambular paragraph);
(iv) They generate illegal and unethical business practices (seventh preambular paragraph).

The main aim of sanctions are to force a halt to the actions of unscrupulous leaders and governments, who are deemed to have flouted international laws, or are a risk to global peace and security. Arguably, whether sanctions are selective or comprehensive, the effects of such actions usually do not deter the political elite of a country because in most cases, the elite have the means to survive an economic meltdown. For example, the leaders of Iran, Cuba and North Korea, who have for decades been under economic sanctions, have still managed to be in power for decades with comprehensive sanctions put in place. Zimbabwe which was sanctioned in 2002 has still maintained Robert Mugabe as its leader, despite the economic meltdown which has lowered the quality of life in a country, which was once called the bread basket of Africa. Russia which is the recently sanctioned country has seen Putin’s popularity ratings in opinion polls surge to an all-time high despite the fall in value of the Russian rouble. Then one asks the question that if the economic sanctions do no dent the political elite of a country, why punish the poor who are the most vulnerable to economic shocks cause by economic sanctions?

Economic sanctions usually punish the wrong people who are powerless or voiceless in the face of their unscrupulous leaders or governments. In North Korea, there have been allegations that poverty has induced people to resort to cannibalism because of the comprehensive sanctions imposed on them. In 2012, 230 defectors who were interviewed by the Korean Institute for National Unification, claimed that scores of people were arrested for selling or having eaten human flesh. Reports of cannibalism in North Korea spread during the early 1990s when an estimated 2 million people died due to famine. It then becomes problematic to defend the application of sanctions when they directly threaten the existence of individual human rights which are applicable to all the members of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

It becomes difficult to defend economic sanctions because the primary intended objectives as in the case of the aforementioned countries, have failed. If leaders of a country decide to take the course which violates international laws, the citizens of a country usually have no influence on such matters more especially in authoritarian regimes. The citizens of a country are usually defenceless in the face of a government which has the monopoly of physical coercion and total power. Why should the general populace be punished for Mugabe, Putin, Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro’s mistakes?

Human rights are a contested concept but the Universal Declaration of 1948 argues that all human beings are to be treated fairly, without discriminating them on the grounds of race, nationality, sexual orientation or gender. The application of economic sanctions targets certain nationalities who are bundled under one umbrella over the mistakes of unscrupulous leaders who have the wealth to survive a closed economy. To generalise a group of people together can be seen as a violation of human rights because most citizens of the aggrieved country are innocent of their leaders’ policies towards other states.

In conclusion, many states are members of the United Nations and have signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The Declaration embodies a common language for states that gives emphasis on upholding individual rights, promoting equality for all, regardless of their race, gender, creed, colour or mental capacity. The use of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool which tries to subjugate or deter unscrupulous leaders from breaking international laws can be seen as a violation of human rights. When national economies are sabotaged by other nations, it is the poorest of a country who are vulnerable to economic meltdowns induced by sanctions. In most cases, the leaders of countries like North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Zimbabwe are still functional today, and this questions the morality of applying economic sanctions which rarely achieve the intended effects. Looked at from this angle, I argue that economic sanctions are a violation of human rights because individual rights of people in a country are disregarded by grouping a whole nation together for the mistakes of a few leaders.

At the time of writing, the US under the presidency of Barack Obama has taken Cuba off their list of countries which sponsor terrorism. This is an attempt by Obama’s  administration to normalise relations between the US and Cuba.

Image Source: Flickr

Related content

Whose war is the war against Jihadists?Should prisoners be allowed to vote in the upcoming UK election?Cinema and politics: Whiplash (2014) and the boundaries of democratic education systemsEnergy security: In the end is it all about thermodynamics?

“The personal is political”, so says the title of the essay written by the feminist Carol Hanisch. And the same goes for love and politics although many seem to find the connection between the two complicated, confusing and at times even non-existent.

Image Source: Regan76

On Defining Love and Politics

To start off the discussion, both themes of love and politics are difficult to define. Both words are “loaded” in the sense that there is confusion and argument regarding the semantics of both themes. Politics—as any student of Political Science knows for a fact—has multitudes of meaning embedded in varying contexts. Every definition has similarities, differences based on the prevalent thinking and values at the time as well as material conditions that allow for such a definition of Politics to exist. From the time of ancient Greek Philosophers, to the Medieval Period, the Renaissance and the Modern Age and/or present time, the definition of Politics has taken up on a lot of meanings making each and every definition—albeit the similarities and differences—unique on its own. This can be the same for trying to define “love”. Love to be given an operational definition is truly difficult. Love, like Politics has also been defined to suit the needs of a particular field of study, a certain time or place, a situation, a person or even a group of people. Love like Politics, has many existing forms/kinds.

Hannah Arendt, a political philosopher claimed that “love is the most powerful of all anti-political human forces” in her work The Human Condition. She makes it so that love is inherently “unworldly” as opposed to how she considers how “public” political actions are—in other words, material and part of this world. Arendt also provides a definition of the polis originating from Aristotle’s bios politikos (political life) where she clearly argues that to be “political” means to be free from all human endeavors in order to maintain life or to further and support one’s social/economic organization and condition. It is also important to note how Arendt distinguishes her definition of politics from how it is defined at present. For Arendt, politics transcends humanity— that humans will die but the political sphere shall remain. What she considers as public, political actions therefore include the instrumental nature of political activity such as government processes which are oftentimes self-serving and in government legislation, the practice of compromising between vested interests with the objective of meeting and providing the needs of its constituents. It is this juxtaposition of the nature of love and politics that make Arendt consider the two as somewhat, the antithesis of one another. Using her definitions of love and of politics, one of the assumptions which can be made is that love in itself creates a separate world, something unworldly for the individual thus making it a very personal experience. This is in contrast with the nature of politics which in its instrumentalist sense is considered as a tool to further one’s interests in order to possess worldly or material wealth. Whereas Arendt considers love as private, passionate and unselfish, politics on the other hand has become public, materialistic and restricted.

The Politics of Love

But then, we go back to the maxim that the personal is political and we can go as far to say that the political is personal. Accordingly, since love is considered as personal from Arendt’s point of view, it would be inevitable to say that love is and can be political.

There are different perspectives which can be used in analyzing love particularly in the fields of political science and philosophy. For instance, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince at a time when religious dogmas dominated realistic/materialistic views. At this time of political instability, Machiavelli envisioned a secular government in Italy. In his time, he advocated that it was better for a ruler to be feared than to be loved. He considered that being feared guarantees loyalty much better than love. For Machiavelli, depending on emotions such as love breeds insecurity. For him, it was better to have the people depend on you due to fear of the consequences of losing you, rather than depend on you due to love for your company.

Another theory as to how love is political involves, gender politics, feminists and Marxists. Love here is viewed as a manifestation of social dominance of a group over another. For example, love’s customs and socially constructed language are considered designed to empower men and disempower women. This gives way to the social dominance of men over women. This theory also spells out that love is produced due to patriarchy and is parallel to Marx’s view of religion as being the opiate of the people—with love being the opiate of women.

It is no surprise therefore that a concept and emotion such as love is used as a political leverage. Anyone who has probably read history, novels or watched political dramas is certain to encounter the collision of love and politics. There have even been studies conducted to attest that political ideologies can affect relationships between people, particularly the romantic notion of love. Aside from having difficulties in defining love and politics, both themes are also considered as part of human nature, if not almost second nature. If love is complicated, so is politics and when the two are mixed chaos is sure to arise. At present, the study of emotions in general, aside from love is important to understanding politics. As it is, the notions of “being in love” or “loving another” if brushed aside can be a step to empowerment—a theory which is often striking for many feminists and Marxists who view social relations as deeper social structures responsible for dividing races, classes and sexes.

The language of love has always been complex and most of the time, undefinable if not experienced first-hand, they say. Meanwhile, the language of politics has gained a lot of color and thus has become misconstrued. Though this might be the case, in both arenas the option to play the game fair or not, has always remained.

Related content

Is it time for the US to rethink its foreign policy towards Syria?A grand strategy for a Lame DuckThe Welfare-State: catchphrase or multivariate universe?The Scottish National Party and Independence (Part I): The Scottish Parliament