This chapter examines politicist frameworks of political economy.
Politicism
Economics "in the service of power" or as "reflection of power relationships" is the theme of this chapter. The writers and models examined here have in common the view that politics or power is, can be, or should be dominant over economic processes. This view leads to or develops from the criticism of economics as failing to take account of power. (p. 71)
But these views aren't just intended to correct apolitical economics; they arise from a much different tradition with a longer lineage than liberalism.
Politicism is associated with the philosophical tradition that sees the state as an organism with interests higher than those of the individual citizens. This tradition is traced from Plato through Roman Law forward to nineteenth century nationalist thought.
Mercantilism has roots in this tradition, as does corporatism.
But there is another strand of politicism separate from the statist, organic tradition. This includes the institutionalists.
Corporatism: "Societal" and "Statist"
Corporatist: regimes in which governmental and private sector insitutions interlock. The interlocking may be formalized in constitutional provisions or it may subvert formal allocations of authority.
Societal corporatism: the intersection of public and private sectors is partial and reciprocal (such as the Scandanavian countries or the UK)
State corporatism: the inititative and locus of control are heavily on the side of the state (such as Latin American bureaucratic authoritarian countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico)
Societal corporatism is thought to be "a component of the postliberal, advanced capitalist organized democratic welfare state." (p. 75)
State corporatism is thought to be a result of "'delayed capitalist development,' in which the state has taken a dominant, autonomous role in shaping both the distribution of power within society and the direction of economic development." (p. 75)
"Interactive" and "Deterministic" Theory
Societal and state corporatism correspond to interactive and deterministic theories.
In societal corporatist nations "government" is seen as solving problems generated by "society," rather than as a distinct entity pursuing its own purpose. (All talk of "national interest" aside.) Thus, interactive theories are highly applicable to description of these nations.
In state corporatist nations, the political order determines the economic order. Political power is centralized, there is no significant middle class, and politics tends to be a zero-sum game. Thus determinstic theories concerned with conflict, etc. are better for describing these countries than interactive ones.
"Societal Corporatism" and Economic Power
Versus individualist economists you have Institutionalists (Veblens, Galbraith, etc.)
They emphasize the central role of conflict in the economy. The concentrate on "noneconomic" factors that are ignored by orthodox economics.
(p. 78)They see capitalism as evolving under the influence both of market dynamics and of the conflicting organized interests and priorities which give it rise.
They see a great role for things like actual planning and antitrust laws.
From the private side, as corporations become larger they become more concerned about security and accept closer relations with government in an attempt to limit market uncertainty. So institutionalists suggest political action to protect consumers. You end up with a mixed economy.
[The theory of institutionalists and neoinstitutionalists] arises from close observation of the problems of economies already well advanced in industrialization. Their prescriptions are intended to demesticate capitalism, to preserve the principles and institutions that made it dynamic while protecting people who have been hurt by its operational excesses." (p. 80)
"State Corporatism": The German Problem
There is a German tradition of believing that "the individual realizes himself and his freedom through the state." (p. 83)
German socialists assumed that "economic power could be mustered to reshape the state in accordance with the program of a particular class and its leaders." (p. 87)
State Corporatism in the third World
"...the idea of supremacy of the state became associated with theories of the corporate state as establishe notably in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Germany itself." (p. 88)
Corporatism became a theoretical synonym for fascism.
This connotation distorted discussions of corporatism in the Third World.
In Third World countries, such as in Latin America, development produced big changes in the holders of power. From landowning oligarchies to populaist regimes.
Similar to the late-developing European countries, the stregnth of the state was partly due to historical precedent and partly due to the lack of a viable middle class.
they developed a type of neomercantilist populist regime that managed external economic relations and provided public support for domestic industrialization.
State corparatism was often not totalitaian in that it left autonomy to the main organized interests. [It was pointed out earlier that this often left the unorganized interests out in the cold with little or no influence.]
Radicals criticize this interpretation as ignoring the influence of foreign business interests. "Political stability" is important because it is desired by the multinationals that wish to invest in the country.
Corporatism and Statism: The Phillipines and Taiwan
Staniland discusses state corporatism in the Phillipines.
After imposing martial law in 1972 Marcos set up a corporatist regime. It included:
central economic development and planning agencies that answered to the president
state involvement in economic sectors it didn't want controlled by multinationals, but that Filipino entrepreneurs were ill-suited for
a hierarchy of labor and business organizations that made up a "Tripartite Congress of Labor, Management and Government"
media and the professions were state-organized and regulated, and granted participation in plicymaking in return for submitting to regulation
political opposition organizations were dismantled
In general, the regime ideology emphasized hierarchy, discipline, and national welfare as objectives for society.
Stauffer, who Staniland is reviewing here, noted that the corporatist nationalism was paradoxical since it served international business interests very well. He also noted that multinationals require the sort of guarantees [stability?] that authoritarianism can offer.
Staniland sums up:
The theories and cases reviewed in this chapter have in common the belief that power and political institutions can and do influence economic life; in some cases, the belief that they should define the national or public interest and enforce it against the self-interested claims of individuals, cartels, and classes; and, in certain cases, the belief that the state is a higher entity endowed with this duty. They also assume that the nation-state provides the appropriate framework for analysis and prescription. This is true whether we are talking about very general explanatory theories, about normative theories (such as mercantilism) that urge primacy of politics, or about more limited analytical categories (such as corporatism) that depict regimes in which the state is accorded preeminence over sectional interests and has created institutions to express and reinforce such dominance. (p. 96-97)
What distinguishes "politicist" theory; what are its strengths and weaknesses.
The unifying assumption of politicist writing is clear enough: it is that politics and political institutions can be independently influential, that they are not merely dependent on economic processes, and that power may be a decisively important dimension of the economic system itself. (p. 97)
Notes that there is no general theory of politicism (equivalent to liberalism or Marxism). One reason is the dominance of liberalism in Western society and the fact that liberalisms main rival is "democratic" rather than "national" socialism.
... politicist theory is no better than economistic theory as a solution to the problem of relating politics and economics. Logically, it makes as much or as little sense to say that politics is a fundamental factor shaping social organization as to say that economics is. (p. 98)
Finally, politicism is open to some of the same criticisms levelled at economics.
Moral, etc.
Staniland, M. (1985). The primacy of politics. in What is Political Economy?: A Study of Social Theory and Underdevelopment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Posted by Chip on June 02, 2004 at 06:10 PM | TrackBack