Postmodern Views On The State

First, it is not possible to determine the exact beginning and ending of these periods. For example, a more liberal economy trend had begun in 1947 during the RPP period before Democrat Party came to the power. Also, the protectionist policies had begun to be implemented in the mid-50s. Therefore, one might argue that the continuities are more important than the discontinuities between these periods. In response to this, without ignoring the continuities, I argue that the economic policies implemented during these periods served the interests of the different classes and created the different distribution relationships. While the etatism policy of the 30s aimed to strengthen the Muslim-Turkish urban bourgeoisie, the DP’ economic policies mostly served the interest of the merchant-rural bourgeoisie and between 1960-1980s, the government policies in the economy were mostly shaped by the alliances of the urban industrialists. Another important discontinuity between these periods was the populist policies. While the DP and its successors followed the populist policies, we can make the claim for the RPP governments of the Interwar period. In short, although I argue that the discontinuities are more important the continuities between these periods, the continuities are not

The level of analysis differs greatly between the modernization approach and dependency approach, where modernization focuses predominantly on the behaviours, beliefs and traditions of individuals, the dependency approach focuses on elements outside the individual unit such as international trade, class alliances and conflict (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978, p.550). Where the modernization approach focuses on the microsocial, the dependency approach focuses on the macrosocial (Valenzuela and Valenzuela, 1978, p.550).

This paper offers a definition, while recognizing that it may contrast from that of different researchers, societies, governments, media, and maybe the person who is reading it. It will also include a brief history of the country as a whole.

Fukuyama looks at whether any core conflicts of human life could be resolved by a political-economic structure other than modern liberalism. In terms of mankind’s “common ideological heritage”, two such alternatives have been fascism and communism. The seemingly self-destructive nature of fascism was revealed during World War II, and its failure has deflated further fascist movements. With the loss of fascism as a viable ideology, Fukuyama turns to communism as the greatest competitor for the Western liberal democracy ideology. However, he notes that with the failure of the Soviet Union and fundamental differences of China’s communism compared to Marx’s original idea eventually the strong of pull of communism dwindle out by itself. This points out a glaring flaw in his argument since there were many actions taken by Western Countries to diminish the spread of the ideology and attempts to undermine its

A worldwide movement encompassing all disciplines, postmodernism arose in response to the dominant idea of modernism, which is described as the social condition of living in an urban, fast-changing progressivist world governed by instrumental reason.

In his article, ‘The Worldwide Liberal Revolution’ he emphasizes on liberalization, democracy, and communism, authoritarian and totalitarian governments. He adds that there has been a much quieter revolution occurring over the past twenty or thirty odd years. This may be seen in the exceptional economic growth in East Asia since World War II.

Now the test is in simple view, we face the globalization of anti-globalization, a common face of populists, and nationalists on a worldwide spectrum. We must, consequently, support ourselves for a lengthy struggle, possibly even a generational struggle. This is but a post-liberal world. The forces after the popular front of populism are strong, and traditional parties are often weak, and such waves are not undone overnight.

Throughout history, the world has seen the emergence of different economic systems, inspired by some of the brightest minds in the economic field. However, not all economic systems functioned as depicted by their creators, and ended up failing. In this paper, I am going to analyze how every economic system failed or succeeded in a particular set of countries, according to the criterion used and explained in the previous paper. To do this, I am going to explain the history of the countries involved and how each system got implemented. I am also going to take into consideration the different measures of the criteria for assessing economic systems to collect data of the countries analyzed in order to determine if those countries had successful economic systems. I am going to look for cases in which certain parts of the system failed and others in which it can be agreed that it succeeded, and I will explain why, using the information I collected. It is my objective to discover what particular characteristics made each country have a successful economic system, and what differences they have compared to other not so successful nation-states. It is worth mentioning that there is no perfect system, and that the purpose of this paper is to show cases of countries in which a specific ideology caused an either positive or negative result in the economy, polity or society.

By merely glancing at the political systems across the world, it becomes clear that politics and the economy are inextricably tied. Both are institutions that maintain some sort of balance between freedom and equality, and both are associated with a variety of ideologies regarding what the best balance is (O’Neil 2013, 101 & 112). We often see how politics and economics influence each other, with policy focusing on economic regulation, and a country’s economy reflecting how well the state can operate.

Throughout the past century, the modern international system has been characterized by dominant practices in all of its distinct sectors. In the economic sector, capitalism has been a key economic activity since the 16th century in the form of mercantilism (Encyclopædia Britannica Online 2014). Since then, capitalism has evolved to become the principal economic model in the modern international system in the form of neo-liberal capitalism. For this reason, it has been shaping, and continues to shape, societies on a global scale.

In this article, David Harvey presents the concepts and the impacts of Neoliberalism. Harvey believes neoliberalism is the best way to advances entrepreneurial freedoms through values such as private property rights, individual liberty, and free trade. He argues neoliberalism is taking over today world and become the global standard or the set of rules. “Neoliberalization has in effect swept across the world like a vast tidal wave of institutional reform and discursive adjustment, and while there is plenty of evidence of its uneven geographical development, no place can claim total immunity (with the exception of a few states such as North Korea). Furthermore, the rules of engagement now established through the WTO (governing international

The requirement of freedom by man is evident. This freedom is accompanied by sociality required with the community in order to fulfill the natural necessity of social interaction which accompanies human beings. Individuals lack the ability to prosper in isolation while remaining true to themselves. They are also unable to live within communities where unions are established in accordance with natural law, as freedom surpasses the limits of nature, making larger communities a possibility and necessary at the same time. Thus leaving the “democratic ideal…more valid…version of…bourgeois civilization…Bourgeois civilization is in the process of disintegration, it is important to…save what is permanently valid…If democracy is to survive it must find a more adequate cultural basis than philosophy which has informed the building of the bourgeois world” (pg. 6). Unfortunately like similar social classes, they hold biased thoughts and beliefs despite their intentions to the contrary.

Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society. Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the inter-subjective dependence between humans; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this

[4] Walter Korpi, Joakim Palme. (2003). “New Politics and Class Politics in the Context of Austerity and Globalization: Welfare State Regress in 18 Countries, 1975-95”. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 425-446.

Boix, Inglehart and Welzel both engage with modernization theory, but also critique it. In Boix’s Democracy and Redistribution he utilizes the old modernization theory, while Inglehart and Welzel redefine it with their new modernization theory. Earlier versions of modernization theory, such as Boix, did not predict the strong linkage that Inglehart and Welzel find between rising self-expression values and the emergence and flourishing of democratic institutions. Welzel and Inglehart convincingly argue that socioeconomic modernization, rising freedom goals, and the mission for democratic institutions reflect the underlying process of human development. Holistically, going along with their theme of broadening of “human choice”.