The Consequences Of The Illicit Global Economy

1848 WordsApr 30, 20178 Pages
According to Balaam and Dillman (2014), “The illicit global economy consists of markets that states cannot easily regulate or tax” (p. 380). The illicit global economy serves as the dark side of globalization as these actors conduct transaction to make profits by exploiting others, breaking the laws, ignoring borders, and many more. Some of the key unintended consequences of efforts to regulate the illicit global economy as Balaam and Dillman found “can be described as interdiction, repression, and eradication” (p. 387). These actions do not necessarily have good consequences, but it at least aid in some way shape of form. Sometimes International Political Economy scholars overlooked this issue and failed to recognize that history plays…show more content…
As Balaam and Dillman found “governments often feel obliged to balance entrenched special interests with the public interest” (p.387). The efforts to restrict activities created a restriction-opportunity dilemma and profit paradox. Basically, the more a country impose rules, the country open their doors to new illicit activities for the market. At the same time, as Balaam and Dillman found “when states use law enforcement to try to prohibit drugs, the reduction of supply tends to drive up prices” (p. 388). This leave people that need the drugs or other products to pay a higher price, while entrepreneurs take the risk of supplying the black market. Potential criminals or criminals can find the loopholes to hop and they always find a way to go around the law. Ultimately, these dilemma lead people to argue in favor of decriminalization towards this illicit economy. Globalization: The Double-Edged Sword. Open markets, technological change, global deregulation, and privatization serves as the rise of the global illicit economy. According to Falk (2010), “Not only do small minorities have no share in the benefits of globalisation—the vast majority of people misses out” (n.p.). Not all people will claim that open markets, technological change, global deregulation, and privatization were not good for the global political economy. However, fears were mounting that only a small population or individuals that over the top of society
Open Document