Somalis mark 20 years of war since government fell

[Paragon]

A very tragic anniversary indeed. May this catastrophe end and brighter becons sparkle for the Somali nation. Amin.

 

Prometheus;690929 wrote:

Che, I don’t think you can have a viable democracy without having a viable economy. Lipset's landmark paper on the relationship between economic development and democracy was unassailable. He had marshaled a compelling case for the view that economic development must precede democracy. There is no other way to sustain liberal democracy. Countries that democratize before they reach certain economic thresholds are, more often than not, doomed to fail. It is argued that there notable exceptions. But these so-called exceptions are exceptional only in a trivial sense. The generality of the law is persuasive.

Promethus, I concur with your comment. I hold the opinion a region's economic development will only be viable if there spring organic trading 'zones' that naturally blossom due to, faviourably, there being strategic economic infrastructure, the presence of a conducive entrepreneural environment and, ofcourse, a class of skilledand spirited entrepreneurs. Due to involuntary economic decentralisation, such zones with their reasonable business achievements can be found in Somalia. I would suggest to future Somali states to only minimise their market interventions and limit their role to removing obstacles that might hinder the optimum performance and growth of the market.

 

I just remembered discussing this very subject awhile ago here in SOL, but back then I guess I was, in development economics, a neo-statist through and through. Let me paste an excerpt from the topic in which I posted an essay I wrote to debunk a fellow debator in the old faculty:

 

The minimalist view of the state dominates neo-classical works, and considers Pacific Asian states to matter only for their ‘environmental’ function, in that they provide and sustain a suitable environment, in which the markets can operate freely. In this view, planning agencies of the states haven’t made any significant difference at all, since they did not govern the market, foster and channel productive investment and exports. Their only contribution was to ‘remove obstacles –for which governments are created in the first place- to the market’s otherwise spontaneous development’.

 

Contrary to Neo-classical explanations, however, neo-statist interpretations offer entirely different view of the state’s role in Pacific Asian economic development. For neo-statist economists, ‘states in the East Asian economies had not only determined the character of trade regime’, but they also facilitated and managed the industrial investment and productive profile of the whole nation. Thus, far from the neoclassical view that the states’ role in the rise of East Asia was minimal (and limited to removing the market from obstacles), neo-statist economists point to an evidence of the highly structured nature of East Asian trade regimes; an evidence that weakens neoclassical claims. As this evidence shows, Pacific Asia states were not only ‘active’ interventionist states’ – something which neo-classical economists dismiss - but were in fact ‘developmental’ states (Johnson 1982), in the sense that they had overarching priorities, anticipatory (strategic) policies, and also possessed ‘a capacity to alter economic direction of the nation’.

 

Building on the core contributions of Johnson Chalmers’ ‘developmental’ state thesis, other subsequent writers such as Alice Amsden and Robert Wade’s ‘guided market’ thesis, have come to the fore to refute the neoclassical claim of minimal government involvement in the development of Pacific Asian economies. Johnson Chalmers’ (1982) ‘developmental’ state thesis, serves the purpose of differentiating East Asian capitalism from the capitalism that prevails in Anglo-American lands. In doing so, Johnson identifies states whose major features include priority of production over consumption. States that create a mechanism that allows cooperation and communication between business groups and ministries and planning agencies, or the rationalisation of vital resources such as finances.

 

States that were also capable of resisting the demands interest groups, and were able to operate and lead the market via the implementation of strategic industrial policies. These strategic industrial policies are the ones which neoclassical economists confuse with other free market forces, enabling them to debate for the argument states’ minimal the role in economic development. Judging from this minimal state role thesis, it is no wonder that the neo-classical economists to consider the role of the state as being limited to removing obstacles, correcting market failure or offsetting existing market distortions, and creating neutrality in resource allocation. Accordingly, if state policies do neither of these things, then they simply function in support of entrepreneurial activities.

 

However, contrary to this assertion, Robert Wade and Alice Amsden posit that ‘what is significant in East Asia, with the exception of Hong Kong, is that the state has been firmly in the driving seat’ (Appelbaum and Henderson, 20-1) in achieving industrialisation. Ministries and planning agencies in Japan and NICs have ‘encouraged and directed companies - as opposed to neoclassical arguments - ‘into higher valued added, higher wage and more technology-intensive forms of production’ (Ibid. 21). These states have been able to encourage the adoption of their strategic industrial policies via ‘systems of constraints’ or in the case of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, ‘by rigging prices’. This is to serve as one example of interventionist policies, employed by East Asian states in their role of guiding the market. Similarly, other interventionist policies can be cited in order to counter the neoclassical or liberal market supremacy interpretation of the rise of East Asian economies.

 

Thus, in the context of East Asian economic development, all neo-classical arguments appear somewhat inadequate to find a way out of the confusion over the role of the state. In contrast, neo-statist arguments seem to offer a realistic approach that has the potential to minimize confusion over state role. Furthermore, neo-statist economic models delineate useful pointers in the future of effective economic development (in other developing regions) through the responsible role of developmental state. As such, neo-statist model summarises the state’s role into three parts: (1) discipline and support, which is intended to exact higher performance standards from companies invested in by the states; (2) selectivity or targeting, which is intended to select most competitive companies so as to achieve competitive advantage and; (3) aiming for market expansion with long-term horizons expectations. .......

 

Camel Milk Debate: Economics: Development and the role of Future Somali State

[Juxa]

Stoic you dont owe anyone an explanation! I assure you many many people is this forum have lafo infested with qabiil here, so dont worry. People in this forum openly advocate for own interest based on clan lineage

 

you are entitled to your opinion, and you are not alone in thinking that maybe going back HOME is not an option ( it aint to many) and maybe one should integrate with host nations.

[BOB]

Well said Juxa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peace, Love & Unity.