Dr. Stephen Saideman, the associate chairman of the political science department at McGill University and Canada Research Chair in International Security and Ethnic Conflict researched the connection between ethnic violence and economic systems. He found that "increased government intervention in the economy has a strong correlation with increased violence and rebellion." Conversely he found that inter-ethnic violence is less common in economically liberal societies.
In nations where the state exercised a large role in the economy, the distribution of wealth and opportunities is determined to a large degree by political factors. Especially in corrupt nations and localities (like our very own Chicago) this means that connection to ruling politicians and parties has a huge role in the redistribution of wealth. In state controlled economies political victory bring tremendous economic windfalls not only to ruling politicians, but also to their constituencies. The general economic scarcity that rules societies subject to excessive government control exacerbates the race for political power and the economic spoils that come with it.
In diverse nations in which there is a high levels of government control of the economy, constituencies are usually defined by ethnic and religious affiliation. In the case of Syria, the Ba'ath party redistributes untold wealth (government jobs & contracts, public works and outright bribes) to its main constituents, the minority Alawites of the Latakia region. Since the wealth of connected individuals and ethno-religious groups are so heavily tied to the state, these groups will resort to extreme violence to maintain their hold on power. And since the economic gains of political power are so great in an interventionist state, rival ethno-religious groups have tremendous economic incentives to use violent means to overthrow the dominant groups. We encounter this same phenomena in diverse nations from Yugoslavia, to Kenya, to Malaysia.
In contrast, in nations that are more economically liberal, the distribution of wealth and opportunity is determined to a much greater degree by market forces. When the livelihood of individuals and groups are connected to productivity and not political power, there are far less incentives to use violence to gain or maintain power. And in economically liberal societies, prosperous individuals and ethnic groups may breed jealously, but they very rarely inspire outright hostility. For example, most Chileans understand that in their market oriented system, the disproportionate wealth of the Jewish and Lebanese Christian communities is the result of hard work and success, not political connections.
The only successful examples of relatively conflict free redistributive states are seen in ethnically homogeneous societies, where constituencies are defined by ideology and economic status, not tribal or ethnic groups. So, in homogeneous nations like Japan and Sweden, the transference of wealth occurs within a group rather than between groups. This helps explain why they are far less resistant to higher taxes than people in ethnically diverse societies. Most likely this stems from two factors: high social cohesion and the tendency to attribute the poverty of people in your culture group to external circumstances. Whereas, most people attribute the poverty of different ethnic groups to innate cultural factors.
In nations where the state exercised a large role in the economy, the distribution of wealth and opportunities is determined to a large degree by political factors. Especially in corrupt nations and localities (like our very own Chicago) this means that connection to ruling politicians and parties has a huge role in the redistribution of wealth. In state controlled economies political victory bring tremendous economic windfalls not only to ruling politicians, but also to their constituencies. The general economic scarcity that rules societies subject to excessive government control exacerbates the race for political power and the economic spoils that come with it.
In diverse nations in which there is a high levels of government control of the economy, constituencies are usually defined by ethnic and religious affiliation. In the case of Syria, the Ba'ath party redistributes untold wealth (government jobs & contracts, public works and outright bribes) to its main constituents, the minority Alawites of the Latakia region. Since the wealth of connected individuals and ethno-religious groups are so heavily tied to the state, these groups will resort to extreme violence to maintain their hold on power. And since the economic gains of political power are so great in an interventionist state, rival ethno-religious groups have tremendous economic incentives to use violent means to overthrow the dominant groups. We encounter this same phenomena in diverse nations from Yugoslavia, to Kenya, to Malaysia.
In contrast, in nations that are more economically liberal, the distribution of wealth and opportunity is determined to a much greater degree by market forces. When the livelihood of individuals and groups are connected to productivity and not political power, there are far less incentives to use violence to gain or maintain power. And in economically liberal societies, prosperous individuals and ethnic groups may breed jealously, but they very rarely inspire outright hostility. For example, most Chileans understand that in their market oriented system, the disproportionate wealth of the Jewish and Lebanese Christian communities is the result of hard work and success, not political connections.
The only successful examples of relatively conflict free redistributive states are seen in ethnically homogeneous societies, where constituencies are defined by ideology and economic status, not tribal or ethnic groups. So, in homogeneous nations like Japan and Sweden, the transference of wealth occurs within a group rather than between groups. This helps explain why they are far less resistant to higher taxes than people in ethnically diverse societies. Most likely this stems from two factors: high social cohesion and the tendency to attribute the poverty of people in your culture group to external circumstances. Whereas, most people attribute the poverty of different ethnic groups to innate cultural factors.
This does not bode well for the United States because we are witnessing the simultaneous growth of four factors: diversity, divisive group politics, group rights, as well as increased state intervention in the economy.
In itself diversity is not a negative factor, because for most of our history, the United States has been quite diverse. But, the growth of diversity has simultaneously occurred with a shift towards group (ethnic) politics as demonstrated by the growth of the Black Congressional Caucas, Hispanic Political Caucas and La Raza. This has encouraged less social cohesion and increased lobbying for group specific policies and programs.
Coupled with the growth in group politics is the rise in "group rights. Rather that seeking to promote equal opportunity via the defense of individuals against discrimination, purveyors of "group rights" seek to promote equal outcomes via quotas and preferential treatment in the distribution of jobs, government contracts, education and housing.
The said factors would be less consequential in a free market system, but are dangerous given the Obama administration's massive intervention in the economy and clear commitment to distribute wealth and jobs via ethnic lines, as seen in Robert Reich's recent comments:
"I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well.”
In an economic downturn, even the most tolerant individuals resent having wealth and job opportunities redistributed according to an ethnic spoils system. And even in the most democratic, prosperous and pluralistic society that the world has ever known, this is a recipe for ill feelings and ethnic conflict. Abandoning economic freedom and individual rights; that's change we can believe in!
Brilliant. Makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeletePlease re-read the post, I made some changes.
ReplyDelete