Connect with us

Economy

Democracy in decline and its fate after the crisis: Why will the big crisis kill liberalism with or without the demos

Published

on

Being praised as never before, democracy was in crisis. The reality of the economic problems of 2008-2020 led to a new critical moment. All this makes us think about the meaning of the word “democracy”, about the economic logic of history and much more.

Twilight of a new big crisis

The countries of the core of capitalism had to face a new big economic crisis in 2008. In semi-peripheral and peripheral countries, democracy was outwardly similar to the central, with the difference that it was much more formal, implicated in falsifications and did not exclude coups and turmoil, though formally they started as a struggle for fair elections. Neoliberalism in a broad sense had no alternative and could only be mitigated in some countries. Therefore, due to its strength and rootedness, the encounter with the crisis was delayed and turned out to be completely unpleasant. In 2020, this story has not yet been concluded.

Neoliberal doctrine and ideology brought market and commercial freedom to the forefront, while public interests were pushed to the background. Under the pressure of neoliberal reforms, the social structures supporting democracy, as known in the 20th century, weakened, mass participation in them declined. People resorted to private life and the elites boldly practiced manipulations. The protest became anti-globalist with faith in social networks and a growing mistrust of “rotten parties.” The criticism of neoliberalism and the democracy that it subordinated, namely liberal democracy by the “stars” of anti-globalism was spectacular. It was not effective, as its countercultural pathos did not prevent it from fitting into the mainstream.

Not everything looked unequivocally gloomy in the era preceding the 2008–2020 crisis. When Bill Clinton came to power in the United States and Tony Blair in the United Kingdom a considerable number of ordinary people felt a certain turn. In France, such a feeling was created later by the victory in the elections of socialists led by Francois Hollande. In Greece by the election of the party “Syriza” and Alexis Tsipras. In practice, the turn did not occur, everything turned into manipulative simulations, convenient for continuing the old course. They undermined faith in the seemingly existing democratic mechanisms. Might the opposition have found a solution to the neoliberal mainstream? Wasn’t there an alternative to the “outdated” base organisations of trade unions and parties, the idea of network organisation? In the 2000s it was widely cherished in Europe and America.

Alas, the networks did not become the basis for the revival of “genuine democracy,” and faith in them only helped conserve the opposition of neoliberalism. In these networks it rotted, telling itself from time to time not to follow the way of old parties, they were all evil, they killed the egalitarianism of a genuine popular movement and not to suggest designs instead of the people and for the people (all these congresses, committees and commissions) for in this way the true spirit of democracy will be completely ruined. As a result, the “genuine spirit” existed only in imagination.

When the time of social networks on the Internet came, it showed how much they enable the control over individuals and how little horizontal connections of individuals mean to them. With such networks it was easy to organize a wave of protests and after a change of power (a coup by order of the United States or the Eurocracy) to return the mass participants to their places.

Democracy in an era of crisis once more in crisis

In 2008, the time of sustainable financial globalisation ended and the great global economic crisis began. The waves of crisis came one after another until 2020. And then it finally became clear that the seeds of the anti-globalist alternative give rotten seedlings even in the United States: Bernie Sanders withdrew from the elections at the most dramatic moment for his people in the 21st century. Before that there was a series of unsuccessful attempts by society to influence the process in Europe. It turned out that he has no structures and understanding of the mechanics of their work and personal work in them, lacks solidarity and understanding of the situation. As a result, the liberal elite retained dominance over “democracy”.

But liberal political constructs have become an obstacle in the fight against the crisis. And if in Russia and China the shift from neoliberalism to a new practice neo-mercantilism started from above, without the help of republican mechanisms set in motion by the people (the starting point were the problems of economic development),  the situation was different in the West. The manipulative liberal democracy preserved the crisis, blocking attempts to change politics. Even Trump, with his conservative transformation plan, came up against the resistance of liberal forces from the Democratic Party and its adherents in the power system. He could not overcome the checks and balances.

An extensive programme about which my colleagues and I in the Department of Political Economy and the History of Economic Science of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics spoke in the report “Donald Trump and the Economic Situation” back in 2016[1]. In another report, entitled “A Society Without Opposition,” prepared with my participation in the Institute of the New Society, many vices of the left were revealed that prevented them from acting as the main force of transformations[2]. One of the problems lies in the desire to apply ready-made schemes to new historical conditions and the belief that capitalism cannot have anything new in itself, nothing that would not have happened before.

“Revolution or reform?” and myths about the ways

The disappointment in democratic mechanisms brought the old question, which in 1918 was included by Rosa Luxemburg in the title of her pamphlet “Reform or Revolution”, back to life. Reforms over the past 40 years have been neoliberal, and therefore the word “reform” often evoces negative emotions in people. In Russia, it is difficult for many citizens to accept the fact that the socio-patriotic reforms that are taking place in the country are not liberal, they are not shattering, but strengthening society. Therefore, the question remains valid.

But this question is false. However, it seems logical to many, as since the 1980s it was suggested that there are two ways that contradict each other: a seemingly tough and a seemingly soft one (identical to liberal democracy). In another interpretation: a progressive and an opportunistic, destructive or reactionary. Neoliberal reforms inspired the latter understanding, as they were destructive and antisocial in nature everywhere. However, under the influence of the global crisis of 2008-2020 at its very end, that is presently, reforms of a different type are now becoming possible. They are associated with the need to overcome the protracted era of economic crisis and the resumption of a sustainable growth and development. Naturally, they should increase the stability of the states in which they are implemented and, as a result, make them stronger in international rivalry.

Reforms of a new type and dictated by the new era became possible. In Russia they have already begun and with them another social reality started to form. But what about cliches? And what about the vulgar, but in practice voluntaristic understanding of revolutions based on disappointment in liberal democracy?

In the book “Capitalism of crises and revolutions how formation epochs alternate, new long waves are born, restorations die and neomercantilism advances” I devoted many pages to the complexity of such a phenomenon as the great modernisation revolution, as well as the Great Russian revolution. Here there is a unity of both revolutionary, evolutionary and reformist stages (not methods!). Voluntarists of “revolution” will never understand nor accept this. For them, all sorts of reforms of Russian or other capitalism will be a deception of the masses, and their support will be a betrayal of the “cause of the liberation of the working people” or a reactionary measure. There is no dialectic in such a vision of history. That is why voluntarists, adherents of maximalist phrase, are not related to real social revolutions with their complex diverse consequences.

In the United States, Britain, Western Europe and Japan, the situation is special. There neoliberalism has gone far in influencing society. From manipulations with the help of liberal institutions, it proceeded to the destruction of the basic norms of morality and relations, not centuries-old, but largely cultivated in the 20th century. Nuclear family was attacked as “slavery of the patriarchy”, trade unions as fetters to the market, the right of the majority to laws in its interest as the anti-democratic egoism of white men, discriminating minorities. Minorities themselves were nurtured and helped to fragment a society in which, as the events of 2008–2020 showed, no forces were found to overturn neoliberalism from the bottom in a left, reformist or more radical way.

Without being defeated, neoliberalism will die from the fact that its time has passed. This is already evident in some parts of the world, but not obvious in others. However, the impossibility of overcoming the crisis on the basis of neoliberal policy is the absolute proof of this thesis. And then what about democracy?

Neo-mercantilism is approaching

Left-wing intellectuals love to write phrases like this one: the struggle for social and cultural reforms, for another world with opportunities for every person to creatively find themselves, to be free, to control power and not be afraid to be poor, will continue and lead the world to success. In parallel, they can criticize the national conservatism of the “right”, and talk about the benefits of diversity in society, without which there can be no democracy. But truth requires adding at this point the story of Socrates. Athenian democracy did not at all tolerate his liberties and forced him to drink poison. His disciple Plato was forced to behave more carefully with the people. In modern realities, we must be prepared for a democratism that is conservative in spirit.

Neoliberalism has created a moral opposition in society, the foundations of which are considered traditional. The liberal left is indignant about this unrighteous, in their opinion, way of denying globalisation and the ideas of “free trade” in all spheres of life. However, conservatism is very limited here. It is not very religious, since society in countries with developed markets is not very religious, and the protection of family values and the importance of marriage is more like the defense of the Soviet understanding of relationships and lifestyle; it should be borne in mind that the emancipation of the 20th century is irreversible, universally recognised and inseparable from society, and these are not “patriarchal mores,” but the product of modernisation. Though this modernisation took place not so long ago. Therefore, anti-neoliberal conservatism does not at all refer to old morals, and only because of the love of religious justification of its position can be called right. However, there is also a reference to the national values and interests of nations, opposing the interests of global financial structures. And here it is important to finally accept the fact: neoliberalism hit the organised working class, the old class and left structures (including their structure) so hard that it left only a limited number of means to eliminate itself. The dismantling of neoliberalism is not a socialist act, but a bourgeois measure ensuring the further development of society. Another thing is that in the process in some countries a revival of the social state is possible.

The era of globalisation has taught many people to view democracy as something universal. Neoliberalism has replaced the dictatorship of modernisation in the countries of the semi-periphery and periphery of world capitalism. There was not much personal freedom and public freedom in them. But with neoliberalism, the local elites were able to cover up their rule with the word “democracy”. The plans of the elite of the countries of the centre did not include the transformation of part of the countries of the production periphery into new centres of development of capitalism, as candidates to play part in the core of the global economy. It was not part of the plans of the old centres that the local top officials should search for support in the “lower strata”, largely due to the rejection of the neoliberal course and reliance on social and patriotic measures. And the bold and independent behaviour of the highest bureaucracy, grand bureaucracy, is absolutely perceived in Washington and Brussels as a riot.

But it is precisely this rebellion that sets the limit to neoliberalism politically. Leaning or trying to rely on the majority of the country’s population (especially in Russia), it is democratic in its own way, reflecting the demos’ requests for social policy, the revival of national pride and the growth of prosperity based on the patronage of the state to its market, production and its mass buyer. This turn from neoliberalism, however, is not a turn created from below, that is, formally democratic, organised not under the pressure of society, but by society itself. In this regard, it is necessary to acknowledge the failure of attempts to end neoliberalism from below in many countries. With a firm commitment of the “upper strata” to this policy, it is not eliminated from above either. Even the split of the upper strata in the United States with the advent of Trump to the White House did not lead to such a development of events, the processes were blocked. Therefore, neoliberalism has not yet completed its history, it simply has lost economic efficiency and cannot be the basis for the exit of certain countries from the era of the great crisis. But this is not its complete end.

Democratism instead of democracy?

Nevertheless, the end of neoliberalism is inevitable. In some cases it will come in the form of a conservative in shade, and a socio-patriotic in form turn. In another case, problems in the economy will bring about movements that can either be such as in countries claiming to be new centres (Eurasian countries), or society will be able to move from an unstable and weak in content movement like the French “yellow vests” to something stronger and more productive. Finally, there is a scenario where popular intervention in politics will be like an outbreak such as in Argentina in the early 2000s. But in this case, progressive shifts will be the fruit of a new grand bureaucracy, simply not neoliberal.

All these paths are not easy. Democracy in them will probably be expressed not in procedures, but in mass support for the new agenda. It is hardly to be expected that the “lower strata” will restore the forms of organisation and practice that were characteristic of the 1930-1970s. In this sense, the prospect of the triumph of “pure democracy” soon seems doubtful. Republican procedures and structures will live, as society is agitated everywhere. However, even overcoming neoliberalism from above to a greater extent than from below will become a common scenario for overcoming the era of the great crisis, it should be taken into account: economic growth and social development in general will work for future democracy.

Formal Republics, where development does not stop and degradation does not happen (which is possible for some countries) will become more social. Relying on social unity, on the construction of nations and their associations, for example, during the Eurasian integration process, administrations will awaken reformist activity in society. As a result, formal Republics will move towards real Republics, where people influence processes not only through expression of mood. This will be the beginning of a new revival of democracy.

Here it is necessary to summarise. It was said enough by virtue of what economic processes neoliberal democracy (the right format of ideas and practice) found itself in a crisis, and was unable to provide a mechanism for leading the countries of the old core of capitalism out of the crisis and ensuring a change of power in Russia, China and other Eurasian states, claiming to be new centres of capitalism. There, the neoliberal “democrats” at the top are increasingly oppressed by the neo-mercantile grand bureaucracy. It can restart the growth of economies and this growth will continue for about 25 years. The big crisis will end and a new upward wave of development will begin; only shortly will commercial crises interrupt it, none of which will be similar to the era of 2008–2020. The establishment of a non-mercantile economic reality in the world launches a mechanism for mastering the practices and ideas of democracy in the conditions of strong national states of Eurasia, solving the tasks of continental integration and rivalry with the old global leaders. How the process of democratisation or the revival of democracy will develop is not yet clear. But economic recovery will be a better environment for this process than the last big crisis.

On the whole, the history of democracy is not only incomplete, but by and large is just beginning. And if in most countries in the era of neoliberalism democracy was a pure imitation, in a different era everything will be different.

 From our partner International Affairs

[1] Report of the Department of Political Economy and the History of Economic Science of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics “Donald Trump i ekonomisteskaya situatsiya: strategiya kandidatov v presidenty i Vroraya volna krizisa v SSHA”  // Institute for globalisation and social movements. – URL: http://igso.ru/trump_situation/ (publication date: 28.10.2016; reference date: 27.08.2018).

[2] Report of the Institute of the New Society “Society without Opposition: the crisis of the left in the era of neoliberalism and afterwards”// Institute of the New Society. – URL: http://neosoc.ru/%d0%be%d0%b1%d1%89%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b2%d0%be-%d0%b1%d0%b5%d0%b7-%d0%be%d0%bf%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%b7%d0%b8%d1%86%d0%b8%d0%b8/ (publication date: 28.10.2016; reference date: 27.05.2020).

An economist and historian specializing in economic crises from ancient times to the epochs of commercial and modern industrial capitalism, Head of the “Institute of a New Society”, Professor for the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Explainer: African Leaders Should Accelerate Industrialization Without Short-Haircut Processes

Avatar photo

Published

on

At the end of their four-day deliberations, African leaders and participants have issued a joint statement relating to the future of economic diversification and industrialization in Africa. The summit provided the opportunity to take stock of the progress made during the year on the drive towards industrialization, it also provided a policy dialogue platform to firmly recommit to accelerating structural transformation. 

Convening in Niamey, Niger, the Extraordinary Summit on Economic Diversification and Industrialization, the ministers and participants collectively, in a the report, suggested that the key policies and regional integration issues should be drastically addressed to support industrialization in Africa, reminding further that Africa is widely seen as a future investment and development frontier given its extraordinary economic potential in Africa.

It was, however, acknowledged that it was held at the backdrop of a completely uncertain global landscape owing to the prolonged effects of the coronavirus pandemic, the pressing challenges posed by climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict that have disrupted the global supply chains with huge consequences globally and more fundamentally on African economies.

According to the summit reports these circumstances have revealed the extreme fragility of African economies against external shocks and reinforced the need for structural changes necessary for the acceleration of productive transformation through a determined shift towards sustainable and resilient industrialization in the years and decades ahead, the statement says.

The summit highlighted the role governments and other non-government actors play in addressing the constraints to industrial development, strategies for countries to re-invigorate the role of development finance institutions to promote industrial financing while drawing lessons from existing challenges, strategies for the countries to deal with global issues such as climate change in their efforts to industrialize, and reflected on the experience on industrial policy, design, implementation and monitoring its new industrial strategies. 

Ms. Aissata Tall Sall, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Senegalese Abroad and the current Chairperson the Executive Council, underscored the critical role of the private sector in supporting innovation in high-potential areas such as agriculture, agro-industry, health, education, infrastructure, and especially energy, which remains a crucial issue in advancing industrialization. 

She observed that “this decision has a high strategic significance because the aim of the industrialization and productive transformation process in our countries is to improve their capacity to take advantage of the many human and natural resources that the continent has to offer. Indeed, the industrialization of Africa can unlock the continent’s potential for inclusive growth by expanding access to the economic opportunities thus created to all segments of the population, especially women and youth. In addition to these challenges, all of which are important, there is the issue of mobilizing domestic resources to finance our economies, as well as the fight against illicit financial flows that encourage tax evasion and corruption.”

Massoudou Hassoumi, Niger’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation emphasized on the urgency for inclusive industrialization that harness the demographic divide of the youth, which he noted would also sustainably address issues of irregular migration, manipulation and recruitment into outlawed groups.

He added that “industrialization and economic diversification are therefore a lasting economic legacy that we must leave to the younger generation, because it is a solution to the challenges of the moment, especially those related to insecurity. In this regard, it is important to reiterate the African position for a fair and equitable transition to defend the right of our countries to exploit their available resources such as gas, alongside their efforts to develop the energy mix.” 

To accelerate the progress made in operationalizing the African Continental Free Trade Area, Moussa Faki Mahamat, Chairperson of the African Union Commission restated the need to conclusively address the structural challenges that hinder the optimal functioning of the common market. 

“The major challenge here is to be able to strengthen trade between African countries that are more open to the outside world through agreements that have already been signed and that manage the bulk of their trade. It is therefore a matter of developing the capacity to successfully transform our productive structures with a view to increasing the complementarity of intra-African trade. It would also be necessary to ensure convergence by reducing the major gaps between Member States and between the Regional Economic Communities in terms of development and level of integration. The AU Commission’s State of Integration in Africa 2022 report has highlighted the reality of such gaps,” according to Moussa Faki Mahamat.

Africa possesses 60% solar irradiation in the world, 70% of cobalt global production and significant reserves of other battery minerals, world class carbon sink assets in our forests and peatlands, huge green hydrogen potential, which Antonio Pedro, UNECA Acting Executive Secretary noted can position the continent to become a powerhouse and a globally competitive investment destination for multi-sectoral investments combining climate action, job creation and industrialization. 

“As we drive industrialization, we also need to realize that industrialization is not an event, but it is a process, and a long one at that. And, of course, we should be mindful that industrialization is not the business of Ministries of Industry alone. Instead, the implementation of true industrial policy requires a whole of government and beyond approach and action. It requires aligning industrial, trade and other sectoral policies and putting science technology and innovation at the centre to ensure that we remain globally competitive beyond our initial endowments and comparative advantages,” noted Antonio Pedro.

To rally the support of the private sector, Dr. Amany Asfour, started the commitment by the AfroChampions Initiative to mobilize the private sector to enhance the public-private partnership as the continent moves from commitment to action on industrialization and trade. Empowering the private sector through market-based solutions and resolving finance barriers remains critical.

Among the recommendations of the minsters of the appointment of the African Union Champion for Sustainable Industrialization and Productive Transformation to provide political leadership, awareness and ensure effective implementation of Africa’s industrial development. And further considering endemic factors that have stifled the Africa’s economic transformation, it is important to reassess the continent’s capabilities in the face of external shocks. 

In this regard, it is important for the African Union members to set up innovative and inclusive institutions capable of designing and implementing effective industrial policies and processes that will advance socio-economic transformation, as stipulated in global and continental frameworks such as the African Union Agenda 2063, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Third Industrial Development Decade for Africa.

Continue Reading

Economy

Bregret Reigns Britain: Blaming Brexit over Economic Exigency?

Avatar photo

Published

on

Sometimes I blunder that the UK is still a part of the European Union (EU). Whether when discussing a unified policy stance on sanctions targeting Russia or a common polity on sustainable energy strategies for a resilient future of Europe. Brexit may be a figment of the recent past, but its tremors are certainly not bygone. And the European cohesion, which should’ve been envied at a time when Russia is wreaking havoc on its energy security, seems ephemeral as Britain’s vexed relationship with the EU refuses to recede. However, amid the boiling economic crisis in Britain and the rest of Europe, public sentiments betray an inherent admission: Britain’s exit from the Union might have been a mistake. But the connotation of this public rhetoric is just as awry as the Brexit chatter leading up to the 2016 referendum.

The opinion of Britons has been notoriously fickle throughout history. But the outcome of the Brexit referendum was razor-thin at inception. Now, a stagnant economy; a revolving-door political leadership; and decades-high inflation are turning the tide against the championed narrative of the Conservatives. According to a recent opinion poll by YouGov – a leading market research and data analytics firm headquartered in Britain – 56% of the Britons surveyed concurred that leaving the EU had been a mistake. Only 32% believed that Brexit was a good idea. However, while many Brexit critics would jump onto this opportunity to bash the Tories, this perception is misguided, a product of frustration of an irate populace looking to blame something for their woes. And Brexit has been a notable feature of the ruling government.

Britain installed its fourth prime minister since 2016 last month. But the damage was already done a few months back. Britons were already reeling from soaring energy prices and acute food shortages. The economic slowdown was heralding an unfamiliar era of high-interest rates and unemployment. Then entered Liz Truss, the former prime minister who eschewed economic orthodoxy with her trickle-down tax-cut plans. Her disastrous stint in office – that barely lasted 50 days – tipped the pound into a free fall, sparked a liquidity crisis for pension funds, and sent government borrowing costs spiraling to harrowing levels. While the incumbent Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has managed to calm the turbulent economy, the wreckage is still visible in the mortgage market.

Earlier this year, mortgage rates in Britain typically remained below 2.5%. Since October, however, the average two-year fixed rate mortgage is hovering around 6.25% – slightly down from the peak of 6.65% on Oct. 20. The lowest two and three-year fixed rates are still above the 5% mark, according to Moneyfacts Group, a financial information company. Unlike the United States, British mortgages run for shorter terms. For instance, about 2 million mortgages in Britain would reach the end of their fixed terms by the end of next year, pushing many Britons to refinance at rates more than double their initial settlements. An estimated 1.6 million borrowers in Britain have variable mortgages, which track the central bank’s policy rate. Thus, as inflation keeps running ablaze, no respite seems on the cards. 

The annual rate of inflation in Britain has reached a multi-decade high of 11.1%. And at its last policy meeting, the Bank of England (BoE) – the central bank of Great Britain – hiked its interest rates by 75 basis points, taking the policy rate to 3% – the highest level since the financial crisis of 2008. Andrew Bailey – governor of the Bank of England – doubled down on his commitment to raising interest rates higher to deter double-digit inflation fuelled by pandemic-induced supply chain logjams and the mercurial energy prices triggered by the Russian retaliation against Western sanctions. While the logistics backlogs seem to be improving, the Russian dilemma shows no sign of resolution. And as the Western coalition prepares to implement a price cap on Russian energy supplies, economic difficulties would only worsen for the British citizenry.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), a fiscal watchdog group in Britain, inflation-adjusted disposable income is projected to slump by circa 7% over the next two years under the government’s new budget plan. Introduced as the “autumn statement,” the 55 billion pound ($65.4 billion) budget virtually reversed every plan by Ms. Truss. Mr. Jeremy Hunt – the new chancellor of the Exchequer – has frozen the annual taxable income threshold until April 2028 rather than having those bands adjust to the inflation rate. Consequently, the top tax rate of 45% would now be applicable on earnings starting from £125,140 instead of the current level of £150,000. The government has also raised the windfall tax rate on energy firms from 25% to 35% until March 2028. Hence, economists believe that aggressive rate hikes coupled with such steep tax increments could trigger a brutal recession – perhaps the most debilitating since the 1930s.

So blaming Brexit for the economic turmoil battering Britain is not an accurate depiction of the public sentiment regarding Brexit. And it is chiefly because the throes of the British economy are tricky to quantify under a defining rubric. 

True, the UK is struggling with labor shortages. But this issue is not entirely driven by Britain’s inability to replace workers from Europe, who left after Brexit. A substantial portion of workers are Britons, who left during the pandemic and never returned to the labor force. Many started their own businesses; some settled into the groove of remote work. 

Admittedly, Britain’s sluggish growth further worsened when investments diverted to other epicenters of commerce in Europe after Brexit. Britain is the only member of the Group of Seven (G-7) advanced economies with an economy smaller than its pre-pandemic level. Recently, India replaced Britain as the world’s fifth-largest economy; Paris supplanted London as Europe’s highest-valued stock market, according to data published by Bloomberg. But Britain’s productivity has been in decline since 2009; public funding has been in the dumps ever since austerity policies were implemented in the aftermath of the 2007 financial collapse. High-interest rates are visibly hurting the domestic outlook of the British economy. But it is mainly because people were so conditioned to the ultra-low interest rates over the past decade that their perspective is dovishly askew.

Nonetheless, the British government has the incentive to structure a trade mechanism with the EU. While the hardliner Conservative MPs who voted Sunak into the office would definitely resent (and veto) an intimate relationship – like that enjoyed by Switzerland and Norway – with the single market, a settlement of disputes revolving around the hybrid trade status of Northern Ireland is imperative to Britain’s economic revival. Yet, if the Labour Party manages to topple the Tories in the next general elections, a closer alignment with Brussels should be in the vanguard. Because while Britain’s economic debacle might not be entirely Brexit’s unraveling, the UK cannot resurface without improving relations with Europe in an openly hostile neighborhood with a bleak future.

Continue Reading

Economy

Global Recovery: Mobilize SME, Digitize Economies and Commercialize Exportability

Avatar photo

Published

on

Like an open book, all such deployment ideas are already available for last many years to allow immediate mobilization of any national small medium business economy. On the world stage, as a recovery, nations can digitize on fast tracks any selected sectors of economies and get ready to dance on global digital platforms. Nations can become examples on creating superior exportable goods and services while commercializing innovative ideas on the global stage. There are no secrets on how to achieve all this, but there are huge secrets why it is still not being done despite all the economical struggles?

How to capture opportunity losses; the biggest tragedy of any disconnected economic progress is watching the world ‘continuously’ advancing, consuming and growing, while nations ‘persistently’ despite extraordinary resources abandoned, talented citizenry only herded and left as spectators, trade associations, chambers and government agencies remain disconnected. Therefore, needed are precise world-class goals, as national symbols of unity, diversity and tolerance. So, what are the top missing rules to mobilize a nation on economic development fronts and what is stopping?

How to grow economic development? The fastest way is via right meaningful collaborations, alliances and brokering of deals, the fears of communications must be eliminated, the trepidations of opening global markets is just a mindset issue but not having bold open dialogue on fast track vibrant programs is a killer. Establish, define and articulate a long term agenda and drive like a formula car.

National mobilization of SME entrepreneurialism is a step by step methodology, if there is still no progress after a decade, which only raises serious questions about available skills to lead such a charge. Similarly, 50% mobilization of the qualified SME if allowed to dance on global digital platforms creates productivity, performance and profitability and therefore brings foreign exchange to improve national grassroots prosperity. If local economic development teams do not openly engage, adapt and utilize available blueprints and related mobilization expertise little or nothing will happen.

This is not about good or bad management; this is about core competency to move national economies towards pragmatic progress, particularly, when national mobilization of entrepreneurialism is already an entrepreneurial movement. This is far apart from the traditional bureaucratic procedural paperwork and especially in most cases not necessarily new funding dependent rather execution hungry and deployment starved. In most cases, the lack of knowledge on the global age demands and transformation of digital platforms, that leaves the SME behind. Study more why will population-rich-nations lead knowledge-rich-nations?

Matter of choice: Unless immediately exercised the required departmental tests and measure capabilities matching right mindset and speedy execution requirements, just piling up degree-holders and highly preferred staffing without precision is in reality what is destroying economic development.  So, choose economic progress or choose bad HR, the economic recovery has no time to waste. Explore new options on how to acquire mastery on such affairs. What level of efficiency is required to become a productive nation to cope with the consumption hungry world?

Furthermore, to play in global commerce, the global age speed of communication acts as a power of progress rate. There is no room for departmental responses to take days, weeks and months, but must face global age demands as a thriving 24x7x365 living world waiting for immediate response. What will it take to create a LIVE economic development recovery program of highly integrated departments? What levels of expertise are required to start deployments of such thinking? Better understand how other nations are doing, study a new world of G20 and national mobilization of small medium business economies

Capitalism is not failing; it is economic development. Unless mandated differently, the circus will go on. The skills gaps are not about lack of degrees; rather, global age experiences to understand how the pyramid of global consumption works, how to open new markets and how to produce real value to stand up to the global age of competitiveness. Skills are not about degrees, but now translated into global age skills as art of communication, presentation and global age level understanding of diversity, tolerance and entrepreneurial mindsets.

Why blind leading blinds; why high priced and fancy studies on SME always select ‘access to finance’ as the mother lode problem but they critically lack centricity of entrepreneurialism as such studies are academic driven. Hence the biggest disconnect, SME founders are not interested in loans but sales. Sales are more about value creation and globally accepted production standards to cope with global age competitiveness, where they do not require consultants rather developed skills to become better executives and better producers. They need help but not the loans, they need skills and knowledge and not the procedural and conflict resolution compliances. They know too well what to do but need to know how to do it better. Cookie cutter complex forms and rubber stamping will never do the trick, they need entrepreneurial dialogue, but not from academia but real entrepreneurs. They strive for meritocracy and not bureaucracies.

No, this is not an academic study but an entrepreneurial response to grand economic failures by the majority of nations on up-skilling SME and re-skilling manufacturers at national digitized levels. Furthermore, failing to understand the difference between the job seeker and job creator mindsets is the first step to get eliminated from any serious dialogue on the subject of SME economic recovery. Failing to articulate on the national mobilization of entrepreneurialism is the second step to get eliminated from any economic development activity as a whole. Study more on Google.

Proof is mandatory; when it takes 10 days to debate, strategies and finalize a national mobilization programs, and when it takes 100 days or organize digital platforms to deploy 10% to 50% selected SME on digital platforms and 1000 days to turn around small medium business economies so why still there is no show after last 5 or 10 years. If there is nothing wrong, why are the restless citizens marching in protest? Why are economies openly collapsing and what is stopping them to correct the course and how much it has to do with core competencies at the source of economic development? Is it possibly now a time for the first industrial revolution of the mind

Next key steps: What can current teams learn and what can they deploy within 90 days in any sector or any national economic realignment. How can they be framed as a customized national mobilization of entrepreneurialism model? How can they select and identify 5K to 50K SME and get them ready for a digital platform? How can they start intense programs to up skill and re-skill all layers of the economic departments to become a global age expert and start thinking of future applications and methodologies of economic growth? What does it take to acquire mastery on national mobilization of entrepreneurialism within a specific SME sector or across the nation? The rest is easy.  

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending