Wednesday, October 31, 2007
merits of economic liberalism
Admittedly, domestic economic policy is a relatively abstract issue and I find it can be difficult to conceptualize. When debating the merits between embedded and disembedded liberalism, I find it hard to conclude that one system reigns supreme. Rather, I think they both hold merit in different situations. Generally, I believe the best economic system is one in which the merchants and businessmen have the greatest amount of freedom. This would be considered as “disembedded” liberalism; a system that places the control of the state economy in the hands of those who know it best. There is no debating that money is a motivator, and the government should not have to get their sticky hands into issues of economic policy. History tells us that the free, mercantile form of economic policy yields the greatest results. After all, it was the freeing up of the market that propelled England into world superpower status. France on the other hand was becoming increasingly tied down by its centuries old economic policies. There was just no way to efficiently regulate economic policy so strictly. The laissez faire attitude just makes more sense than the alternative-an embedded economic policy where restrictions are placed on the trade market. With that said however, I do think that there are merits to embedded liberalism. We talked in class about the Great Depression. In this case, when a nation is so struggling to get on its feet economically, I think regulations need to be put in place to protect the citizens of the country. Economic freedom within nations works best when each country is able to support themselves well. On the contrary, when there is mass unemployment, someone has to take charge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So I guess it really depends on the invidual country which system is better. Disembedded liberalism (which appears to be characterized by free trade and open markets) works for countries that already have a strong economic framework, but embedded liberalism (government programs to stimulate the economy, focus on domestic) is needed in countries with struggling economies. Thus, embedded liberalism is a required step to reach diembedded liberalism? I could be reading this wrong, I found the topic very confusing and so didn't attempt to answer the question myself!
I'm not sure that the issue is as simple as saying that underdeveloped (developing) countries need embedded liberalism. To a certain extent that might be true but those nations need to also allow businesses the freedom to grow and prosper, which benefits the entire economy anyway. I do think, however, that there are times in a country's history when they need embedded liberalism and disembedded liberalism. So maybe it's not a question of location but rather of time or perhaps, more accurately, it is both of them combined and you have to look at how the economy is going at a particular time and in a particular place.
Post a Comment