The more you stress the role of the agency, the more you are likely
to fall into the trap of unverifiable conspiracy theory. No one really
knows
what was agreed upon "in secret" at these summit meetings. No one has
- bankers or not, oh how much they wish - the power to shape the
crisis
in the direction they want.
I tend to believe in the law of supply and demand. It may have some
flaws, and it may not work at the time and place that everyone
expects
to work, but sooner or later, the events and patterns of capital and
goods in the global economy tend to be governed by the law of supply
and demand, and the production and consumption.
Instead of the role of agency, in this particular case, the role of
the rules of the game that characterized the nature of capitalism and
the use of money
may account for the crisis.
It is true, however, the ASEAN countries, under the "leadership" of
Japan
are trying to maximize their "comparative advantages" over the
American
and European hegemonic control. Japan has enough CAPITAL to create
YEN as the main international currency in the ASEAN sphere. That is
the reason why so many "finance ministers" made urgent requests and
frequent visits to Tokyo during the early phase of recent crisis.
What is new in the 20th century global capitalism is an institution,
called IMF. The role of this institution is comparable to the that of
earlier institutions, like banking and insurance company that
practically saved capitalism from crisis and actually globalized and
institutionalized capitalism. We must include IMF
in any equation of explaining changing patterns of global capitalism.
The time will come when the gravity of capitalism shifts from the
West
to the East, but this may happen not because of a conspiracy, but
because of
economic forces, compelling and beyond the control of any single
agency.
Quee-Young Kim
Department of Sociology
University of Wyoming
Kim@uwyo.edu
----------
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 1998 12:19 PM
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
Subject: Re: Asian Economic Melt Down
My reading of the meltdown is different that the others expressed on
this
list, and I'd like to hear some feedback.
Consider the situation prior to the meltdown.
SE Asia was doing very well in the global economy, and was doing so
precisely because of NOT abiding by the principle of global market
forces.
That is, they were organizing their economies on a national (and
regional)
basis and providing subsidies of various kinds (to workers and
companies)
to increase their collective competitiveness in global markets.
Greider
(in One World Ready or Not) characterized SE Asian successes as being
an
embarrasment to neoliberal theology. The IMF, who is now the
self-appointed
expert on SE Asian economic failures, saw fit in its 1997 annual
report to
give the region high marks on economic management.
Politically, there were signs of a growing sense of regional power.
In the
International Herald Tribune of 2 August 1997 (p. 4) there's an
article
called "ASEAN Aims to Test Balances of Power". The article begins:
"When the nine countries of ASEAN hold their first summit
meeting
with China, Japan, and South Korea in Malaysia later this
year,
they will take another major step in a strategy to shape a
blance
of power in the region in which the United States will play a
less
dominant, though still important, role.
"By meeting for the first time without the presence of
Western
nations, the Asian heads of government will also send a signal
to
the United States and Europe that they cannot afford to take
the
region for granted, Asian officials and analysists said
Friday.
"'People haven't yet woken up to the fact that the summit
December
will be a momentous event,' said an official of an ASEAN
country.
'Neither North America nor Europe has paid enough attention to
this
part of the world. This summit is a wake-up call for them to
do so.'"
My thesis is that North America and Europe (ie, the ruling elites
thereof)
have in fact "paid attention" to this regional-upstart challenge by
engineering the financial crisis. Does anyone know what the December
summit was actually devoted to? Somehow I suspect the focus shifted
to the
meltdown. In any case, with the IMF auditors in charge of the
countries,
as if they were wayward bank branches, the above rhetoric about
"shaping a
balance of power" now has a very hollow ring to it.
I suggest that the meltdown was an arranged affair and that it
accomplished
two major objecives.
The first was about balance of power. North America and Europe have
simply
re-asserted their traditional imperialist power. They've slapped down
an
upstart, as thoroughly as they did Hitler and Tojo in WW II, only with
more
skill and subtlety. As the IMF oversees "reconstruction", the
economies
will find themselves largely owned by outside interests and
permanently
subjugated to international bankers.
The second was about addressing the global crisis of over-production.
In
one fell swoop, thousands of sound producers were put out of business,
thus
reducing global supply. _Instead_ of a global depression we have the
managed economic destruction of a single producing region. Another
region
could have been picked instead; the choice of regions was left to
political
considerations (above).
---As usual, I'm arguing that more attention should be paid to agency. It is necessary to _look_ at the situation and _learn_ what is due to agency and what due to economic determinism: it is unscientific to try to force all data to fit a favorite formula.
Incidentally, I'm still hoping for more responses to my posting of 2 Feb 1998: Re: inevitable collapse of global capitalism (Andrew)
rkm