Vietnam: Globalisation & The Paradox of Governance and Economy, by Jae Lubberink
The gap between those who benefit from globalisation to the detriment of the others widens and contracts as reactions from external forces within the economy. These vivid fluctuations eventually stabilise themselves as the laws of capitalism, socialism and communism somehow continue to maintain some form of order in society. However, it is intriguing to hypothetically contemplate how the gap would behave provided that the net wealth of the country continues to rise.
Globalisation has the most prominent effect on the economic sector of the country. Industrialisation provides an influx of improvement for expenditure on capital goods, and therefore, GDP is destined to rise. With a more powerful economy, it will stabilise the imbalance of the labour force through wages. Obviously, the most fervent producers will benefit more initially, as globalisation instantly aids he production process. Over time, however, the entire labour force will begin to see the reward with a more prosperous and competitive economy.
The sagacious man would not be mocked if he assumed that the gap would shrink. Logically, one should glean that the more impactful globalisation is, the greater the standards of living shall be. One could glean that a flourishing economy is sure to bring more satisfaction than a lacklustre one. As GDP continues to rise, and trade barriers continue to be broken down, it makes sense that a booming economy will increase the overall living standards of a country, through fiscal expenditure, growth in capital advancement and comparative advantage. And with Vietnamese economic growth and standards of living rising in unison, it seems as if that may be the case.
One also, however, should peer beyond the statistics sheet to completely fathom the question. Ontological thinking is required; the philosophy of socialism is important. The very essence of socialism is the concept of sharing; yet, epistemology suggests embedded within humanity is the undeniable greed and desire for power. That it something we are sure of. Such epistemological thinking can arguably be irrelevant as well. If an economy is dynamic, then there are no solidified ‘known behaviours’ of how an economy and its citizens will react. Can the behaviour of Socialist economies be empirically justified? And, for that matter, can a capitalist society be critically analysed?
If so, it is interesting to observe the behaviours of socialist/communist societies that have existed, and, usually the trauma and devastation that is associated with it. The likes of the reigns of Stalin, Hitler, Jong-Il and such company make it almost impossible to support the ideals of Socialism. Although, in its intentions, Socialism is almost the only logical way forward; the only thing that can prevent its success is the society. Humanity.
It is undeniable that the horrors of Nazism and such are a total abuse of power, but equally indisputable is the fact that capitalism will never completely satisfy the consumer. Economically, this appears as wonderful news; economic growth will never come to a complete standstill and consumerism and materialism continue to dilute the thinking of the modern capitalist. However, speaking strictly on economic philosophy, will we ever be content, or always be wanting for more? (As economics is about maximising satisfaction.) With the inevitable depletion of resources that prospers, seemingly with such eventual frivolity, the consequences of a slow, savage decline of a capitalist economy looms as a brutal and abhorrently long and ugly battle, until humanity eventually wipes itself out. The Socialist society suicide is now almost a more preferable outcome.
It is ridiculous to suggest that neither Capitalism nor Socialism provide short and long term benefits to its citizens, but both ideologies contain serious flaws in its assumption towards human behaviour. Whilst as a pure concept, both offer rewarding outcomes and seem suitable and sustainable enough, the success of their implementation onto a human society is questionable.
Having a free market-oriented economy in a country of Socialist governance seems almost paradoxical, yet, as the net wealth of Vietnam grows, the conflict between a restricting Government and a free market economy seems to be conforming to that exact peculiar case. Surely, catastrophic consequences must loom for this strange structure, as the Government would be the primary beneficiary of a prosperous free-market economy. Therefore, one sector of the ideology flourishes and boasts competition and penultimate efficiency, only for the government to reap the reward.
One could then argue that with the reward, the Government would ration it equally among its citizens, by abiding by the laws of Socialism. So therefore, it is the most beneficial system, as equality is established and everybody shares in the reward. But this is again contradictory to the capitalistic nature of the free market.
So the gap between the ones that can benefit, and the ones who cannot, is a paradox. The more productive and efficient citizens do not necessarily receive the reward they have earned, or they deserve. But overall, their mere existence equates to a more productive economy, which means greater reward for all. It is almost as if the ones who do not benefit from globalisation are the most productive citizens, as the Socialist restrictions prevent them from earning their deserved share.
This makes the whole concept of productivity contradictory, and funnily enough, ironic. It is important to stress that this is completely hypothetical, and arguably, almost an impossible condition to create. A socialist Government would not be able to keep up with a free market economy, as the hardest working and most productive citizens would fight for more independence, and almost a capitalist society. So the Government would have to intervene, which would probably lead to new reform. But then we arrive at the consumerism and poverty issue once again.
Simply, at first glance, the logical response to the question would hypothesise similarly to: as the net wealth of the Vietnamese economy grows, the gap between those who benefit from globalisation and those who cannot would diminish, as GDP growth and general economic prosperity should equate to greater standards of living. However, after more thorough consideration, it can be argued that the gap could widen due to the philosophical ideals of capitalism and consumerism in regards to the concept of a ‘personal benefit’ and a ‘socialist (shared) benefit’.
Also, the industrialisation hotspots of the metropolitan cities could potentially widen the gap, due to accessibility reasons of globalisation, and the lack thereof in rural areas. It is almost a case of ‘Dutch disease’ in regards to the areas of impact for globalisation; they are almost restricted to cities.
Of course, this dubious and mysterious ‘gap’ does matter; socialism is about mutual benefit. But a country would struggle to maintain an economic system that gives citizens considerable amounts of choice within the parameters of socialist governance. How the gap behaves is ultimately determined by the behaviour of the economic society; humanity.
Perhaps the answer to the most efficient ideology for humanity lies within the foreign realms of heterodox economics, as almost all neoclassical economic theories have proven to contain flaws. The paradoxical nature of the governance and the economy appears preposterous, the confliction akin the English Church and State contradiction on formal antidisestablishmentarianism. It simply doesn’t make sense. It is too difficult to argue a preferred way forward; in doing so one is judgemental and generalising to what is conceived as a personal and communal benefit. However, what isn’t completely dubious is the certain impact that globalisation will bring.
If there is one thing that is Pho sure, Only Father Time knows the fate of the Vietnam Paradox. And when the final dong sounds from the clock, what an intriguing fate it will be.
germansingergirl
janainaart
romaincrisis
ellievsbear
stormborns
2087
snowghoul
