It’s now 2012, and some are understandably more optimistic than others. An economic slump that began in 2007 remains Western policymakers’ biggest headache, in addition to near-total currency collapses and debt ceiling pantomimes. Developing countries, long schooled in the Western way to prosperity, should be forgiven for a little gloating. Yet while such countries as China and India bounced back faster than anyone after the global economic downturn, complacency is still something neither can afford. Their sustained growth is anything but assured.

This juncture is a crossroads for the world economy. The West’s economic growth in the latter part of the past century is historically unprecedented. Crucially, it made the transition from manufacturing-based growth driven by domestic demand to service-based growth and trade. In contrast, China and India were posting growth rates of only 3.8% and 5.8% in 1990, giving little indication of the boom to come.

The opening of the Indian economy to foreign investment (“delicensing”) and the development of a Chinese state-controlled capitalism led to a dramatic change in both countries’ economic statuses. China, now the world’s second largest economy has consistently posted growth figures of over 10%, and India is not far behind. Unlike the West, both countries have thrived on export-led economies. China is a global manufacturing powerhouse, while India has cornered the service market.

Relying almost exclusively on an export-led growth strategy does not yield long-term growth. The Economist recently highlighted an analysis of Asian growth by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The study outlines two possible scenarios in 2050: the world’s economy could either be worth $191 trillion or $250 trillion, depending on whether or not China and India continue to rely on their current growth paradigm. The Economist concludes with a warning: if policymakers do not make the difficult but necessary decisions at this crossroads, the former number could quickly become our reality.

The $60 Trillion Question

What might these difficult decisions be? They are hardly problems that can be banished with a simple prescription. The only guarantor of prosperity is innovation and entrepreneurship. In a self-reinforcing upward spiral, innovation would lead to the vaunted domestic demand that would drive a post-industrial economy. The obvious impediment is the impossibility of creating entrepreneurs. At best, a government can provide fertile conditions for innovation and risk-taking.

Unfortunately, India and China have not taken this approach. In a 2001 paper, Stanford economists Debbie Liao and Philip Sohmen argue that the increasing trend towards Chinese entrepreneurship is still hampered by the lack of infrastructure and capital. In India’s case, the number of licenses required to start a business is daunting enough without the unsympathetic bankruptcy laws that would make even the most risk-friendly entrepreneur think twice. Innovation, in short, is blossoming in a small way despite government obstacles.

While better governance and accountability would go a long way to increase entrepreneurship, one of the most significant barriers to small business is an underdeveloped financial market. In the developed world, financial intermediation plays the important role of efficiently matching borrowers and lenders. When wealth is created in a country, it is invested in businesses that show promise. While some of them are doomed to fail, the ones that succeed become tomorrow’s giants. Efficient allocation of capital helps to ensure long-term prosperity.

By most standards, Asian capital markets are underdeveloped. This creates a divide between investors and businesses, where there should ideally be none. Creating better financial markets is easier said than done, but deregulation would at least create conditions fertile for investment banks and other financial institutions. India, in particular, can attribute its growth over the last twenty years to deregulation of industry, but its financial markets remain mired in licenses and red tape.

A New Kind of Growth

The way forward is not simple: it requires infrastructural changes, deregulation, better governance, and less corruption. Popular predictions of China overtaking the US economy by 2040, with India a close third, may yet prove to be true, but this will not mean much. Wealth can be created through manufacturing and exporting goods and services, but the crucial indicator of the countries’ growth is how much citizens benefit from growth. China ranks 94 in the world for GDP per capita, and India is an alarming 138. These rankings don’t speak of inclusive, domestically created wealth.

Despite the challenges and hurdles, a determined group of entrepreneurs have found a way to succeed. But if they are not given the opportunity to succeed in the future, the last twenty years will look like a flash in the pan.

An Egyptian man casts his vote in Egypt's parliamentary elections

US politicians often impose sanctions in the hope of securing US security. Iranian sanctions, for example, are geared toward halting the country’s nuclear weapons program. Such measures do increase the stakes of continued nuclear development (especially in combination with the threat of invasion). President Obama’s electoral vulnerability and the GOP’s hawkish tendencies also make this threat more credible. On the neutralization of nuclear programs, US policymakers can point to recent successes. After the first Gulf War, sanctions helped to neutralize Saddam Hussein’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs—notwithstanding subsequent justifications for the 2003 invasion. Sanctions also convinced another Arab pariah, Muammar Qaddafi, to give up his nuclear ambitions. However, without war, both leaders remained in power. Sanctions and condemnations can help protect US security, but this does not answer the fundamentally different question of how best to promote democracy.

Short of war—which can, at best, create flimsy, nominally democratic governments—America cannot force democratic change. This truth has been borne out with such nations as North Korea, Burma/Myanmar, and Iran. Economic sanctions and the freezing of leaders’ personal bank accounts applies pressure but also punishes whole economies and peoples, which increases instability. Often, autocratic rulers will take advantage of such conditions by painting Western leaders as the source of all societal ills, thereby tightening their grip on power. And by impoverishing the targeted nation, the US may distract from questions of political representation and induce the opposite of the intended democratizing effect. Cold War politics and the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in a fifty-year embargo on Cuban goods, yet the Castro family has endured for eleven US presidential administrations.

Democracy must be driven from within; artificially installing governments should not be our primary goal. It rarely works as planned and imposes huge “upkeep” burdens on the American taxpayer. However, given the propensity of democratic countries not to fight one another (i.e. democratic peace theory), the US should promote democracy by other means.

The US already exerts tremendous soft power (e.g. movies, clothing, and fast food) abroad. America should play to this strength and promote educational exchanges, diplomatic engagement, and free trade. Exercising soft power will help increase wealth and spread knowledge of open political systems, nurturing nascent democracies. And as national wealth increases and basic necessities become universal, people tend to demand more political influence.

The soft power approach implies a responsibility to any resulting democratic movements. If democracy promotion is our goal, then the US should stand with protestors trying to unseat autocratic regimes. The US missed an opportunity after the summer 2009 Iranian elections, and our inaction betrayed our overriding security interests. During similar “democratic uprisings” in the future, the US should tighten the noose on autocratic regimes by publically supporting the opposition. While tardy, US action in Egypt more closely follows the desired model. Despite his relatively amicable stance toward the US and Israel, President Obama did call for Hosni Mubarak’s removal. In similar instances, as with Syria, the full weight of Western governments should spur and support protestors.

One caveat to US actions that supports the formation of new governments abroad is that the US will be unable to control the direction of new movements. Especially in light of austerity fever in Washington, the US cannot continually monitor newly created regimes. While NATO forces helped remove Gaddafi from power, the composition of the regime to replace him (democratic or otherwise) remains unclear. The US faces the same conundrum in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These nations, relative to those of Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa, pose critical extremist threats. In these instances, rigorous cost/benefit analyses ought to determine whether international democracy should trump US security.

Sanctions and harsh words, long the political strategy to “act tough” on strongmen across the globe, may reinforce the dictators’ domestic position. While aggressive actions may prevent genocide or enhance national security, they do not necessarily promote democracy. By advocating for free trade and highlighting America’s educational system and style of government, the US can nudge foreign nationals toward democracy. Once domestic discontent with the status quo reaches a fever pitch, the US must provide more public support for regime change. In this way, we can move toward creating free and stable nations worldwide.

Artwork by Audrey Westcott

In the style of Joseph Goebbels, North Korean state television celebrated Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un’s first birthday in power on January 8 with a rousing documentary detailing the young ruler’s prodigious achievements. Less than a month into a term that could last half a century, North Koreans know their dear leader as “having the wisdom of great men, extraordinary competence, and military brilliance.”

So has nothing changed in North Korea? The most repressive government in the world is still ruled by a round-faced, military-focused, and easily mocked (see South Park, Team America: World Police, and @KimJongNumberUn) member of the Kim clan with launch codes in his back pocket. Will the injection of youth, age being the only immediately discernible difference between Jong-un and his father, be an impetus for progressive reforms in North Korea?

Early indications aren’t promising. Since Jong-il’s death, border patrol officers have shot and killed no fewer than three aspirant defectors, according to a South Korean human rights activist. Any defector, regardless of his fate, exposes his children, siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins to imprisonment and possible death— a directive instituted by Jong-il and almost immediately reaffirmed by his son.

Strict border patrols are merely one element of Jong-un’s blueprint for securing the respect of North Korea’s array of generals and imbuing his 25 million subjects with the fear essential to a totalitarian regime. Prior to Jong-il’s funeral procession in Pyongyang, attendees were sternly instructed not to wear hats, gloves, or scarves despite sub-freezing temperatures. The order was intended to demonstrate the North Korean people’s solidarity with Jong-un, who would later carry his father’s coffin without gloves.

Such ridiculous commands were typical of Jong-il and appear well on their way to becoming a mainstay of the Jong-un regime. However, there is hope for a freer North Korea under Kim Jong-un, who, at 28 or 29 (his year of birth is not known), is the youngest head of state in the world.

Most notably, Jong-un exhibited a more personable demeanor in his birthday propaganda video. Whereas his father would have been seen seriously saluting foot soldiers, Jong-un fashioned himself as “just one of the guys.” He was taped shaking hands and even laughing with members of his million-man army. The West can only hope that Jong-un’s relative affability will translate to a more cooperative approach to international affairs.

Jong-un is fairly Westernized. He spent a considerable amount of his childhood at an international school in Bern, Switzerland where he presumably developed an understanding and some degree of appreciation for democracy and basic freedoms. During his time in Switzerland, he was known to enjoy watching American basketball, growing especially fond of Michael Jordan and, later, Kobe Bryant. On the court, he wore Nike shoes and was described by a Russian classmate as a “playmaker.”

Surely Jong-il delivered an inspiring pep talk to his son on the virtues of totalitarianism before his death, but it is hard to believe that Jr. is completely uninfluenced by Western life. Of course, Westernized sons of dictators have disappointed us lately (Bashar al-Assad, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi). Yet the North Korean economy and standard of life is so dreadful that desperation might be the motive for a move in the right direction.

Kim Jong-un might be short and round. But he is certainly not his father.

Unsurprisingly, the American steel industry reached a turning point right around Gary’s peak population years. Steel had emerged as a major US export years before, most impressively in the years leading up to and including World War II as the global demand for steel armaments exploded. After a few strife-filled decades, US Steel Company, the producer of 67% of American steel, recognized the United Steel Workers of America, soon to be one of the nation’s largest labor organizations. Following the Second World War, when the US controlled roughly 60% of the world’s steel production, the USWA decided to flex its organizational muscles to secure wage increases and new benefits for its members. To achieve these goals, unions often organized strikes. The labor force volatility became so troubling that President Harry Truman decided to seize the entire industry in 1952 in a high-profile showdown between government and organized labor. The unions were ultimately victorious, with the Supreme Court ruling Truman’s seizure unconstitutional. Steel workers quickly became the highest-paid blue-collar workers in the country on the strength of their unions.

But the unions’ reigned over a crumbling empire. High labor costs crippled the industry, sending tens of thousands from the mills to the unemployment line. The American auto industry in recent years has discovered the same cold truth: when companies spend all their capital on pensions and benefits, no funds remain for research and development. When innovation dies, companies follow close behind. Just ask a Kodak employee. A bankrupt company can’t afford to pay salaries- much less dental insurance.

State governments, unlike companies, do not have the option of mergers or going under altogether. Recognizing the challenges faced by his state, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a right-to-work bill into law this week- the first such legislation to be enacted since Oklahoma’s law passed a decade ago. Right-to-work laws make it illegal for unions to collect compulsory payments from workers. Twenty-three states now have right-to-work laws. The issue, as it affects both Big Labor and business interests, receives emotional and partial treatment by its supporters and opponents. Governor Daniels, a Republican, largely toes the same line as the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, claiming that workers in right-to-work states earn on average $1000 more than their compulsorily unionized cousins. On the other side, Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott released a statement condemning the legislation, warning it would lead to “lower wages for all working Hoosiers, less safety at work, and less dignity and security in old age or ill health.”

Direct comparisons between specific states with different business climates and demographics rarely yield definitive conclusions. Time will tell whether Indiana’s unemployment rate will drop without declines in standards of living. However, anecdotally at least, certain large manufacturers have claimed that they will only consider right-to-work states for new facilities. In statements detailing his support for the legislation, Daniels frequently referenced how Indiana, despite its highly rated business climate, lost out to a right-to-work state in the pursuit of a lucrative contract with Volkswagen for a new auto manufacturing plant. Daniels voiced his determination to avoid further rejection, a promise that carries significantly more weight with the law on his side.

A crucial disclaimer regarding right-to-work laws must state that they are in no way anti-union or anti-worker. They are anti-compulsion. Americans have long viewed compulsory actions as befitting a monarchy or dictatorship- not a democracy built on the protection of personal freedom. Workers in right-to-work states may still organize, and labor unions can be just as influential. The difference now is that workers must evaluate whether the union truly serves their interests, and only then decide to be a dues-paying member. Bob Dylan articulated the cancer afflicting American manufacturing in his rarely played 1983 song “Union Sundown”: “It’s sundown on the union/And what’s made in the USA/Sure was a good idea/Until greed got in the way.” Dawn can come again to American industrial cities such as Gary, but not without a willingness to abandon the old failed model and to experiment with fresh ideas like right-to-work.

The latest edition of WUPR is available now, online and in print around campus. Click on the cover to read more about the Republican Primaries, Personhood Amendments, and the growing importance of Iran in the Middle East. Let us know what you think in the comments, or on Twitter and Facebook!

Greetings from across the pond. I may be abroad in the UK this semester, but even the Atlantic Ocean can’t separate me from the farce that is the GOP nomination saga. Which reminds me…

In a recent WUPR column, Ben Cristol finds the media’s reproach of Mitt Romney rather suspicious.

To attack Romney, the media works hard to minimize his success.

OK, I’m with you. It’s true, it seems that the media has been pulling for Newt Gingrich lately. Well, that’s strange, isn’t it? What explanation does Cristol have for this kind of behavior?

The liberal media fears Governor Romney because he can defeat President Obama in November.

And here we have the classic conservative delusion. Cristol’s argument is that the mainstream media, adhering to orders from Comrade Obama, has targeted Mitt Romney in order to cripple him before November. I am as happy as the next guy to criticize the press, but not for Cristol’s bogus claim that it’s comprised of partisan activists. The media has helped to propel Newt into the spotlight because of its never-ending addiction to conflict and sensationalism. It just makes for a better story. It’s not about the electoral threat of Mitt Romney; it’s about jazzy headlines, which Gingrich has no problem generating. The dynamic is pretty ironic when you consider that the “liberal media” that Gingrich loves haranguing are, coincidentally, the ones pulling for him. Let’s read on.

Furthermore, they use this argument [that voters are searching for a true conservative alternative] to paint Romney as a weak candidate “without a core conviction”, and then mock the instability in the Republican party.  In reality, this volatility reflects well on the Republican party because Republican voters closely scrutinize and vet their candidates. [my bold]

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Most voters, whether Republican or Democrat, watch the primary season like I watch regular season baseball. I don’t catch too many games, but I keep up with who is hitting the most home runs at the time. However, when the playoffs roll around (i.e., the general election), I’m an eager fan with a strong opinion and favorite team. This is precisely the reason why there has been so much “volatility” in this nomination process. Voters are more likely to tell a pollster that they prefer the flavor of the month candidate (e.g., Herman Cain) because that’s who they have been hearing about the most that hour. By the way, that’s dictated more by someone like Rush Limbaugh than by an overarching leftist media agenda. Cristol blames the left for the quest for a Romney alternative, but I would sooner blame Fox News and 86 excruciating GOP debates.

The simple answer, it would seem, is that journalists hate the front-runner. They always have and always will. That’s why the media reveled in Obama/Hillary. Yes, the press tends to be chock-full of liberal coasties, but that is the nature of the profession. The notion that members of the media live and breathe to topple guys like Romney because they have a chance of besting a Democrat is nothing more than conservative paranoia.

The media’s bias is towards conflict, sensationalism, and page views. That’s actually something to be mad about.

Spineless Massachusetts Moderate!

Come at me bro.

The battle for Florida has turned ugly. More than policies, more than ideologies, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are trading blows at the lowest level of politics: personal attacks.

After last week’s debates, Gingrich made it known that he was unhappy over the decision to disallow audience members from cheering or applauding candidates. Even as Romney leads his rival by double digits in Florida’s preliminary polls, he went out of his way to label Gingrich “Goldilocks” for his dissatisfaction over the varying debate conditions. With such a healthy lead, did Romney gain anything from this other than smug self-satisfaction? Is this what American politics has come to? Name-calling?

And as the numbers stack up against Newt Gingrich in Florida, his antics have become increasingly frantic. Though he previously stated that he would abstain from negative ads against fellow presidential candidates, his rhetoric has become just as vitriolic as those of Romney.

The former Speaker repeated his accusation that Romney was a dishonest man and that Romney is backed by Wall Street investment banks, which are held responsible by many of running the economy into the ground.

All signs point to Romney winning the crucial Florida GOP primary, buoyed by the effect of his constant barrage of attacks on Gingrich’s history. The former Massachusetts governor is keen to point out that his rival “resigned in disgrace” and that his numerous ethics violations, to say nothing of his personal baggage, reveal a man of fantastical ideas and little else.

Our favorite political pundit Sarah Palin remarked that the GOP was cannibalizing itself in each candidate trying to outdo the other. For once, I have to agree. With Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich expending all their energy against each other—revealing their weaknesses of character and hurting their respective chances for party-wide support—what will they have left for our friend in the White House come November?

Meanwhile, it sure bodes well for our incumbent.

As for the speech itself, the president proposed a wide range of new initiatives, nearly all of which have no chance of becoming law even by the most optimistic of predictions. He encouraged passage of the Dream Act, mandatory schooling until age 18, eliminating tax code loopholes, taxing offshore profits of multinational corporations, pursuing an “all of the above” energy policy, and passing a payroll tax cut. Of the aforementioned, the latter two could potentially see major progress in the coming year. True to the partisan warrior he has become, Obama vowed to fight obstructionism against his agenda, which many Republicans interpreted as an unwillingness to listen to opposing views and to compromise.

Without question, the so-called mainstream media has a heavy liberal bent.  Organizations like Newsweek and MSNBC are quick to pounce on perceived weaknesses of the GOP candidates, but tend to ignore or minimize the mishaps of the Obama administration, such as the recent Solyndra scandal. This same bias taints the media’s coverage of the Republican primaries.

An energetic and spirited campaign process is occurring on the Republican side of the aisle, in which several candidates are vying to become the Republican nominee and eventually displace the sitting president.  Jake Tapper of ABC News recently claimed that out of all the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney was the favorite of the mainstream media. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth; Romney is the least favorite Republican candidate of the mainstream media.

The liberal media fears Governor Romney because he can defeat President Obama in November. Obama has no record to run on since the economy is still in bad shape, and has reneged on major campaign promises.  He promised to keep unemployment below 8 percent and also to make drastic cuts to the national debt.  The Obama administration is already using its new strategy that will be seen throughout the general election; diverting attention and placing blame on the Republican candidates for President and the Republican Congress. Despite these attacks, Romney continues to appeal to independents and moderates, the swing voters who decide elections.  Democrats are paying attention to the numbers and would like to bring down Romney prematurely.

To attack Romney, the media works hard to minimize his success. Since the Ames, Iowa straw poll last summer, Governor Romney has had a relatively consistent standing in major polls.  His poll numbers have not seen huge drops or surges, remaining around 25 percent, and he is constantly included as one of several frontrunners.  His rivals have all taken turns rapidly rising to competitive numbers and then dramatically falling.  Media outlets claim that many Republicans have continuously searched for the “conservative alternative” to Romney, because Romney is not widely trusted to be sufficiently conservative.  Furthermore, they use this argument to paint Romney as a weak candidate “without a core conviction”, and then mock the instability in the Republican party.  In reality, this volatility reflects well on the Republican party because Republican voters closely scrutinize and vet their candidates.  The increased scrutiny of the candidates in this Republican primary is due in large part to the recent Tea Party movement, which is often more suspicious of establishment candidates.  Tea Party voters hold candidates to a high standard during the vetting process, and expect them to maintain campaign promises.

Different candidates do not keep coming to the fore because Governor Romney is a weak conservative. Instead, they do so because this is a fluid, engaged electorate, and most of all because Romney is familiar to Republican voters.  Romney ran in the 2008 election to become the Republican nominee and has stayed in the spotlight as a vocal critic of President Obama’s policies since his unsuccessful bid.  Many Tea Party voters wish to see a fresh face as their nominee, and will come around to Romney if he gains further momentum.

Sixty percent of Republican voters believe that Mitt Romney is the Republican candidate most likely to beat Obama.  Even more are willing and eager to vote for him against Obama.  Romney consistently ties and sometimes exceeds Obama’s numbers in head-to-head matchups. If only more voters like my grandparents turned off the biased mainstream media, they would gain a clearer picture of Mitt Romney’s strengths as a candidate, and his lead in the polls could expand even further.

Ben Cristol is a freshman in The College of Arts & Sciences.  He can be reached at bencristol@wustl.edu.

Enter zombies.

Daniel W. Drezner, Professor of Political Science at Tufts and frequent contributor to Foreign Policy magazine, has undertaken the noble and novel task of preparing us all for the zombie apocalypse by teaching us how the world would react to such an outbreak. His book Theories of International Politics and Zombies builds on an article he originally wrote for FP back in 2010.

The basic premise is simple: We all know that zombies like to eat brains. We, with our tasty, tasty brains, do not want that to happen. We create and sustain governments to protect us from all sorts of threats, so we should expect government to protect us from zombies as well. Therefore, it’s worth knowing how the governments of the world might react should the dead decide to walk the earth.

Let me be clear: this book is brilliant. It combines copious research into both the science and history of the zombie culture with a concise, approachable, but thorough treatment of the most important international theories in the field. Legitimate and insightful analyses of popular culture and crisis management are peppered with quick, clean humor.

I do think the book stops short of its potential. Drezner is committed to a brief, snappy treatment of each topic, but there is little in the way of connecting material or comparative analysis of the different theories aside from an unending quest to find new ways to say “the Undead.” And while he has certainly done his homework into the zombie mythology, he is less than rigorous in his assumptions, so the realistic possibilities for planning based on his analysis are limited. (Even barring a true zombie invasion, the case is incredibly useful in modelling other crises, such as pandemics.) All the same, these are minor concerns, mere nitpicks on a work that is entertaining and enlightening to zombie enthusiasts, political scientists, and neophytes alike.

The book weighs in at just over 100 pages, so you can finish it in a weekend and be better off for it. While it might not shatter your conception of the UN, it will leave you better equipped the next time you get into an argument with an International Relations major. And it might just convince you to keep a crowbar by the bed, just in case you need to bash some heads.

————–

The book Theories of International Politics and Zombies is available now. You can find it on Amazon here.