Is development in the twenty-first century likely to be focused on an American model, a Chinese model, a global cities model, or none of these? (original) (raw)

This paper discusses economic context of each of the models of global development mentioned in the title, outlining and evaluating advantages and disadvantages of each while concentrating on the appeal each model exerts now and in the future. Such method is applied in order to compare respective attractiveness and finally predict which model of development is likely to be the most successful in the world, in the twenty-first century. The paper excels in an ability to critically inspect more than one aspect of an issue, thus questions and challenges of historical prediction are discussed. By analysing globalization forces, aspects of the International Political Economy (international trade, the international monetary and financial system; multinational corporations, economic development and inequality), the geopolitical balance of power, historical context, distribution of wealth and word systems theory, modernisation theory, dependency theory and post-development theories, the paper will point in which direction systemic forces are tending. Which economic model could exert the greatest influence? On which model efforts in emulation should be focused on? Based on an examination of extended periods of time and historical forces, the paper will draw conclusions from historical trends and patterns. It will also discuss which economic models are likely to be imitated or adopted. In the longue durée of economic history, beyond, or beneath, the cycles and structural crises, lie ’’old attitudes of thought and action, resistant frameworks dying hard, at times against all logic.’’ (Braudel, 1958: 733). The development of the world economy is strongly influenced by three major phenomena that seem to be accelerating beyond the control of any system determining which model of development will be the most appealing. These are: demography, the worldwide interdependence of official and private actions, and scientific and technological progress. Critically building on the theory of environmental determinism, the paper will discuss arguments in favour of the factors which predispose societies and states towards particular development trajectories. The importance of geography like the constraints placed by the natural environment upon human production and communication will be inspected. Equally, the importance of geography in the context of Global Political Economy will be highlighted, more specifically: the effects of terrain on trade and productivity, i.e. why population densities tend to concentrate on coastlines and why states with large coasts benefit from higher average incomes compared to those in landlocked countries. The effects of climate on productivity, e.g. climate water navigability impact on economic growth and GDP per capita (studies by Paul Krugman, Jared Diamond and Jeffrey Sachs). By using variables to measure environmental determinism, such as: climate, land composition, latitude, and the presence of infectious disease, trends in worldwide economic development on local, regional and global scales will be predicted. Based on 'The Limits to Growth' theory, it will be deduced that given the possibility of exponential economic and population growth with finite supply of resources being reduced alternative theories such as Earth system justice could have more bearing on the discussion about the optimal, global development model. At the same time, deterministic theories will not be treated as magical ‘theories of everything’. An opposite way of thinking about the financial system is that it is a highly complex system, made up of a very large number of interacting components that are asymmetrically organized into a network. When economists accept the idea that global economy operates as a complex system, it may be assumed that certain complex systems are wholly non-deterministic. It would be next to impossible therefore to make predictions about the future. To speculate about the most likely appealing models of global development based only on past data is futile. The task is difficult as experts cannot see into the future. The factors affecting economies are too numerous and complicated to predict with accuracy into the long-term future. Economic predictions are notoriously unreliable. Sometimes, economic gurus can make slight misjudgements, but there are plenty of times when they miss the mark altogether. Yet, many experts tend to believe that economics can change the world. Without economics, it is impossible to affect any substantive change. Economics is the study of scarcity and its implications for the use of resources, production of goods and services, growth of production and welfare over time, it is the driving energy of society. Consequently, what is required is a coherent theory behind long run processes of systemic change and these are best modelled separately, and not as part of a fully integrated development model that imparts false notions of determinism and precision. Finally, the economy is waking up to its dependency on nature. Global development of the twenty-first century is unlikely to be focused singularly on one of the above-mentioned models. It is more likely that it will be focused on a hybrid or none of them. However, critics would respond that the future development has to be based on some existing blueprint. Therefore, looking to nature for inspiration to solve problems in a regenerative way, this paper constitutes a quest for economic development model that respects the planet’s ecosystem. What if the global development model protected people and the planet? The preferred model discussed is: sustainable model of global development, i.e. the model for the creation of regenerative communities that strives to provide a healthy environment for all people and living systems. However, it is unclear whether policy makers will implement it. Thus, the search for the most appealing model could be compared to the search for the Holy Grail - such a task is very difficult and the model could hardly exist, if at all. It is difficult to equivocally state on which economic theories the model for the creation of regenerative communities will build on. Therefore, it is not justified to discuss simply which economic model is likely to prevail. Policy makers, economic planners and world’s leaders will have to make smart choices while the globalization processes are unstoppable and accelerating. Lessons amongst countries can be shared and the relevant models adopted to meet each country’s independent conditions. Although there is unlikely to be a model that is universally applicable for every country or every part of the world, having conducted an objective analysis, two general observations are evident: earthly societies and political systems with no exception are addicted to economic growth as much as to fossil fuels. Economic growth has taken precedence over environmental protection on the premise that raising living standards for people now must have priority over preserving nature for future generations. But this way of thinking runs into trouble when the destruction of natural capital rises to such a height that it blocks growth itself. (Thomas, 2023). The crucial question is whether runaway climate change puts to rest the growth-versus-environment dichotomy, necessitating that they be seen as the two sides of the same coin. The answer is an unambiguous yes at the global level, and a qualified yes at the country level (Ibid.). The adoption of the new model of global development would have to follow the cutting of the Gordian knot of global civilization’s addiction to economic growth and fossil fuels. Societies would be faced with another challenge though. Namely, how to reinvent the economic system? This is the question of how to reform capitalism, thus the concept of regenerative capitalism refers to business practices that restore and build rather than exploit and destroy. The argument goes that current growth model served politicians and big corporations – the wealthiest in our society - well for a long time, but it is not environmentally sustainable. At the very least, this is the case for all already more-than wealthy countries. Besides, the quicker the world makes a transition to a truly sustainable economic system – one that does not depend on endless growth – the easier it will be to phase out the use of fossil fuels in time to avoid catastrophic climate change (Tønnessen, 2013). Economic growth will become sustainable only if governments, political actors, and local communities combine natural disaster prevention and controlling climate change into national growth strategies. When considering all types of capital, particularly human capital, climate action can drive economic growth, rather than hinder it (Thomas, 2017). The winners of the world crises are ten percent of the overconsuming wealthy, the overpopulated planet pursues reckless growth models, but positive change takes longer than expected. The limits to growth, in twenty-first century usage, refers to the limits of the ecosystem to absorb wastes and replenish raw materials in order to sustain the economy (the two populations of dissipative structures). Climate change is not a problem; it is a symptom of an ailing planet - God’s most brilliant gift to humanity, protesting against growth.