Kohli’s argument suggests that cohesive capitalist states are the most effective at industrialization. What are the political, social, and economic insights to be gleaned from this observation? If countries want to develop economically in a democratic setting, what are the key lessons learned in Kohli‘s arguments?
Introduction:
Capitalism is here to stay and one cannot deny that. Recently we have seen the development of several industrialized nations which are not capitalist founded such as China and India. In his book, Kohli argues that industrialization undoubtedly brings about social change so it is important that those countries that are embarking on the road of industrialization have to keep in mind that change can be great as well as absolute. This means that those countries who are built on capitalist notions can easily adapt to this change far better than those countries which are not capitalist minded.
‘Cohesive-capitalist and fragmented-multiclass states are two of the other ideal-typical states to be found in the contemporary developing world.’ (p 10). In this quote we can observe the differentiation which Kohli is at pains to point out with the former appearing to be far more adaptable to industrialization.
The Industrial revolution brought about a huge and not inconsiderable change in women’s conditions in the middle of the 19th century. First of all, the women moved out of the house and into the workplace, making a huge and substantial contribution to the workforce although in rather horrific working conditions. Obviously women in poor classes had to work to survive and these were sent out to tackle some very physical jobs thus completely changing their mindset and their opinion on life. However it also found them a new form of independence and a will to attain new goals. The middle classes were also affected in the sense that they began gaining a certain amount of independence by observing their peers in the world of work and slowly but surely they began infiltrating the male dominated professions. Wealthier women also had access to more material goods and travel was also a factor which brought them to new ideas and different lifestyles. The Industrial revolution was a melting pot of sorts and this affected woman in a significant manner even in the relationship between husband and wife.
Several innovations came through in the second half of the 19th century amongst which one may list the clothes mill which revolutionized industry and the clothes trade. There was also considerable innovation in the steel industry which was also very much revolutionized with new presses and steel mills as well as the way goods were transported through the construction of canals. Here one could see the link between the state and the private sector where the former provided the infrastructure while the latter provided the capital and idea for the creation of work and the maximisation of profits which is a typical capitalist system. Manchester was a typical European city at that time with vast industrial output, a huge amount of immigrant workers in substandard accommodation and a host of wealthy people who profited from the incredible increase in industrial power which permeated these sort of cities. The city’s topography and streetscape was also changed accordingly and developed substantially into a close and rather straitjacketed format which eventually breached all sanitation laws. This sort of congestion persisted until the end of the First World War where conditions in such industrial cities were still at an abominable level.The German chemical industry was undoubtedly one of the most advanced in Europe if not the world at that time. Inventions which dealt with explosives, machine guns and other lighting techniques such as halogen bulbs and electricity went hand in hand with industrial development as was the discovery of the gramophone which changed the way music was transmitted into households where the Germans were foremost amongst this discovery.
So it can be explained according to Kohli that Britain and Germany are much better suited for industrialization since they were built on the capitalist system of power and capital. Kohli argues that ‘the institutionalised relationship of the state to the private sector is key to understanding the relative effectiveness of state intervention in the economy’ (p 12).
China as a case study
A typical case for this scenario would be the China which was in the past compared with the China that we know today. Coming out of the post Mao age, Deng Xiaoping was certainly a force to be reckoned with in the early days of the Chinese economic miracle. Having brought the concept of state capitalism to China, Xiaoping managed to change a culture which was essentially rooted in paternalism and complete control but this was obviously at the expense of some economic and social freedom. The eventual events which led to the Tiannammen Square massacre remain a blot on Deng’s copybook and he definitely could have dealt with the situation in a far better way without being so utterly ruthless.
Deng Xiaoping was definitely a much more wily and crafty negotiator of power. In fact he had fallen out of favour during Mao’s time for his hesitancy to intervene in Mao’s grander schemes which eventually led the country into complete disaster. Deng managed to achieve a lot in terms of opening the country up to capitalist influences which eventually led to incredible expansion in this area. However civil liberties remained as restricted as ever and whenever there was some sort of uprising this was immediately and ruthlessly quelled.
It is quite hard to reconcile the fact that Deng Xiaoping who presided over what must have been the most incredible economic miracle for China in a matter of a few years would have been the person responsible for a massacre of the like of Tiananmen Square where so many innocent people lost their lives. One finds it hard to reconcile this fact with the impressive economic reforms which Xiaoping achieved and which transformed the country completely.
Although the Tiananmen revolt was brutally suppressed, there was a lot of political gain out of everything and the country definitely changed hugely for the better in every sense. This also meant that the country was much more open to reforms and this created a China which was better able to tolerate dissidents. Unfortunately this was not always the case even recently but on the whole, the revolt opened the eyes of Chinese politicians to the world.
Obviously the relaxation of civil liberties brought about a surge in economic activity which was pretty much the way forward in this respect. The Yuan suffered initially but eventually as reforms were implemented; it increased its strength substantially and accordingly.
Chinese society remains rather repressed in certain ways but things are changing substantially and there is a lot of room for eventual relaxation of civil liberties. The society in certain provinces such as Guangdong is experiencing its own sort of revolution and this will definitely come to a head in the future as things begin to change rapidly and for the better.
Conclusion:
It is not always easy to combine industrialization with democratic reform and although China is a good case study, the situation is far from perfect. Kohli states that ‘On the demand side, too, cohesive-capitalist states have pursued a variety of policies to promote their growth commitment’ (p 16). With China certainly fitting the bill, we can observe that such a structured state is far more adaptable to industrialization than one which is not.
Works Cited:
Kohli A: State Directed Development; Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery, Cambridge 2011, Print
