Neoliberals want to uphold individual
rights, but are not as supportive of group
A WORLD OF REGIONS
Module Lesson III- The contemporary world
THE GLOBAL DIVIDES: NORTH AND SOUTH
The “double divide” is caused by political
power, economic dependency, and
importation/exportation of resources. The
transition of industrial production to
cheaper labor sources, international
media, and expanding international trade
and communication have in some ways
made the world smaller, yet, in other ways
made the gaps between nations larger by
creating greater dependency of poor
nations to a wealthy nations.
Modernization theorists’ ideas are rooted
in the functionalist perspective of
inequality. This theory believed that
poverty is a basic human condition; so all
countries were poor to begin with. The first
countries to adopt modern technologies,
attitudes, and institutions will in turn be the
most wealthy and successful.
According to dependency theorists, the
factor that mainly drives the “double
divide” is colonial imperialism that
exploits poor countries by excessive
exportation of resources, taking additional
profits, and controlling through
neocolonialism. Poor countries are
dependent on more powerful countries
due to debt, foreign aid and domination by
the more powerful governments using
economic and cultural influences.
This theory counters the modernization
theory in that poverty is not the
fundamental human condition; it is created
as a result of capitalism, imperialism, and
neocolonialism. Dependency theorists
look at external factors affecting a nation’s
struggles with poverty and inequality.
The IMF and World Bank are the leaders of
neoclassical economics that believe in
structural adjustment. Neoclassical
economics promotes that some of the main
factors associated with the gaps in
inequality are driven by governmental
corruption, nepotism, and bureaucracy. To
avoid this, nations need to support an
economy controlled by supply-and-
demand, entrepreneurship, technological
advancement, and free enterprise.
rights. In contrast, world systems theorists
believe advancement is determined by the
“core centers of power” like the United
States. Core powers allow nations to
become semi-peripheral, to serve as
economic middlemen, in order to facilitate
further capitalist expansion.
This theory states the only way for
inequality to cease is for global capitalism
to be “overturned or radically altered”
This is a counter argument to neoliberal
theorists who believe poor countries must
work their way out of poverty themselves
to improve their economic position.
Pascale defined Hegemonic Systems as
social processes that reinforce inequalities
in a more subtle way compared to the more
upfront forces like formal laws and
physical force that were historically behind
the creation of inequalities. The oppression
requires ordinary people to believe they
have the same interests and needs as the
dominant group. Hegemonic systems are
created through more subtle processes
like cultural norms, values that lead to
success, and even standards of beauty.
These social processes create a culture that
is based upon the beliefs and values of the
dominant group and require the
subordinate group to internalize and
accept the processes. By making
hegemonic systems less ordinary, it
requires ordinary people to begin to look
at social processes with a critical eye and
ask why.
HEGEMONIC SYSTEMS are successful
when they become commonplace and
ordinary people do not question their
legitimacy. This silent undertow propelled
by ignorance is what allows oppression to
continue without a “sense of antagonistic
domination”. When hegemonic systems
become less ordinary and people begin to
realize they are in fact antagonistic and
oppressive, these systems cannot be
sustained.
Differences between the North and the
South were readily apparent well before
the American Revolution. Economic,
social, and political structures differed
significantly between the two regions, and
these disparities only widened in the
1800s. In 1861, the Civil War erupted
between the two sides, and much of the
conflict surrounded regional differences.
Once the war ended, reconstruction
lessened some regional disparities but
increased others.
SLAVERY AND FREE BLACKS
The major differences between the North
and the South- and one most responsible
for the Civil War- was the institution of
slavery. In the North, slavery was almost
universally prohibited by the 1800s, while
the institution was a cornerstone of
Southern society. In the North, many blacks
were free, and in states such as
Massachusetts, New York and Ohio, 100%
of the black population was free. In the
states of the Confederacy, by contrast, few
blacks were free. Virginia had the highest
ratio of free blacks to slaves, but even there
only 9% of the state’s black population was
free. The Emancipation Proclamation
would eliminate slavery, but for the first
half of the country, the issue divided the
South and the North.
INDUSTRIALIZATION AND
IMMIGRATION
The South’s slave economy supported
agriculture, while the North’s free society
enabled industrialization. By the beginning
of the Civil war, only one-ninth of the US’
industrial capacity was situated in the
South. The North, meanwhile, produced
97% of the country’s firearms and 93% of
its pig iron. The opportunities of
industrialization attracted European
immigrants led to building major cities in
the North. By 1860, the North’s population
stood at 23 million compared to the South’s
nine million. By contrast, 80% of
Southerners were employed in agriculture,
compared to just 40% in the North in 1860.
POLITICAL IDENTITIES
Before and after the Civil war, the North
and South were very different in their
political alignments. In the early 1800s,
many Northerners belonged to the Whig
Party, while Southerners tended towards
the Democrats. By the 1850s and beyond,
the Whig party had collapsed, and many
more Northerners became Republicans,
while Southerners remained loyal to the
Democrats. In addition, before the war,
abolitionism was much more common in
the North, though even there it was rare.
RECONSTRUCTION AND ITS IMPACT
The end of the Civil War brought an official
end to slavery, but it did not immediately
affect economic, political, or social
differences. Some reconstruction era
polices even exaggerated them. The
federal pension system, which began in
1862 to provide support to veterans, was
only offered to Union Army veterans.
Former confederate states created their
own pension systems, but without the
financial resources of the federal
government, they often faced financial
hardship in financing them.
As such, Union veterans- including African-
American veterans- earned financial
security in the latter half of the 1800s, while
their confederate counterparts were less
well-off Post-War Southern society,
meanwhile, was faced with federal
occupation for nearly a decade.
Thereafter, racial resentment, and the Ku
Klux Klan wreaked havoc in the region in a
way it did not elsewhere. For a brief time
after the war, African-American voting
rights were reasonably well protected, but
by 1890 the KKK and others severely
limited African-American voting rights in
the South.
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
It is a term that refers to the gap between
demographics and regions that have
access to modern information and
communications technology, and those that
don’t or have restricted access.
The divide between differing countries or
regions of the world is referred to as the
global digital divide, examining this
technological gap between developing
and developed countries on an
international scale.
The digital divide has a tremendous impact
upon the culture and the people of every
region. Technology effects every culture in
different ways. Because they do not have
access to technology people in technology
poor nations suffer. However, in order to
bridge the digital divide, people need
access to technology.
The North-South divide is broadly
considered a socio-economic and political
divide. Generally, definitions of the Global
North include the United States, Canada,
Western Europe, outermost regions of the
European union, developed parts of Asia,
as well as Australia and New Zealand. The
Global South is made up of Africa, Latin
America, and developing Asia including
the Middle East. The North is home to all
the members of the G8 and to four or five
permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council.
The North mostly covers the West and the
First world, along with much of the Second
world, while the South largely corresponds
with the Third world. While the North, may
be defined as the richer, more developed
region and the South as the poorer, and
less developed region.
95% of the North has enough food and
shelter. The Global South lacks
appropriate technology, it has no political
stability, the economies are disarticulated,
and their foreign exchange earnings
depend on primary product exports.
Nevertheless, the divide between the
North and the South increasingly,
corresponds less and less to reality and is
increasingly challenged.
THEORIES EXPLAINING THE DIVIDE
Uneven immigration patterns lead to
inequality. On the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries immigration was very
common into areas previously less
populated (North America, Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Australia, New Zealand) from
already technologically advanced areas
(Germany, United Kingdom, France, Spain,
Portugal). This facilitated an uneven
diffusion of technological practices since
only areas with high immigration levels
benefited. Immigration patterns in the
twenty-first century continue to feed this
uneven distribution of technological
innovation.
Some economists have argued that
international free trade and unhindered
capital flows across countries could lead to
a contraction in the North-South divide. In
this case, more equal trade and flow of
capital would allow the possibility for
developing countries to further develop
economically.
However, policymakers in the South are
often skeptical of capitalism and have
proposed alternative solutions. In 1974,
Southern nations called for a New
International Economic Order to
restructure the global economy. Their
demands included linking prices of
commodity exports to manufactured
improving the quality of their
representation within institution such as the
World Bank.
As some countries in the South experience
rapid development, there is evidence that
those states are developing high levels of
South-South and Brazil, in particular, has
been noted for its high levels of aid and the
ability to use its own experience to provide
high levels of expertise and knowledge
transfer. This has been described as a
“global model in waiting”.
The United Nations has also established its
role in diminishing the divide between
North and South thought the Millennium
Development Goals, all of which were to be
achieved by 2015. These goals seek to
eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,
achieve universal primary education;
promote gender equality and empower
women; reduce child mortality; and
develop a global partnership for
development.
TECHNOLOGY CAN REINFORCE THE GLOBAL
DIVIDE
The processing power of computers and
devices is getting faster, the internet
speeds are rising 23% year-on-year and
prices for technology are falling. The
prices of personal computers has declined
by 99.9% since January 1980 and computer
software now costs 0.7% of its price in
1980.
Social media and online content make it
easier than ever to gain instant access to
news and views, while technology’s
ubiquitous presence has opened countless
new career avenues for “no collar” digital
natives.
Yet for all the opportunities this revolution
presents, navigating the brave new world
isn’t without challenges. Without a decisive
plan for inclusivity at all levels of society,
the revolution will fail the very people it
should benefit the most.
This is a risk we cannot afford to ignore. In
recent years, I’ve seen more and more
media headlines, debates, even TV
programmes intended to entertain, focus
on the division and issues that move us
further away from each other.
If we don’t act now, technology has the
potential to reinforce these changes. With
opportunists able to misinform and twist
our understanding of the world around us
the online space is dominated by the
divide between fact and fiction. The risk
here is that technology will force us to face
an even greater divide, not just between
the connected and the disconnected.
The divide in connectivity is already
starting to make its presence felt. Look at
Latin America and the Carribean where
more than two-thirds of people have no
access to mobile broadband, compared
with Japan where 95% of people do.
It is received wisdom that access to the
internet is essential, but access is nothing
without skills and empowerment. A
staggering one in five (12 million) adults in
the UK lack the right skills to thrive in the
digital age. We’re at risk of hindering the
social mobility that technological
innovation can stimulate.
There is no better place to start than the
classroom. The children of today will be
the leaders of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution and we need to reconsider how
we educate them.
We also need to build trust. It is essential
that people feel they can participate in the
digital economy on a level playing field
with their peers, and most importantly,
without fear of abuse. Greater
collaboration with each other, rather than
echo chambers of negativity and
prejudice, will achieve this goal.
As is the case with so many problems, the
answer to bridging the technological
divide lies, ironically, with creative use of
technology. We don’t have all the answers
yet, and it feels as though we are learning
as we go along. We need to improve
access to technology, educate everyone so
they can fully benefit from the
opportunities and avoid the very real
danger of creating a digital underclass.
ASIAN REGIONALISM
Among the six Asian leaders who attended
the London meeting of the Group of Twenty
(G20) on April 2 was the chair of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations- the
first time ASEAN had been accorded to this
recognition in such a high-profile
international forum. It was a telling
indication of the increased importance of
regional cooperation in Asia.
Asia is not yet adopting a common
approach to tackling the ongoing global
crisis. But by helping to form a consensus
among their members, Asia’s regional
groupings could help bridge the gap
between national policies and global
action, enabling them to tackle the global
crisis more effectively.
MODELS OF REGIONALISM
A common thread runs through the
turbulent histories of Asia and Europe: the
immense dynamism and impressive
discoveries of their great civilizations have
often been directed towards destruction
and death. Fortunately, their collective
energies are now channeled more
constructively- not least into closer
regional cooperation that entrenches
peace.
Regionalism has progressed much further
in Europe than in Asia. The devastation
wreaked by two world wars convinced
Europeans of the importance of working
together to bind their economies and
societies together.
The milestones in Europe’s economic
integration are the creation of a customs
union, followed by a single market, and
then a common currency. Broadly
speaking, after adopting a common trade
policy, European countries agreed to the
free movement of goods, labor, and
services, then progressively liberalized
their capital accounts, and more closely
coordinated their monetary and exchange
rate policies before introducing euro in
1999. The EU now has an extensive
institutional structure and a large regional
bureaucracy centered in Brussels, its
administrative capital.
Regionalism in Asia has developed rather
differently. Regional integration has been
driven more by markets than by
governments. Cooperation among national
authorities is more recent and less
intimate. It remains focused on economic
issues and light on formal institutions.
Asia’s pragmatic and flexible approach to
regionalism is partly dictated by history.
Asian countries are little inclined to
compromise their independence by
pooling sovereignty with their neighbors,
not least because several Asian nation
states have only recently emerged from
colonialism and need first to build their
national identities.
What is unique about Asian regionalism in
a global context is that it has been
substantially market-driven. This move
started in 1985 following the Plaza
agreement to revalue the yen, when many
Japanese companies began offshoring
labor-intensive manufacturing activities to
lower-cost destinations.
The EU is often considered to be gold
standard for countries working together for
peace and prosperity. While there are
many types of regionalism in the world-
North America has NAFTA, and New
Zealand have closer economic relations-
Asia is seen as a latecomer.
VALUE CHAINS SPREAD TO ASIA
In the first phase, the final products of these
value chains were primarily sold to U.S,
European and Japanese markets. However,
since the 2008 Lehman shock and the
subsequent financial crisis, there has been
an acceleration of regional integration.
With the rising purchasing power of Asia’s
middle class, Asia’s value chains are now
increasingly servicing Asian consumers.
Today, some 40% of East trade takes place
within the region, compared with 30% two
decades ago. In Europe, the % of trade that
is conducted within the region already
amounts to 69%.
Given the current level, that would require
at least 50% increase in the share of
regional trade. That seems entirely
feasible, given the growth and population
dynamics of the wider region. Consider
also that this by no means implies any
“decoupling” from other global markets.
It just foreshadows a trading world where
Asia completes the process from initially
being an outsourcing destination for
multinational corporations to becoming the
key growth driver of the global economy.
Such a broadening of Asian nations’ trade
portfolio would be a win-win situation for
Asia.
COMPARING MODELS
The European example shows that such an
intensification of trade within the region
also has important spillover effects into
fields other than trade. Doing business with
each other ultimately is the best instrument
with which to build what most of Asia seems
to strive for better neighborly relations.
The two regions can also learn from each
other. Europe would do well to emulate the
flexibility of Asia’s production structures
and labor markets, its emphasis on
investment in productivity-enhancing
research and development, and its concept
of Open regionalism, which minimizes
discrimination against non-members.
Asia could adopt some of the EU’s
governance principles. These include;
deciding some issues by qualified majority
voting and others by consensus, giving
additional weight to small countries and
minorities in decision-making, so as to
make regionalism more inclusive, the
subsidiarity principle whereby decisions
are taken at the lowest sensible level of
government, the open method of
coordination, and mutual surveillances
through peer review and peer pressure to
ensure that members respect
commitments before resorting to
sanctions.
Asia could also take inspiration from
Europe’s pro-activeness in creating
common institutions. Although trying to
establish strong regional institutions that
involve the pooling of member’s national
sovereignty would be premature, much
could be done to enhance Asia’s
capabilities for economic cooperation.
The EU is often presented as the integration
model for other regional groupings, in Asia
and elsewhere. But while regions can learn
from other’s experiences, their needs and
circumstances vary.
ASIAN AND EUROPEAN REPRESENTATIVES
APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian
Nations
ASEM: Asia-Europe Meeting
EAS: East Asia Summit
EU: European Union
Abhisit Vejjajiva: prime minister of
Thailand
 Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar are
members of ASEAN but not an APEC
Mirek Topolanek: Prime Minister of the
Czech Republic
ASIAN AND EUROPEAN REPRESENTATIVES
Asia’s economic integration has been
largely driven by the development of
increasingly sophisticated production
networks that span the region and enable
companies to benefit from each country’s
comparative advantages, through an
articulated regional division of labor.
The catalyst for the recent enhancement of
regional cooperation in Asia was the
1997/8 financial crisis. This created a
greater awareness of the region’s shared
interests and vulnerabilities. In particular,
it created a greater need for financial
cooperation- prompting the establishment
of the ASEAN+3 Finance Ministers’ Process
and several related structures such as the
Chiang Mai Initiative and the Asian bond
Market Initiative.
Asia does not yet have a single market in
goods and services, although bilateral and
subregional trade agreements have
multiplied in recent years. This is in part
driven by the stalling of the World Trade
Organization’s Doha Round, but also by the
proliferation of preferential trade
agreements around the world.
Asia lacks strong regional institutions and a
bureaucratic body to serve the region.
Unlike in Europe, regional treaties tend to
be short and focused on codifying informal
interactions among members rather than
introducing a complex set of binding rules,
and related sanctions.
The criteria for admission to the EU are
quite clear- democracy, a market
economy, and the transposition national
law of EU laws and regulations.
Compliance with these rules can be
monitored fairly objectively. Candidate
countries must also be approved by a
consensus of existing EU member states.
Important regional players such as the
People’s Republic of China, India, and
Japan have yet to start a concrete dialogue
on formulating a vision, shared goals, and
roadmap for regional cooperation in Asia.
FACING THE FUTURE
Europe and Asia both face the huge
challenge of articulating a response to the
ongoing economic crisis. Although its
ultimate impact on regional cooperation
and integration is still unclear, it could give
a new impetus to Asian regionalism, as the
1997/8 crisis did.
Compared to the model Europe pursued,
Asia had the distinct advantage that it did
not put the cart before the horse. Its
regionalism has been market led and thus
started out with emphasizing the right path
for creating the basis for shared prosperity
in the region. Unlike in Europe, Asian
governments have arguably followed,
rather than led, this process.
That does not mean, however, that
Governments don’t have an important role
to play. One concrete example where they
can achieve something transformative is
discussions of a possible FTA between
China, Japan, and Korea that have been
underway for some time.
Another example concerns relations
between South Korea and Vietnam. The two
nations, very much on opposite ends
militarily during the Vietnam war, are now
slated to sign a bilateral free trade
agreement by year’s end.
That kind of forward-looking pragmatism
should be an inspiration to other nations
across Asia. A particularly crucial
economic dimension where this should
play out, given the size of both economies,
is in the trade relationship between Japan
and South Korea.
The history healing aspect aside, the cross-
cultural understanding that trade
connections foster is also pivotal for Asia’s
future.
ASIA’S BOOM: DIVERSITY
Asia is undoubtedly more diverse than
Europe- whether in terms of level of
development, politics, economics, or
religion. In fact, diversity is the very
definition of Asia.
But this diversity has not stopped Asian
countries from working together for
prosperity and peace. And over time,
market-led regionalism has proven its
value and is now progressively becoming
more institutionalized.
The evidence to date suggests that Asia’s
experience in regionalism has been very
successful. Asia’s regionalism is most
certainly a work-in-progress, but it is
progressing step-by-step. And while it
showed the European Union the
importance of basing regionalism on the
private sector as a driving force, Asia can
now take a decisive step forward by
emulating Europe’s past focus on
governments.
A UNIFIED KOREA
For centuries before the division, the
peninsula was a single, unified Korea,
ruled by generations of dynastic
kingdoms. Occupied by Japan after the
Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and formally
annexed five years later, Korea chafed
under Japanese colonial rule for 35 years-
until the end of WW II.
The catalyzing incidents is the decision that
was made- really, w/o the Koreans
involved- between the Soviet Union and the
US- to divide Korea into two occupation
zones, says Michael Robinson, professor
emeritus of East Asian Studies and History
at Indiana University.
WHY WAS KOREA DIVIDED?
August 1945, the two allies “in name only”
divided control over the Korean Peninsula.
Over the next three years, the Soviet Army
and its proxies set up a communist regime
in the area north of latitude 38N, or the 38th
parallel.
While the Soviet policies were widely
popular with the bulk of the North’s laborer
and peasant population, most middle-class
Koreans fled south of the 28th parallel,
where the majority of Korean population
resides today.
The ultimate objective was for the SU and
the US to leave, and let the Koreans figure
it out. The trouble was that the Cold war
intervened. And everything that was tried
to create a middle ground or to try to
reunify the peninsula is thwarted by both
the Soviet Union and the US not wanting to
give in to the other.
In 1948, the US called for a United Nation-
sponsored vote for all Koreans to
determine the future of the peninsula. The
North responded in kind, installing the
former communist guerrilla Kim II Sung as
the first premier of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea in the capital of
Pyongyang.
KOREAN WAR
The Korean War (1950-53), which killed at
least 2.5 million people, did little to resolve
the question which regime represented the
true Korea. It did, however, firmly establish
the United States as the permanent bete
noire of North Korea, as the U.S Military
bombed villages, towns, and cities.
They leveled the country, Robinson says.
They destroyed every city. The armistice
that ended that conflict in 1953 left the
peninsula divided much as before, with a
demilitarized zone (DMZ) running roughly
along the 28th parallel.
HERMIT KINGDOM
With continuing strong ties to the West,
South Korea developed a robust economy,
and in recent decades has made steps
toward becoming a fully democratic
nation.
Meanwhile, North Korea reminded an
isolated hermit kingdom- particularly after
the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the early
1990s- and economically underdeveloped,
as well as a virtual police state ruled by a
single family for three generations.
The North’s dedicated efforts to develop a
nuclear program have also greatly
heightened tensions with South Korea and
its allies, particularly the United States.
KOREA TODAY
Despite recent efforts at diplomacy under
South Korea’s new president, Moon Jae-in,
the stark differences between the two
Koreas were on full display in the run-up to
the 2018 Winter Olympic Games.
As CNN reported, four of the country’s
newest missiles, the Hwasong-15, flew over
the parade as Kim watched from a balcony,
then spoke about the evils of imperialism.
Appropriately, the parade commemorated
the day Kim’s grandfather, Kim II Sung,
formed the Korean People’s Army in 1948.
Starting 1948, there are two established
state organizations run by Koreans.
Robinson says, “and frankly, nothing’s
changed since then”.