Heywood clarifies that no one pure form of either capitalism or socialism exists in the world today. Apart from the multiple variations in both of these models of economic systems, there is also this amalgamation of several characteristics of either of these two systems into a main governing economic instrument.
Sweden practices a social democracy. That might seem strange to some, given that democracy is usually associated with capitalism. Meanwhile, Germany employs a social capitalistic framework for its economy. Both of these models have worked exceptionally well for these two states.
It would seem that cherry-picking certain components of a particular economic system and combing those characteristics with those of another has emerged as a mainstream policy in political economy.
Why is that Japan, and other East Asian nations, follow the idea of a collective capitalism system while most of the Western world seems to be in the favour of free market or enterprise capitalism?
Do historical and socio-cultural aspects of these distinct economic blocs have a role in determining the economic system in place?
In the case of Japan, are there implications of WW2 with regards to the output enhancing model of collective capitalism that it currently follows?
1 comment:
Adding on to what you said, a system based on one particular ideology would not give the same outcomes in two different countries. Every country has its own culture and within these countries are sub-cultures. If a universal form is implemented and expected to lead to success in every country, the end-result will simply prove otherwise. This is the reason why different forms of capitalism (and others) are successful in different places for different reasons, and will continue to be.
Post a Comment