Weick:
>>It would appear that obligations among friends and families are of
>>much greater importance in SE Asia and Japan than in the west.
Keith Hudson
>I really don't think there's any essential difference. If there is a
>difference, it's mainly due to the fact that families are much smaller in
>the West than in S-E Asia and are thus less important within the cronyism
>network.
Perhaps that is the reason. However, I do believe that obligations between
family members and friends run deeper in many non-western societies than
they do in the west. This may be because people in the west have moved
around a lot and broken family ties by distance and separation. People in
the West have also had far more opportunity to "make it" than individuals in
poor countries. Hugh McGuire's point about American ethnic and family
circles is, I believe, relevant. Though such circles may come under severe
attack by the ethic of rugged individualism, it is probable that they will
persist as long as they continue to play an important survival role for
individuals who carry little weight and have little value in the broader
society. The individual finds value as part of the circle or group, and the
group, comprised of many weightless individuals but also some weighty ones,
will likely be able to protect the individual and influence the course of
events in his favour far better than he can himself. If it is possible for
individuals to access opportunities, protective circles or groups may
eventually break down. If that is not possible, the only real hope the
individual may have is to rely on a group.
I'm not arguing that the foregoing has much relevance to the discussion of
crony capitalism, though it may have. Family circles or groups of families
which have stuck together through good times and bad for a very long time
would feel a strong sense of obligation toward each other and probably some
sense of hostility toward other groups, especially if the pie that was to be
divided was not large. What we describe as "cronyism" would be viewed by
group members as the fulfillment of obligations that could simply not be
avoided even at the risk of economic collapse.
Anyhow, that is my two-bits worth on the subject. I would add that it is
good to hear from both Keith and Hugh McGuire again.
Ed Weick
******
How it will do so will depend on the society. Crony capitalism is how it is
done in SE Asia. In Russia it would seem to be done by something that might
more accurately be called "mafia capitalism". The Russian government is too
divided to develop firm rules for capitalist behaviour, and too weak to
enforce them even if they are developed. Much of the Russian economy
operates both above and under the thin surface of legitimacy at the same
time. One estimate that I'm aware of is that fully 60% of the existing
private companies are in some way or another associated with the criminal
world - either they are part of this world themselves or they make payments
to it for their survival. In a world of this kind, it is very difficult for
the government to collect sufficient taxes to pay its employees or repay
loans from abroad, both of which are elements of the current Russian crisis.
Although I would agree with Keith Hudson that cronyism -- "known over here
as "The Old Pals Act" or "The Old Boy Network" -- has always existed the
whole world over and always will", I do not see western economies as being
dominated by cronyism - not yet in any event. There is a deep suspicion of
corporate power and there are too many laws which circumscribe corporate
behaviour.
