PAGE INDEX: Instructor's Note | The Question | Student Response A | Student Response B | Student Response C | Student Response D | Student Response E | Student Response F | Student Response G | Student Response H | Student Response I

INSTRUCTOR'S NOTE: These are verbatim student responses to assignment No. 3. I have reproduced them here to assist you in learning from your peers. We all take different things from our course readings and discussions, and these differences are manifested clearly in the written work turned in for the class. Reading what others have to say on exactly the same topic is a very good way to not only learn from others, but to see how others have interpreted the same material • The response below have been voluntarily submitted. I have omitted student names. If you do not want your response posted here, even anonymously, please let me know and I will remove it.

THE QUESTION. Write a critical review of the articles by Fukuyama and Birdsall. In developing your review, make sure you evaluate their arguments as a student of comparative politics. That is, you are to evaluate their arguments using the theoretical and methodological perspectives we have studied in class thus far. To do this, consider (but do not limit yourself to) these questions: is the theoretical position of Fukuyama and Birdsall clear and consistent? What claims do they make (how broad or limited are they)? Do the authors use an identifiable method of analysis? Is their methodological strategy sufficient and is it consistent with their argument and claims? What type of empirical support do they provide? In your critical review, include suggestions on how they should improve their arguments.

Student Response A

Both Francis Fukuyama and Nancy Birdsall offer explanations to the question "why is there poverty in the world?" although each approaches the question from a different theoretical approach. They do agree on certain factors that have the potential to alleviate poverty, such as the growth of democracy and strong, institutionally sound governments. Methodologically, both authors use the multi-unit analysis approach. They use multiple countries and regions and in their analyses in order prove their points and do not seem focused on one particular country or area. In this sense, they are trying to generalize about the world within their studies. This is a particular challenge for Fukuyama who (undertaking a cultural approach to this research problem is pressured to see each country as unique in its characteristics and problems) qualifies this multi-unit analysis by saying that what is determined social capital in various countries can be different because of their culture, but in the end, he is saying that all countries (should) value mostly the same ideas when trying to build social capital.

From the very first line of Birdsall, I was tempted to categorize her approach to the question of what causes poverty as structural. By recalling the Communist Manifesto, authored by the grand architect of the structural approach, Birdsall tips her hand early on. The causes of poverty that she identifies that certainly operate within a structure that limits the choices of the individuals. History, is of course, a fact of life that an individual or group of individuals can do nothing about. It is within a historical framework that one’s choices must be made and acted upon, and as a result history often dictates what options are available to you. The emergence of prosperity in a society can also be considered a structural element because it allows certain individuals within a society to benefit, while continuing to limit the options available to those with less influence, those who live more on the economic fringe.

At a gut level, I like the idea of social capital—that any group of people has the ability to create networks that help in the development of a nation. This power of agency is a tempting one and offers a strong ray of hope for those countries enduring poverty. Where the argument becomes more difficult to swallow is in its treatment of traditional societal values. Fukuyama tells us is the only way to way in which a society can reduce poverty is to increase its social capital by strengthening "the rule of law and the basic political institutions on which it rests." (32) This, combined with the idea that we need more contemporary "organizations that connect across traditional ethnic, class, or status boundaries and serve as the basis for modern political and economic organizations (34)" and it seems that Fukuyama is saying that some traditional values will remain important in creating social capital, but by and large, social capital is built by dispensing with many of the more traditional values in a society and really emphasizing the growth of modern political institutions. While some societies are in a better position (i.e. have fewer changes to make) to create social capital, it seems that Fukuyama wants to see development happen along very similar lines—the lines that he himself argued were not effective ways to create development (as he critiqued the Washington consensus).

Fukuyama seems to have just dressed up his concept in more sophisticated clothes and allowed it to speak in local dialects, thus tempting us to applaud his cultural, individualistic approach. However, by saying that some of these traditional values are more insular and not conducive to building external social capital, he is truly saying that some social capital (and in some countries, significant social capital) does need to be destroyed and replaced with more modern, broader organizations. This "creating of culture" does not seem to be the most effective way to create a new society—but rather social engineering seems to be the call of the day. This seems to be the "cookie cutter" approach to development that Fukuyama said he was trying to avoid when criticizing the Washington consensus. The "building social capital" approach to comparative politics seems to be more of way in which we can make societies more alike and then have things to compare, rather than taking societies for what they are and comparing what currently exists, which seems to be the aim of the cultural approach.

An important criticism of the concept of social capital is the inability of social capital to be incorporated into economic (and then subsequently rational) models of comparative politics. While I am personally not an adherent to the rational model of politics, it is the focus of the field at this time and attention should be paid to this area. In terms of Fukuyama’s argument, there is so little consensus about what IS social capital and that even attempting to measure its or its impact (both positive and negative) seems untenable. Even if there were agreement about the definition of social capital, its very nature is so amorphous that any quantification would have to be reevaluated with every society looked at, as different society value and create different types of social capital, which by its very definition, affects each society differently.

Birdsall is able to identify far more tangible causes of poverty than Fukuyama. She identifies the history of a people, the decisions of the poor, the existence of wealth, and misguided economic policies as the major causes of poverty. These alleged causes of poverty will have far more acceptance to comparativists because they are common concepts and ideas that have significance to political scientists, whereas the concept of social capital, as Fukuyama indicated, is hotly debated as a both a definition and legitimate unit of analysis.

What I find intriguing at Birdsall’s analysis is her acknowledgement that theoretically rational decisions by individuals (in this case the poor) oftentimes work together to collude against the best interest of the individuals. The results of these decisions undoubtedly affect the next generation in these poor families and the "rational" decisions continue to be made. This question of rationality applying to the short or the long term is a fascinating one and it certainly an issue that could be studied in far more detail.

Unfortunately, the strength of Birdsall’s arguments are undermined because she contradicts herself as she addresses the issue of technology. On the second page of her paper she states that "Technology plays a central role in the drama of inequality, and it seems to be making the situation worse, not better" because it emphasizes education and skill of workers and thus creates a larger divide among the haves and have-nots. She then goes on to say at the end of her paper (under the heading "Learning to Live with Inequality") that she hopes that technological change will continue and in fact be so advanced that it can replace the skilled laborer and increase demand for workers with less training. This seems to fly in the face of her earlier argument because it encourages a group of people to remain isolated from the educative value inherent in technology.

As a student of comparative politics studying the problem of poverty, I found the arguments of Francis Fukuyama to be most interesting and coherently presented. Despite the fact that I disagree with the bigger philosophical questions of his approach, I thought his approach was novel and thought-provoking. And while I agree more theoretically with Birdsall about the structural causes of poverty, I found her arguments to be rather circular and not definitive enough. However, as a professor of comparative politics once told his class, we do not need to choose just one approach or one methodology—an apt attention to the multitude of approaches and methodologies will allow us to become better comparativists.

Student Response B

Presentation of argument is a vital component of any paper. Through the proper use of theory and methodology, it validates the finding and intent of the paper. In fact, a well-written paper is one that consists of a well though out thesis, balanced argument, evidence and organization. One may be reserved to hold criticism in scholarly papers, though even they fall into potholes of un-clarity and poor justification of argument. This essay will critically analyze the arguments presented in Social Capital, Civil Society and Development Social Capital, by Francis Fukuyama, and Life is Unfair by Nancy Birdsall. These essays will serve as evidence to what a clearly written and well expressed critical essays presentation should appear as.

To better understand the reading, it is first important to create a unifying theme amongst the two articles. Although the arguments are different, the theme in both the papers is in highlighting successful societies. For Fukuyama this comes in the form of understanding social capital. For Fukuyama, social capital is not one based on positive relationships with therefore create stable democracies and economics. Birdsall particularly looks at the inequalities in economics and the particular characteristics that can aid in its continued demise, or the opposite. Though, it is the presentation of the argument and its attempt to validate its claim that makes Fukuyama’s paper more successful.

Fukuyama clearly highlights the theory and methodology used in her arguments uniformly throughout he paper. After clearly defining the meaning of social capital throughout the essay, she continues to highlight that it is through co-operation between individuals that it is achieved. The structuralist theory is clearly adopted throughout the paper in that it recognizes relationships as systems of functions. Structuralism is further supported by noting that relationships are a part of the greater environment with lead towards the arrangement of economics, politics and society. Further, Fukuyama adopts a comparison system of most different by highlighting the aspects in particular societies that low capital is existent, in comparison to their opposites.

A particular weakness in Fukuyama’s argument is in that of measuring social capital. Fukuyama provides three ways to do this: census, survey and change in market valuation. For Fukuyama, the first two are least reliable because of they are error prone because of numbers. The last is better represented for her because it clearly outlines a well accounted for shift in documented trends. The justification for one method over the other would clearly be vague and unsupported to the not well-versed subject reader. Fukuyama should have provided more justification for favoring one form of measurement as she did so throughout her paper.

Birdsall instead adopts a mixture of arguments that does not particularly adopt a clearly sought out theory or methodology within her argument. Although it is important to adopt various approaches, Birdsall carelessly throws in a number of conditions and solutions and looses sight of the central argument. More, Birdsall goes on to even claim that child labor might even be a positive aspect in gaining economic equality. What is consistent is that Bridsall has reached her findings by first outlining the differences in various systems in comparison to those of more equality. Birdsall follows up the argument by offering characterizing how to live with equality, or more, work within a society of economic equality and rise beyond it.

One idea is prevalent in this essay. It is not comparative. Although Birdsall attempts to adopt comparative methodology by using a most-different systems approach, it is ultimately weak in that it lack centralization and uniformity. As noted in class, a good comparativist must uses method well, use theory and use empirical evidence. All these qualities are absent throughout the essay. As the lack of theory and method has already been discussed, evidence is strikingly weak in attempt to support the claims, especially in that through such extreme justifications as child labor. A better recommendation would have been to centralize the argument instead of leaping into the pitfall of causal complexity and generalization. A better argument would have focused primarily on questions such as, why is there economic equality. It would find a base for comparison, go on to adopt a theory and methodology, followed by outlining the essential factors and providing empirical evidence. A comparative study does not need to make a grand claim or be exaggerated with a slew of supportive date for various conditions. Doing so might allow for a presentation, which reflects a lack of organization. Instead, Birdsall should have focused on basic independent variables and provided sound evidence and validity for those, than for an overestimated amount.

Student Response C

This brief paper intends to be a critical review of the articles by Fukuyama and Birdsall. Granted, it will be questionable whether or not a significant evaluation of their arguments is captured in such a brief paper. I, however, will point out the theoretical and methodological perspectives that these theorists use. In doing so, I will review their articles with a few strategic questions in mind. Those questions are: Is the theoretical position of Fukuyama and Birdsall clear and consistent? What claims do they make (how broad or limited are they)? Do the authors use an identifiable method of analysis? Is their methodological strategy sufficient and is it consistent with their argument and claims? What type of empirical support do they provide? Any good comparativist may agree that these questions are significant and pertinent as to capturing an understanding about the paradigms and influential assumptions undergirding these studies. In turn, this evaluation can rightly be a critical review. With that, if need be, I will include suggestions that each author could improve on to make a more compelling argument.
Fukuyama provides James Coleman=s reference of >social capital= to be

A people's ability to work together in groups@ (23). But Fukuyama believes a redefinition of social capital is needed. According to Fukuyama, Aany instance in which people cooperate for common ends on the basis of shared informal norms and values@ (social capital) (23), are A[s]ocieties in which people are accustomed to cooperating and working together in large organizations [and] are much more likely to develop strong and efficient state institutions@ (25). Apparently, social capital involves rational thinking that leads to a collective agreement about guidelines for what is socially acceptable. Yet Fukuyama does not clearly use any one identifiable method of analysis in pointing out the ways in which social capital is exhibited. Nevertheless, his configurative analysis describes social capital as ranging across institutions and micro-political variables, rather than just on the specifics of any case(s). In other words, social capital turns out being about cultural, institutional, and state-centered concerns in general.

Fukuyama=s comparative analysis is a meso-level theory; as it emphasizes the influential significance and importance of inter-subjective relationships at the institutional level (Peters: 1998: 117). Since, according to Fukuyama, social capital is in practice when a criteria of trustworthiness, collateral, and an evaluation of business prospects are consider before financial credit is allocated to any lender (33), means social capital mark the ground rules upon which formal institutions are based. But as cultural tendencies of ethics underlie the frames for economic trustworthiness, what should be economically trustworthy should not impede upon or threaten cultural norms. This grants the survival of social capital. Hence, the cultural aspect is of importance, and is not ignored in this study. For, according to Fukuyama, Aformal institutions, once established, then reinforce cultural tendencies@ (33). Thus, neither micro-level agendas nor structural outcomes alone account for the development of any social capital. Rather, in understanding the development of the international economic system and its underpinnings requires incorporating cultural factors into economic growth and development models when analyzing state and institutional structures globally, and thus warrants the overall reasoning here to based upon a meso-level foundation (as exemplified in the cases involving familism).

Fukuyama relies on Latin America and similar nations to show the logic of his argument (what drives economic development). That is, he offers a more detailed account of the social, cultural, and economic context of politics as a strategic comparative methodology. But an obvious problem in this article is in it not accounting for or explaining how social capital lacks in an undeveloped country if social capital entails cultural values. Yet, if a cultural values entail the lack of attachment to capitalistic inclinations, for instance, then how is it that there is a lack of social capital in that culture? For agreement to those values by definition is still apparent.

After reviewing this article, despite the author=s broad approach to an empirical study about the nature of a developing society, it seems that social capital entails mainly the ability to form collective agreement. This is because in each case agreement is required in the determination of norms and values, which ever they may be. Since these type of value-facts become practiced as ideologically acceptable, an expression of legitimacy is exhibited in moral judgements, respective of the culture or institution. Therefore, since political institutions are based on those judgments social capital can be investigated from that setting. Nonetheless, it does not follow from this presumption that comparative research should move away from historical cases if ever to preform a substantial configurative analysis. This is because history does matter, especially on the grounds of underpinning any meso-level theory; for in any regional consideration traditions would play a role on social capital (positively or negatively) since political developments (networks, organizations, bureaucracies) are formed upon norms and values.

Next, Birdsall argues democracy has made more visible the problem of income gaps. The type of empirical support provided here consists of data on the percent of income gaps between the poor and wealthy of various capitalistic countries. The methodological approach that Birdsall uses is statistical, of course, yet she also discusses the importance of history. She believes history must be considered in comparative analyses. This is because in any society, the history of that society influences the structure of another society. Each society bears some relationship upon the first, especially when it comes to the prior cultural traditions. But how does this effect the ratio of income gaps between the poor and the wealthy? Apparently cultural values affect economic/polity decisions in capitalist societies (negatively or positively).

There is one method of theory according to Peters and two according to Lim that I find in Birdsall=s article. For the sake of time, I will point out Birdsall analogous to Peters. Because Birdsall tends to merge institutions, processes, and groups of countries by regions (to include any country where opportunity for the worker lacks), the meso-level approach is apparent. According to Peters, two specific points are involved when meso-level theory occurs. This type of theory occurs when Ainstitutional theories accept the logic of rational choice analysis found in micro-level analysis, [yet] focus on the importance of structural explanations rather than on the methodological individualism@ (p. 121). I will take the latter point first in showing these distinctions which together warrant Birdsall=s comparative analysis as being a meso-level theory.

In Birdsall=s claim that Athe need of governments to take into account their own previous actions when making policies,@ is to point out the importance of a structural account about the function of the government. When this occurs in a study, according to Peters, the researcher compares how the different systems in a government perform functions such as rule-making, extraction, distribution, regulation, and responsiveness (p. 115). Since, A[d]evloping countries that have been most open to trade have had the fastest growth, reducing global inequality; those least integrated into global markets, such as many African economies, have remained among the world's poorest. Historically, the same pattern holds,@ says Birdsall. But the assumption of this researcher Aappear[s] to be that the institutions that had evolved and survived within a system were indeed >functional= for it@ (p. 115). Adding Birdsall=s account that government policy leads to economic policies which effect those who succeed economically from those that don=t, is an account that shows Birdsall believes government makes social realisms. This concludes the structural-functional aspect of the analysis. Second, Birdsall=s mention of rational choice is apparently repressive in the economically poor society and thus grounds the former point. That is, because Birdsall=s incorporates a rational choice analysis to the first- the structural aspect in that parents of one generation influence a preceding generation, whereby parental Adecisions can lock society as a whole into another generation of inequality.@ But adding this aspect to the structural is to argue that rational choice forms different normative structures that develop into many political outcomes. Therefore, those outcomes of collective agreement influence polity, and hence denote, moreover, the use of the meso-level paradigm is this study. But, then all of this is residual to the notion that income inequality results from the spread of capitalism; for this is a statistical study supported not by a thorough description of political life but, by variables across countries in a variety of settings.

References

Birdsall, Nancy, ALife is Unfair: Inequality in the World@ on Lim=s 2002 CD-course pack

Fukuyama, Francis, ASocial Capital and Development@ on Lim=s 2002 CD-course pack

Lim, Timothy, Thinking Comparatively: An Introduction to Theory and Method in
Comparative Politics, CD-course pack, 2002

Peters, B., Guy, Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods, New York: N.Y.U. Press, 1998

Student Response D

Francis Fukuyama’s "Social Capital, Civil Society and Development" is an explanation and analysis of social interaction in individuals, communities, societies and nations. "Social capital" is defined as a behavior norm that can exist between individuals, large scale groups or even beyond national borders. The norms associated with social capital must lead to cooperation within the group. The norms associated with such cooperative behavior are "honesty, keeping commitments, reciprocity, reliable performance of duties and the like." Social capital can be manifested in ways that are either positive or negative to those outside of the group. If the group has norms that benefit and are extended to all regardless of group membership, social capital is a positive. However, if the groups shared norms are based upon beliefs and behavior that is hostile or excludes those outside the group, social capital can be a negative (e.g. Ku Klux Klan or Mafia). Fukuyama characterizes the influence of social capital and the extent of shared norms as "radius of trust." As indicated, radius of trust can extend beyond the membership of the group or it can be less than the membership of the group. Conversely, the negative effects and influences of social capital are characterized as the "radius of distrust."
Fukuyama’s central argument is that social capital is a necessary element, process and activity of free market liberal democracy. He contends that in modern economies, an informal norm for coordination, communication and productivity becomes more important as economic and technological activity become more complex. This need is met by positive social capital and an extended radius of trust.

Fukuyama’s arguments and assertions fall into the agency category. Although some behavior by individuals in groups could be characterized as driven by rational choice, the activities and interactions of the groups as described in Fukuyama’s argument is a "culture" based comparative approach. To use Marc Ross’ 1997 definition of culture, it is "a distinctive way of life that members of the culture share and upon which they forge a common and unique identity (Lim, p. 63). This is consistent with Fukuyama’s own description—"Virtually all forms of traditional culture-social groups like tribes, clans, village associations, religious sects, etc. are based on shared norms and use these norms to achieve cooperative ends" (p. 9).

Fukuyama is consistent in his argument that social capital is an important element of civil society and economic development, however, his empirical support is not consistent and not complete. References and comparisons are made with nations, positive groups and negative groups that support his argument, but all of the group examples appear to be groups of voluntary inclusion. There is no discussion of the impact and influence of social capital with regards to economic development when individuals, groups and even nations are involuntarily grouped according to such characteristics as gender, ethnicity and race.

Although the study is not based upon a single nation or group, Fukuyama uses a complete range of comparative analysis methods including the case study, binary, comparison of similar agents/countries/regions and comparison of contrasting agents/countries/regions. He also uses temporal comparisons of several nations including: pre-WWII and post-WWII Germany and Japan (p. 17); Middle Age France with pre-revolutionary France; and the societal norms of the early Soviet Union with the societal norms of the post Soviet Union (p. 18).

Cultural analysis is normally assumed to be specific, unique and particular, however, Fukuyama makes a broad conclusion and generalization about social capital and its importance and necessity for the creation of civil society and economic development. Fukuyama has not clearly determined and distinguished social capital to be the true "cause" of civil society and economic development or "correlated" to civil society and economic development.

Nancy Birdsall’s "Life is Unfair: Inequality in the World" presents an argument that identifies and analyzes the causes of growing income inequality throughout the world and the solution to the condition. In the post war years with greater democratization and trade throughout the world, an expectation of "convergence" in income distribution between nations, and groups within nations would occur. Convergence has not occurred and the gap in income distribution between nations and within groups in nations has increased. This trend has been manifested in the United States and throughout the world. Birdsall mentions a study that found only eight countries out of forty-five examined actually showed minimal progress toward improved income distribution (p. 3).

Birdsall cites and compares the economic conditions and causes of income inequality in regions and nations throughout the world. In one example she points out the linkage of fertility rates and the mother’s education. The lower the level of education, the higher the birth rate of poor children with little or no economic or educational opportunities, who in turn perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

Birdsall’s argumental concern is that policies and methods designed to improve economic fairness can make income distribution gaps worse. Protectionism, strong worker’s rights, government subsidized public services or a total lack of government action and involvement are counter productive in reaching the objective of economic equality and justice. These are tempting short-term measures, but the long-term solutions require time and patience. They are centered on wage systems that increase reliance on labor, education, increased global economic integration, selective public spending and policies to benefit the poor, and recognition and acceptance that some measure of economic inequality "is healthy and will speed the transition" to improved economic distribution. It is more important to provide greater economic opportunity immediately, than it is to improve income distribution in the near future.

At first glance, Birdsall’s argument and analysis of income inequality is near-structural in that the economic conditions of individuals and nations are the inevitable result of global economic policies beyond their control. However, her argument evolves to an agency, rational choice perspective. The poor and least educated who can least afford and provide for children, have the greatest fertility rates in order to create greater economic support and security for themselves. Agency is further indicated in that the poor and unskilled can become educated, gain labor skills and choose to have fewer children.

Birdsall makes a broad claim that income equality does exist and is increasing, but this is to be expected in the course of achieving ultimate economic global integration and technological advances. Her argument is consistent in terms of the claim, but some of the empirical supports for the argument are contradictory. Education and skills are cited as the means to increased income. However, when large numbers achieve this objective and become higher paid skilled workers, an inducement to lower the costs of skilled works will induce technology that relies more on unskilled labor. This argument does not recognize that in this technological scenario, both the skilled worker and the unskilled worker will be displaced, further reducing income distribution.

There is a mix of comparative perspectives and frequent use of temporal comparisons. Several intra-regional comparisons are made with Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa as well as with specific nations. Birdsall’s analysis is ultimately an argument to do little or nothing with regards to increasing income distribution gaps. These income distribution gaps represent new global integration and technological growth that will eventually lead to sustained economic growth across all nations and groups who continue to economically globalize and who gain education and labor skills.

Birdsall’s overall theory appears to be normative as described by Robert Cox (1995) in that [theory] "… is always for someone and for some purpose." Birdsall’s argument supports "those in power for the purpose of staying in power" (Lim, p. 55).

Student Response E

Social Capital and Development
The argument made by Francis Fukuyama in "Social Capital and Development" gives another interested aspect in considering development. To pay strong attention on social capital as a key factor in economic development, Fukuyama lays his argument on Cultural tradition, which interprets each matter as unique in a meaningful way in analyzing his article, since he determines that social capital as norms and values promoting cooperation frequently originates in phenomena like religion….. that can be shaped only with great difficulty. He invariably argues that only economic policy and political institutions are not sufficient to induce development. In other words, capital also plays a critical role supporting the process of a country’s development.

Fukuyama strongly persuades his critic by using statistical or descriptive analyses of data from a subset of the world’s countries to compare the cases analysis and support his claim about the significance of social capital in any developmental process. He clearly provides empirical examples of some countries, Latin America countries and China, for instance, to support his consistent position. Nevertheless, the methodological strategy used in the argument is not enough sufficient. Regardless on other factors from external; international affairs/relations, Fukuyama solely emphasis his empirical supports on the countries’ internal factors; Columbia case, for instance, he concludes that it cannot expand economic development only because of having economic structure based on family. Actually, the fact that Columbia cannot achieve its growth does not mean that it is due to its family based economic structure. There might be other causes, which affect Columbia’s success. Still, while Fukuyama claims the weak point of family based business in Columbia, he ignores to mention over family based economic success of Taiwan that can be comparable.

Although overall, Fukuyama provides an interested idea in looking developments, he leaves out some areas, as exampled above, that might affect his consistent claim in analyzing. Hence, to improve Fukuyama’s argument to be clearer and more persuasive, it should be included those some items, such as the world economic conditions; instead of solely considering the internal conditions influencing developing processes. If so, then, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.

Life is unfair.
In his argument "Life is unfair," Birdsall, Nancy addresses inequality matter as a byproduct of global revolution, and focuses highly on developing for economic growths as the origin that create inequality on many aspects, especially on income and education. In developing his argument, Birdsall uses descriptive analyses of data from focused countries to compare cases analysis; and lays the structure tradition, which believes human actions are fundamentally shaped by the larger environment as theoretical and methodological perspective in purpose of examining his claim. However, there are many weak areas in Birdsall’s argument.
Firstly, Birdsall’s broad strategy brings up too many possible explanations of relatively many country cases in attempting to identify and strengthen his claim that causes some insufficiently empirical supports in comparisons between the cases. Also, in contradict with Fukuyama’s Social Capital and development, Birdsall’s argument solely discusses the cases by relying on broadly general points to support its claim, and he apparently ignores specific micro level conditions of the case countries that affect the inequality. In the other words, while Fukuyama strongly claims social capital as a critical support for democracy influencing economic growth, Birdsall conversely argues good politics, democracy, is the basic of the growth.

Moreover, the theoretical position of Birdsall is not consistent. Some points in his argument are contradicted. For example, at first, he points out that educating causes wide income gap and job inequality between well-educated and low-educated people, but at the latter of the argument, he conversely addresses that technological change decreases the gap and the inequality.

Because Birdsall’s argument is partly unclear and not persuasive, to reduce those flaws, the argument should be put high mention on particularly fundamental factors of the focused case countries, and since not all societies/countries have equal stocks of conditions, and there is no commonly accepted standard for indicating conventional economic models leading to successes; any comparisons, thus, should not be briefly concluded without regarding in all possible factors, both internal and external. In other words, it should be explored both common and different themes of history, culture, economy, and society all come along with the particular political dimensions, as a mean of understanding exactly what are the origin reasons that bring economic inequality of the countries.

Student Response F

Understanding Inequality
Inequality remains a prevalent problem in the 21st Century. It has only exacerbated critics of the ensuing global order of nation-states led by those identified as periphery powerhouses that in turn control semi-periphery and lastly third world countries which follow in a designated chain of command. Though there is to date continued debate over hegemony actors superseding those in the periphery category, it remains uncontested among many researchers that life sometimes deals people a deck of cards that can be construed as simply unfair. As it stands to date, inequality remains an issue of concern.

Being that the United States remains the most powerful economic force in the world with the average family being sixty times richer than a typical family in Ethiopia, it remains the prevalent example of how a nation can succeed in achieving unforeseen wealth in comparison to its fellow world actors. Nancy Birdsall argues that life, as we know it is unfair, depending on the individual in question and that inequality reigns strong. Birdsall’s "Life Is Unfair: Inequality In The World" lays out a general observation along with a fairly simple argument as to why eighty percent of the world produces only twenty percent of the world’s outcome and whether it is possible for nations that are currently lagging behind can discover the magical pill granting them the ability to catch up.

Francis Fukuyama’s "Social Capital and Development: The Coming Agenda" presents an argument focused in particular where social capital stands to date. Broadly defining social capital as any instance when people join together in cooperation in order to satisfy any end based upon shared informal norms and values, Fukuyama argues that a nation’s success in achieving real growth is highly dependent on this investment as well as how it interacts with external factors prevalent within the international realm. Presumably speaking on external norms and values of rich nations willing to contribute to the economic growth of less developed nations, poverty alleviation is dependent on the quality of the latter’s social capital.

Uniting under the banner of common interest is a human trait. Fukuyama presents a simplistic explanation of social capital that facilitates the "banding together" of individuals in the pursuit of a common good which may entail the defense of commonly held interests as well as the organization to support collective means. Critical for successful democracy, social capital adds strength to the establishment of a strong and healthy political framework, which serves as the foundation for any future democratic regime. As another way to define social relationships, it can be viewed as culture viewed through utilitarian lenses.

As the poor are more inclined to base their decisions on rational choices with a focus on survival, Birdsall argues that it is those actions, which prolong the conditions of poverty for not only themselves, but their children as well. Being that the poor are more likely to produce more children with the likelihood of increasing their family’s labor force in order to gather means of sustenance, parents are less likely to invest in their children’s education. Exceptions to the global rule following the postwar era that economic growth has led to disparaging inequality, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand broke the mold and achieved both high growth and declining levels of inequality. Thus, the author presupposes that the cultural and structural strength of nations brings about a fostering of understanding that people must invest in both their futures, as well as their children’s.

Familism can be construed as a rational decision made not only by those classified as poor, but ingrained within a culture itself. Fukuyama argues that this one rationally based instinct is apparent in an upwardly apparent level of distrust towards those considered to be of non-kin, or in many instances, those bearing a foreign trait. This trait is more so apparent within cultures that have bore corrupt and dishonest governments. An imperfect substitute to the rule of law, it is wholly insufficient for a people to profit from a globalizing world.

Birdsall views the misconception that nations rich in natural resources are predestined to achieve high growth for their entire population. In fact, she argues that the absence of such resources may in fact be a "hidden blessing" for it has shown to lead to a hording of income, discouraging people from taking it upon themselves to engage in other profitable practices, thus resisting the utilization of technology and skills. As has been replayed countless times by nations possessing such abundances of natural resources, regimes have accentuated not only its hording, but also the subsidization of public services. Birdsall views any such backings with apprehension, including the introduction of special worker entitlements, for they retard the needed labor capital of nations that is required to foster investments for long term growth.

Resources do not consist merely of those in nature found within a given country. In fact, they may be symbolic or ideologically based. Within social capital investments, one may discover that familistic sources of interdependence can indeed provide a valuable asset to a people. Stronger than many government safety nets, established networks among family members and alliances consisting of very close associates is an asset of considerable value. These kinship networks as described by Fukuyama are especially valuable if a there is a lack of strong state-funded social safety nets. During hard times, these alliances allow for the pulling of resources so that allies will not fall into despair. This does present a problem in that familism reeks of distrust of strangers not known to either itself personally or to their country. Thus, global businesses accustomed to professional market practices will be hard pressed into adapting and will be a deterrent to investment.

Subsidization introduces government-operated monopolies providing needed services at a price far below what it actually costs to provide them. Birdsall states that such practices introduce a shortage of supplies when services are charged below fair value. When rationing is brought into force in the event of substantial decline, the poor will always be left behind for the higher classes will engage in practices that may include bribery in order to maintain access to services. With the argument that only privatization of government owned monopolies will solve the problem, Birdsall argues that quick fixes may only exacerbate the situation, for there is no guarantee that the market will instantly bring about a just solution to all individuals. Instead, it is preferred that there be in place a system of democratic governance, along with a focus on education within a given nation. It is therefore vital to educate people in order to further shared growth and to best be able to coincide with market forces.

To prevent further backlashes against what Fukuyama claims as the "Washington Consensus" or neoliberalism, instead focusing on increasing the odds of success in countries as had been accomplished in Poland, Estonia, Mexico and Chile, the author addresses that its principle failure was one of "omission, rather than of policy". Before engaging in the necessary long-term practices of privatizing inefficient nationally held assets, lowering barriers to trade, investment and the gradual elimination of government subsidies, it is essential to acknowledge that the procedure is woefully deficient. Social capital has failed to be recognized as a viably key asset or detriment, depending on the social characteristics of a respected country. For the ability to implement liberal policies without the existence of a strong state capable of enforcing free market rules through established institutions, any such implementation may be doomed to failure. Thus, the author stresses that any such economic policy be implemented by a given state that which is bounded by limitations, but still strong enough to enforce the rule of law. Most importantly, the state should have fairly strong support among its people.

Education is viewed as the ultimate wealth, for it is a key asset that can never be taken away by any means. Knowledge shared brings wealth to those who are willing to invest in their own education. Birdsall suggests jump-starting a public education policy that will more than likely guarantee the economic stability of the wealthy, while providing an opportunity to those disenfranchised to escape their current situation. This is not to be viewed as a transfer of services to the poor, but an open-ended opportunity for all interested parties. As what is a normal occurrence, entitlements conjured up for the poor primarily are later captured and held by the middle class and the rich. Therefore, it is vital that any future spending should in fact benefit everyone, but focus primarily on the poor.

Inequality may not be so bad after all, being that during any major transition from one age to another as from the recent industrial to today’s information age, it may be viewed as a normal occurrence. Birdsall stresses that the goal of equality resides in the further education of our children, giving them the tools not only for a higher education, but also retooling elementary and secondary schools to provide students with those basic skills needed to take advantage of the technological age.

Fukuyama comments on education as a positive externality to social capital in that it may share within a particular group social virtues such as "honesty, reciprocity, and dependability" that should be practiced towards others. Though any solidarity among human beings can be directed against the interests of others outside of a social knit, shared as a whole, it brings about more positive effects than negative. Education becomes the new great leveler if all levels are retooled to focus on the newly developing economic trends. In the past, a high school diploma was more than sufficient for securing good paying jobs, only to be now supplanted with college degrees and in the near future, even higher degrees of learning. Regardless of this fact, all levels of education are fair game for retooling.

Both authors present arguments that complement each other’s findings in a way that suggests a commonality between dealing with whatever cards life has dealt and how to rectify a given hand. With a fervency towards liberalism ideals, coinciding with a utopian vision of what the world can become with regards to negating the harsh inequalities of peoples, Birdsall and Fukuyama have demonstrated that to deal effective with inequality, one must look at the root causes of the present situation in order to develop adequate solutions.


Bibliography

Birdsall, Nancy (1998). Life Is Unfair: Inequality In The World. Foreign Policy, 111, 76-93.

Fukuyama, Francis (2002). Social Capital and Development: The Coming Agenda. SAIS Review, 22(1), 23-37

Student Response G

Introduction
This report of critically analyses two articles that evaluate economic inequality in the world and the role of social capital in civil society and development. The first article provides arguments on why there is continued economic inequality in the world, and what the author believes to be its causes, and how people learn to live with inequality. The second article examines the role of social capital, its contributions to economic and social development.

This paper examines the arguments presented in each of the two articles through methodological perspective. The report will also examine the theoretical consistency and clarity of the articles. The evidence provided will be analyzed to establish correlation with the arguments and claims made.

Review of articles
In an attempt to explain the fundamental causes of economic inequality in the world today, Nancy Birdsall in her article titled " Life is Unfair: Inequality in the World" outlines the causes of inequality and the variation in income within and across nations. The number one cause is technology supported by the false assumption of the "convergence" theory. The theory that argues that with the open markets and advancement of technology, poor countries will be able to catch up with the rich nations. But that theory over the years according to the author has subsided. The article with reference to United States argues that economic inequality is the result of lack of educational gains for the poor. In other countries especially in East Asia, the economic boom of the post-war era, instead of decreasing inequality, has contributed to its surge. What makes the world unfair according to the article is the fact that inequality has no human causes and therefore it cannot be remedied. The article further explains that causes of inequality can be understood for the sake of its effects. But those causes and their effects vary according to countries.

The author uses the rational approach to theorize that the predictable human behavior is that the rich connect with each other, while the poor also tend to stay together. Other fundamental causes based on rational theory are lack of effective economic policy and government failure in educating the poor and unskilled.

In attempting to remedy inequality, the author argues that countries have made what she calls self-defeating policies such as protection form global competition. And also contrary to expectation, globalization has not achieved its objective of closing the gaps of inequality between developing and developed nations. In developing countries, according Birdsall, lack of sound development plan means lack of education that eventually translates into less productivity. She also argues that underpricing public services (with provision of public utilities as the continued responsibility of the governments) contributes to inequality. So does the laissez-faire economics.

In suggesting what works, the author outlines many options such as worker-based growth, provision of education , democracy, opportunities versus transfers and income subsidies. She says effective domestic policies to support integration in the global markets, are one of the options that work. Birdsall in the article also calls for acceptance of inequality as part of reality by simply living with it.

In the second article, titled " Social capital, civil society and development" Francis Fukuyama defines social capital, and relates its importance to the efficient functioning of modern economies. According to the article, social capital is rooted in culture and traditions. The strength of social capital lies in beliefs and shared norms. But social capital can create negative externalities that cause alienation of groups from the rest of the society. The author elaborates the functions of social capital in the free-market liberal democracy. He explains that social capital, which means an informal co-operation between individuals, helps promote economic efficiency in modern economies. Informal groups in workplaces have been catalysts to management structure and organizational culture.

The political function of social capital is explained as a counter force to the promotion of individualism in modern democracy. The abundance of social capital leads to an organized society, while the lack or low levels of it may lead to political dysfunctions. Measuring social capital focuses on negative externalities and internal cohesiveness, and the market valuations of a company through changes. Sources of social capital are found in shared religious beliefs, traditional and political norms. Social capital stock can be generated according to the author through education, party formation, foundations and government aid agencies. Globalization has been a means of generating social capital especially in developing nations.

Critical analysis of articles
In her article, Birdsall provides empirical facts, verifiable facts. But her arguments don’t seem to be consistent with her rational approach. If technology not only contributes to inequality but also makes the situation worse, then the provision of education in my opinion will become irrelevant to economic development. On the idea of convergence in globalization, the author leaves out the role of the developed countries. How they collectively, economically oppress the developing nations. The idea of "convergence" could be potent if there was equitable economic approach from both developing and developed countries.

The claim that inequality is not man-made appears absurd. If the richest individuals and countries could restructure the world market, the gaps of inequality could be reduced. Even though the author provides some empirical facts, two main categories of fact are overlooked: religion and culture. In countries where women are not allowed to work for cultural reasons, or where there is evidence of racial discrimination. Birdsall arguments on inequality could be better stated if she considered some of the structural and cultural factors that contribute to inequality. One can argue that from the theoretical analysis of agency versus structure, that Birdsall leaves out the role of "agency" in inequality. What can individual do to contribute to or to remedy inequality? This is one question that she does not address.

Fukuyama in his article uses the culturalist approach. His arguments are supported by cultural evidence that is vague and subjective. In his example with the Ku Klux Klan, one can argue that the group may not see itself as a group isolated from the civil society, or a group known for negative externalities. What Fukuyama calls or refers to as negative externalities, from the rationalist standpoint are appropriate functions of the group. The claims made by Fukuyama regarding the source of social capital seem broad. If the government creates a functional social group (i.e. government aid agencies), the group becomes a structured extended arm of government, and no longer serves the purpose of social capital . In his argument, the author says that informal groups can contribute efficiently to economic development, and at the same time can create negative externalities. Even though the author’s cultural method is consistent and clear with the claims he makes, but there is no empirical support for the argument that social capital does contribute to economy.

Conclusion
Critical analysis of these two articles reveals various theoretical methodologies. Two main methods employed are rational and cultural methods, but there is overlap of methods based on the arguments and claims made by the authors. Fukuyama’s article should have provided more information on social capital by making more rational arguments. And Birdsall’s article would have been broader, if she examined cultural factors.

Student Response H

Fukuyama
Francis Fukuyama’s article "Social Capital and Development: The Coming Agenda," is primarily a cultural analysis meant to explain one factor, and perhaps for Fukuyama, the primary factor in a country’s economic growth and poverty alleviation: Social Capital. Social Capital, defined as a people’s ability to work together in groups, is the cultural trait that in the end facilitates economic growth. Since cultural theorist tend to argue that every culture is in of itself unique, Fukuyama, in accordance with these limits, believes that analyst should therefore move away from "historical cases to a more pragmatic agenda, [consisting of] examining where social capital has successfully been created and the legal and institutional conditions that have facilitated its growth. Though he does mention the need for a thoughtful analysis of the institutions that facilitate social capital, in the end, Fukuyama’s article contends that the success of such institutions is conditioned on the existence of social capital.

Fukuyama argues that past failures associated with liberalizing policies can be directly attributed to the lack of social capital. Since such policies always presupposed the existence of "proper cultural pre-dispositions on the part of economic and political actors" lack of such conditions were bound to fail. What he never really bothers to address is whether such polices were in fact the appropriate measures for each individual country to take. It is assumed that they were appropriate and that by default it was the cultural failings of a particular country that caused such liberalizing policies to fail. Tacitly, social capital goes beyond the ability for groups of people to work together, taking on the very parameters of democratic ideals. Institution building and democracy require social capital, yet without a democracy or viable institutions, social capital cannot thrive, for by its very definition an authoritarian government, even if confronted with the existence of this cultural trait, would negate it to the tune of social atomization.

Within the context of a world systems analysis, it would make sense to use social capital, and by its logical extension democratic ideals, to evaluate economic development throughout the world but instead what is presented is a cultural evaluation which unfortunately seems to resemble subdued jingoism: to develop one must posses this quality, which just happens to be the hallmark of our way of government since it cannot thrive within any other culture. What are never discussed are the possible regions, if any, where liberal policies did not take root but which possessed measurable levels of social capital. Finally, Fukuyama, in discussing the cultural barriers that exist in other countries, i.e. nepotism, fails to distinguish how such traits differ from similar one’s that exist in the United States. For example how does familism truly differ from the class system that exist in the United States? By Fukuyama’s own definition, familism is defined as a clear demarcation of who falls within the category of "us", thus creating a "two-tiered moral system in which one feels few compunctions in behaving opportunistically towards others." How does that differ from what exist in the United States? Literally it makes no difference but according to Fukuyama, contextually, it makes all the difference in the world.

Birdsall
In her article, "Life is Unfair: Inequality in the World, Birdsall takes a structural critique at origins of inequality but in many ways fails to answer the question tacitly posed by her title nor the normative suggestions implied in her article. For Birdsall, inequality is the natural by-product of "predictable human interaction and polices that hamper economic growth." Nonetheless, Birdsall would argue that despite the limited role government plays in the economy, it can not leave the fundamental problems of inequality to be sorted out by the market. It is within this dearth of direct government involvement that Birdsall looks at the problem through an agency-centered perspective, thereby sounding the clarion call for education. Unfortunately, she all too easily accepts the notion that many young people will be locked out of an education by virtue of the fact that they are engaged in child labor, something that would seem so central to combating the origins in international inequality is quickly glossed over and summarily dismissed. It could be argued that it was her intention to identify and not solve the origins of inequality but her very reasons for condoning child labor are normative in nature. By rhetorically asking the question whether children who must engage in such employment would in fact be better off were child-labor practices she is explicitly condoning such practices.

In the end Birdsall’s article is too diffused to make a forceful commentary on the origins of inequality.

Student Response I

An Evaluation of "Social Capital and Development" and "Life is Unfair: Inequality in the World" by exploring the theoretical and methodological perspectives in the two articles.

Nancy Birdsall is obviously a structuralist as she identifies causes of inequality in the world by examining the historical and economic structures within countries and in the global level as well. Her analysis of inequality does not zoom into either individual problems or the specific tradition of certain nations. For example, instead of individuals, she blames the economic policies such as privatization and open trade, which tend to hurt the lower class people. Even though she also talks about the rational behavior of the poor, she perceives the poor as a group of people, who makes decisions within the existing political, economic and social settings. According to Birdsall, for instance, the poor spend less on their children and eventually the children grow up as unskilled workers who earn minimum wages.

Instead of blaming individuals or their traditions, she attributes the cause of inequality to a broader external environment. The remedies proposed by her are aimed to restructure a more friendly economic and political setting within and across developed and developing nations, in order to help reduce inequality.

Birdsall is making a global comparison. She selects many cases across classes, nations and regions to support her arguments. She compares the rich and the poor nations, the upper and the lower classes within a country, and nations with different political system as well. Sometimes, her analysis is too broad and over simplified that it appears superficial. For example, she points out that democracy is good for equalizing economic growth by briefly comparing Indonesia, Thailand, and Korea’s economic growth. The problem is that the democratic system does not necessarily guarantee economic growth within countries. Singapore, called a soft authoritarian country, has produced a better economic outcome than the Philippines, which has offered a larger space for its citizens to participate in politics. Furthermore, as a structuralist, her analysis has totally neglected to examine the global political and economic structures, which cause inequality among nations. Her argument could be more meaningful if she pays attention to countries or regions, which share similarities or contrasts in the political and economic structure, instead of taking the whole world as her case study. Besides, she needs to explain how she categories the rich and the poor, and which countries constitute each category as well. However, I must admit that her theoretical position is consistent.

2.
Fukuyama is clearly using a cultural approach in the article entitled "Social capital, civil society and development" to explore the sources of social capital. His data shows that various societies provide numerous norms that help the growth of social capital. In this article, he uses direct observation and secondhand observation as his major empirical evidence. According to his argument, the establishment of social norms is not only based on reciprocity, but also religions, traditions and shared historical experiences. He goes into the unique tradition or cultural resource of Western countries and points out that Puritan norms shared by western societies create a larger possibility for cooperation among people. The traditional norms of East Asia and Latin America, nevertheless, provide a relatively narrow radius of trust that decreases the desire of people to cooperate. Although Fukuyama is a culturalist, he tries to generalize his analysis across nations and regions. His argument seems to neglect the roles of the Catholic tradition, the Greek and Rome philosophy, in promoting the growth of social capital. Besides, the author does not identify what constitutes the traditional norms of East Asia and Latin America. Thus, I think his claim on the sources of social capital is narrow.

Apparently, Fukuyama does not deny the possibility of individuals’ rational responses toward forming social capital, but he seems to believe that cultural factors are playing the bigger role. However, his argument does not seem to be consistent all the time. While exploring the role of states in increasing the stock of social capital, he proposes that states should necessarily provide public goods indirectly. His assumption is seemingly based on the rational choice theory, which argues that individuals are reluctant to provide public goods. Besides, his belief in building a better external environment to help strengthen the social capital, is supposed to be a structuralist’s view. However, the main difference between his arguments and the rational choice and structural theories is that, he does not claim any causal relationship between the growth of social capital and certain factors. Instead, he recognizes culture, whereas rationality and structure are all related to the development of social capital

PAGE INDEX: Instructor's Note | The Question | Student Response A | Student Response B | Student Response C | Student Response D | Student Response E | Student Response F | Student Response G | Student Response H | Student Response I