The Third Way

Before defining the Third Way or what it is considered to be by his author, it is convenient to state what the Third Way is not, and put forward the argument that criticizes some principles of Anthony Giddens upon such a theory.

First, the Third Way is not a technocratic project tainted with utopian feature nuance, nor a politic and ideological new direction in the search for a new place in politics for the emerging social sectors that want to have a position in the political scenario.

Secondly, it is not an empty concept –without a real sense, nor a coined expression by Giddens –which has been adopted by the left to adhere just itself to right-centre wing.

Thirdly, it is not defined either as Giddens does as a programme of modernity on economy, political system and the state of welfare. Neither does the Third Way in its postulates seek for a renovation of public institutions.

The Third Way does not linger on what is accepted from what is denied. It is not the best of the economy of market –productivity – neither is it the reward of social democracy –a distributive system.

Upon the postulates of the Third Way by Giddens, some of them are unthinkable practical and utopian ones.

The first one: “New politics or a second wave of democratisation.” In a sense: “the people are consulted.” As this theoretical postulate lingers on a fundamental element of democracy that the majority governs, so public opinion should be counted. However, this cannot be done by abolishing the traditional democratic institutions and replacing them for such units of public debate for referendum. This one as another is a medium through which is conveyed the interests of people, so that it can be manipulated. And, it is prone to be under pressure in a major degree in the latter than the former.

Just have a glimpse of some Latin American countries where the rotted traditional institutions have been replaced for referendum and an emerging new leader, who becomes a Messiah, uses it for his own political benefit.

The second one: “New relationship between State, Market and civil society.”

The role of the state is to have due participation according to the moment. And, this should be assured by some rules that would be applied –independently its nature– on the circumstance.

A relationship between the state and civil society should be on the terms of one that defines a judicial, legislative and executive frame, where civil society can act.

Finally, upon the market, the state should encourage the private entrepreneur who is a principal factor in the economy, but it should regulate this when it is out of the equilibrium point.

And the third one: “A commitment with the entrepreneur.”

If a country’s decisions as well as its activities are based on the international sector it means the loss of democracy and the own national interest.

To have a real scenario of this principle, it is advisable to screen out Latin American society in which the higher classes, dominant but not leading ones and beneficiaries of the system by the political influences and alliances with foreign monopolies, are not interested in the development of their own country because this would imply the alteration of their supremacy; besides their profits would be in jeopardy.

The Third Way is the way as the state –in its main role of the head of the nation– deals with all the areas of the system. And, this way is just adjusted to the conditions of the moment.

The Third Way in the practice could be evidenced as El Partido Socialista Obrero Español had made the way for economic and social agents to go in a free-market economy coming from an autarchic and corporate economy. As in France, the Third Way is considered as the socialists update themselves having more Anglo-Saxon socialism rather than interventionist socialism.

But, one relevant example by the political system and complexity of the thought of the men in Asia, it is the case of China with respect to Taiwan.

Alberto Moreno Rojas, IV Seminario, “Los Partidos Terceravia y Socialismo y una Nueva Sociedad”, Ciudad de Mexico, Febrero del 2000.

Anthony Gidens, “La Tercera Via”, Ed. Taurus

Article part of the Notes from Through Existences.
https://payhip.com/b/zRI2

America’s Supremacy: Immigration

In previous articles I attempted to analyse the causes for some countries still in the condition of underdevelopment in a global world, also such a reasoning tries to have understanding about this new tendency - which will help to develop in a better society – denominated The New Socialism of XXI Century; socialism that supposedly is not the same one as that of the last century. In the following lines, I will expose the reason for America is always in steps ahead from the rest of the world, which absolutely grants supremacy to the country.

            One aspect that many countries overlook, due to the fact of their underlined regionalism, or aversion or just simply not being in capacity of taking in, is Immigration.

            America owes its increasing specialization, the enhancement of its productive capacity and innovation to Immigrants. They allow American workers to boost their degree of specialization and become more productive –earning high wages. This is a key factor that produces as result supremacy above other nations. As the economist Giovanni Peri states in his research “Technological and scientific innovation is the acknowledged engine of United States economic growth and human talent is the main input in generating this growth.”

            In many countries a skilled immigrant is not considered on the terms of having not been a native-born, and he is catalogued as a disestablishing element in the opportunities for native professionals. This contra juxtaposes with Peri’s description “A team of engineers may have greater productively than an engineer working in isolation, implying that a foreign-born engineer may increase the productivity of native-born team members.”

            Although, it could be stated that immigration is harmful for the economy and society of a country, some papers have found out that immigration has a little adverse impact on natives.

            “Foreign-born workers complement rather than substitute for native-born workers because they have a different pattern of education and skills…” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Employment Policy.

            In the United States, in the field of scientific innovation, the leaders are foreign students, skilled immigrants and doctorates in science and engineering. And, America supremacy is summed up in this “For every 100 international students who receive science or engineering Ph.D.’s from American university, the nation gains 62 future patent applications.” According to a study by Keith Maskus, an economist at the University of Colorado, Aaditya Mattoo, Lead Economist at the World Bank’s Development Economies Group, and Granaraj Chellaraj, a Consultant to the World Bank.

            The bottom line conclusion of their research is that “Reducing foreign students by tighter enforcement of visa restrains could reduce innovative activity significantly in the United States.”

            So those countries that restrain immigration are deprived of innovation. It is hard for them to attain a high level of advance and supremacy over other nations.