Good evening Sir Nemenzo! Will you be giving us our grade by tomorrow? I'll be enrolling for the summer and the enrollment is on the 11th. Kailangan lng po kc makumpleto yung grades. :)

Tan, Klayre M.

2010-30004

Bureaucracy: The Stumbling Block to Change?

After the discussion yesterday by Sir Nemenzo, I've come up with a thought about the members of the bureaucracy, the BUREAUCRATS. I think, bureaucrats, in general, are not open to reforms or changes in their work or in the processes in the bureaucracy. But I still believe that this can still be changed, not by changes in policy or structure, but through changes in values.

Sir Nemenzo discussed the Russian bureaucracy, especially the case of the bureaucrats of the central economic planning agency. Although the central planning agency was the one behind the extremely fast industrialization and rise to economic prowess of Russia, it was also the very reason why the Russian economy stagnated and had a fast downturn. The economic managers from the central planning agency did not cope with the changing environment, i.e. the imbalance in the outputs of the various factories and industries being micro-managed by the planning agency. In the end, it created a lot of wastage in huge volumes.

And then, he shared his experience during his term as UP President, when he learned that a permit to travel needs at least 2 weeks before being released. This was because the computers were used by the 'permit processors' as a typewriter for the permits and they type the permits one by one, instead of saving a template in the computer.

From the two aforementioned conditions where bureaucrats are involved, I've come to think and believe that this is also happening now, especially in the government. And that they are the stumbling block to achieving changes in the very bureaucracy they belong to. Why did I come to come up with this belief?

It is primarily because the aspects of bureaucracy that are targeted for changes or reforms has become heavily incorporated into the routines of bureaucrats, that sometimes, some of them even treat it as a norm or tradition. An interesting case in point would be some government offices in the Philippines, especially in city halls and municipal halls. Government employees usually take their lunch breaks by 12 noon. So, if a person arrives in a government office by 11:30 am, then he/she should still be attended to by the government employee in that office. But, this doesn't happen. Instead, they (government employees) would strongly advice that person to just come back after the lunch break (which is at 1 p.m.) because they already spend the 30 minutes before their break time to put on make-up, chit-chat with their co-employees, or to surf the web using the office computer. Whenever they are asked why they do this, most of the old-timers will simply answer that it's the norm in the office. While for the newbies, they use the excuse of such practice being somewhat like a tradition in the office, to justify why they also practice such. And this is something that is not exclusive to government offices. This also happens in private offices where a bureaucratic pattern of management is implemented.

We are aware (or should be aware) that one of the hardest things to change or even permanently stop are those that have become the norms or traditions of a group of people or of a certain place. This is the reason why fraternity hazing, which is believed to be part of the "tradition" of fraternity brotherhood, is not totally eradicated by simply enacting a law against hazing. Also, this is the reason why despite the great opposition of the Philippine Catholic Church to the self-flagellation done by 'devotees' in a Pampanga town every Good Friday, they still go on and perform what they believe to be their tradition. And maybe, this is the reason why even if President Aquino tells us with full conviction that his administration will be different from the previous one, we can still trace similarities of the two. But this doesn't mean that problems rooted in traditions, norms or values, that have been already in place for so long, have no solution anymore.

Reforms in rules, policies, processes and structure of bureaucracy, or even imposition of a leader's political will, will not necessarily mean that positive and drastic changes will be seen and that the old conditions of the system will readily cease to exist. The problems are in the values system of those who are in the bureaucracy. These values systems can't be easily changed overnight. There will be strong opposition to it, just like in societies where the old order is replaced by a new one. It takes time before they are changed. Just like in the Russian central planning agency, their values system did not change until they have realized that their prolonged inaction to changes in the environment has already taken its toll on the economy. No one knows when that time will come until it shows itself.

"Time is the measurer of all things, but is itself immeasurable, and the grand discloser of all things, but is itself undisclosed."

CHARLES CALEB COLTON, Lacon

Online Exam to be submitted on March 9

Social Science 2

Online Exam

8 March 2012

1. What is “Brumaire” in the sense Marx used the term in The 18^th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte?

2. Who was Louis Bonaparte and how was he related to Napoleon Bonaparte?

3. What was the Paris Commune of 1871?

4. What is anarchism?

5. What were the issues in the conflict between Mikhail Bakunin and Marx?

Your answers should be submitted tomorrow (9 March). Late submissions will not be accepted. Using a word processor, print your answers on A-4 size paper.

Class Standing

The passing grade is 55, which is equivalent to 3.0 while 95 and above is 1.0. (The computation is based on:  40% mid term exam; 40% quizzes; 10% papers ; 10% recitation). 

Student Number	Grades (Based from Midterm and Quizzes only)
2009-13753	1.85
2011-34633	2.15
2011-29966	2.7
2010-30658	2.2
2009-00118	3.1
2010-37236	2.25
2011-29457	1.85
2009-78519	3.1
2010-25853	1.8
2010-79408	2.4
2010-02257	3.2
2010-79583	2.05
2010-79008	2.0
2009-61242	1.7
2010-23504	2.15
2011-01499	2.05
2011-78822	1.65
2010-30004	1.85
2011-29555	2.25
2011-51716	2.25
2011-48248	2.1
2010-42459	2.05

Online Exam (To be submitted on February 22, 2012)

Social Science 2

Online Exam

22 February 2012

THIS IS NOT ONLY A TEST OF YOUR MEMORY BUT ALSO, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, A TEST OF YOUR CAPACITY FOR CRITICAL THOUGHT

If you think the propositions below are defective, explain what is wrong and how to set it right:

1. Marx totally repudiated Adam Smith's theory that the only source of new value is capital that is managed by innovative capitalists.

2. Like Plato, Marx advocated the abolition of the family.

3. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels proposed the abolition of all forms of private property and the collective ownership of everything.

4. Marx was a champion of militant atheism. On the ground that "religion is the opium of the people," he espoused a godless society.

5. To know Marx's vision of a communist society, one should read Das Kapital. 

Summary of Capitalist Economic Thought

Recap

To save time I am sending a written summary of my lectures since January 11.

We reviewed the political and economic theories of capitalism from Adam Smith through John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman. We also reviewed the policies and practices of capitalist governments in the last 2 ½ centuries.

We have seen how capitalism has changed over time in response to technological developments, changes in management styles, and a series of crisis situations. It has survived mainly of its capacity to adjust to changing circumstances.

Adam Smith’s model of a freely competitive market (laissez faire) was steadily eroded as many players were thrown out of competition and wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Karl Marx already observed this early on – in the Communist Manifesto (1848) and especially in Das Kapital (1864). While conceding that capitalism was a free enterprise system, he said, its internal dynamics generate the opposite tendency towards monopoly.

The crisis in the late 1870s made this tendency transparent. Instead of having its powers diminished, the capitalist government became increasingly powerful; and the bourgeoisie became increasingly reliant on state support.

The period from 1880 to the outbreak of World War I is known at The Age of Empire because it was during this period the British expanded its empire (“the empire where the sun never sets”), the French grabbed colonies in Asia and Africa, and Germans (quite a late comer in the game) could only pick up what was left. Using the enhanced power of the state, the imperialists turned their colonies into new markets, new sources of industrial raw materials, and new fields for investment.

After World War I, there was again a clamour in the business circles of the victorious allies to clip the powers of government and move back to the free enterprise model.

In 1929 the world capitalist system plunged into the Great Depression, the worst economic crisis in history. To lift the United States out of this crisis, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched the New Deal, a series of programs designed to create jobs and thus restore the vibrancy of the market.

John Maynard Keynes came forward to provide a philosophical justification for the New Deal. In lieu of laissez faire, he urged the capitalist governments to regulate the market, manage the currency, set up public enterprises in critical areas where private capitalists are reluctant to go, and establish a network of welfare services to be financed through taxation.

World War II suspended the debate between free enterprise and state intervention. Needless to say, a country at war cannot afford free competition. Adam Smith had in mind a nation at peace. To fight Germany and Japan, the American and British militarized their economies; the government assumed full control of production, distribution and banking.

When the war ended in 1945, there was a clamour to reduce the powers of government and revert to the market system. But there was also strong resistance to laissez faire from the trade unions in Britain and the rest of Europe. The Labour Party won by a landslide in the 1945 elections. Although claiming to be socialist, the basic philosophy of the Labour government of 1945-51 was Keynesian rather than Marxist.

The Conservative Party recaptured power in 1951. While using the rhetoric of laissez faire, the Conservative government actually refrained from dismantling the Keynesian structures established by Labour. The Conservatives were not prepared for a head on clash with the trade union movement, and there was fear that the ensuing social dislocation would strengthen the communists. (During the Cold War the capitalist countries were locked in a fierce struggle with the Soviet Union.)

The newly independent nations adopted their own versions of Keynesianism. They set up mechanisms to protect the native capitalists from foreign competition. They enforced import controls, price controls, exchange controls and other regulatory devices. The Philippines briefly followed this line under Presidency Carlos P. Garcia.

As the Soviet threat waned in the early 1980s, Margaret Thatcher in Britain and, later, Ronald Reagan in America unleashed a vigorous offensive against the trade unions and dismantled the Welfare State, the structures founded on Keynesian principles.

Thatcherism thus replaced John Maynard Keynes with Milton Friedman in the pedestal of capitalism. The major capitalist powers reached the “Washington Consensus” to create a global market along neo-liberal lines. The IMF, World Bank and WTO pressured all nations to liberalize, deregulate and privatize.

Today the neo-liberal philosophy is in retreat. We have seen the failure of Fidel Ramos’ “Philippines 2000” program. The “Asian tigers” recovered from the financial meltdown of 1997 because they only paid lip service to neo-liberalism and maintained a highly regulated economy.

The most staggering blow to neo-liberal capitalism came in 2008. America, Europe and Japan plummeted into a crisis reminiscent of the Great Depression. Obama, Sarkozy and Merkel are now desperately looking for an alternative where the state is to play an active role once again.

Such an alternative can only be within the framework of capitalism. In the next series of lectures, I will discuss socialist political theory, the radical alternative to capitalism.

Fear the Boom and Bust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d0nERTFo-Sk

I just wanted to share this video which presents in a very modern and creative way the clash of ideologies between two of the most prominent economists in the 20th century: John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian Economics) and Friedrich August von Hayek (Austrian School), who in turn, influenced Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics.

This was produced, written and directed by econstories.tv. You can find the lyrics here.

-Phoebe Rose Tolete
I BA Political Science
2011-51716