NEITHER BEIJING NOR HANOI BUT A CUBAN MARKET SOCIALISM
AbstractThe recently announced 'updating' of the Cuban socialist model, a euphemism for what is in reality a shifttowards a policy of 'market socialism', has logically raised the supposition on the part of some commentators that Havana is copying the Chinese or Vietnamese model of development. This article derives from an examination of studies of both the Chinese and Vietnamese economic reform processes and compares them with the Cuban example. It concludes that while the Cuban market socialist project has undoubtedly been informed by a study of their Asian counterparts and inevitably resembles them in some aspects, there are so many differences between each country's social, economic, geographic and historical characteristics, context and experience, that the Cuban model, forged out of its own circumstances and praxis, is potentially a new and unique form.Keywords: China, Vietnam, Cuba, market socialism, economic reformsIntroductionCuba, Vietnam and China superficially have a lot in common. They are all socialist states with single party systems led by a Communist Party that claims the mantle of representing the whole population. They all adopted socialist systems in response to colonial or neo-colonial domination and interference and, in the case of Vietnam and Cuba, they adopted socialism on the back of an explicitly nationalist revolution. Both Vietnam and Cuba fought the United States in their respective ways. However, historic and political similarities such as these tend to mask huge differences. At a time when Cuba is now obviously adopting what has come to be termed a 'market socialist' model, after the two processes that are already under way in China and Vietnam, there is perhaps an inevitable tendency to see the Cuban process as being a copy of those that have taken place in its Asian counterparts. In this article I agree that there are characteristics of the Cuban process that inevitably resemble policies that have been adopted in both China and Vietnam but I also argue that the many and huge differences between the Cuban situation and those of its Asian partners mean that the Cuban model is a very different and potentially new and unique form of market socialism.Cuba, Vietnam and China ComparedIn order to arrive at a suitable point of departure for discussion, the figures in Table 1 provide basic comparators that I believe should be taken into account when asking the question whether or not or how far Cuba might be following a Chinese or Vietnamese path. The table provides evidence that the physical, geographical, economic and historical differences between the three countries are far greater than the mere political similarity of apparently opting for a market socialist solution to the crises that each faced in terms of the challenges their respective state socialist models faced.An analysis of the table shows that China is an economy of unprecedented scale with an enormous domestic market. Vietnam is smaller but nevertheless significantly larger than Cuba in terms of its land area and population. By comparison Cuba is a small island economy of very limited scale.China and Vietnam are thousands of miles away from the United States while Havana is just 171km from US shores. This geographical difference apart, the historic influence and the former hegemonic relationship make the relationship between the US and Cuba very different from that which pertains in the cases of either Vietnam or China.Chinese and Vietnamese societies, values, traditions, demographics, and their multiple ethnic and religious minorities, make them very different from those of the more homogeneous Cuban society. There are 56 and 54 recognised ethnic groups in China and Vietnam respectively, whereas in Cuba there are officially none. Although Cuba is a racially differentiated society, culturally and linguistically it is homogeneous.Furthermore, both China and Vietnam emerged from ancient Asian feudalistic societies through an experience of colonialism that was very different from the way in which Cuba was colonised. …
Socially responsible enterprise in Cuba: a positive role model for Corporate Social Responsibility?’
This article examines the unique institutional environment of socialist Cuba, where currently a process of controlled marketization and expansion of private enterprise is taking place. The article investigates business behaviour in Cuba with particular reference to implicit assumptions relating to socially responsible enterprise, or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as the term is understood in Western Liberal Democracies. It draws upon a series of interviews with business practitioners and business commentators (both Cuban and non-Cuban residents on the island). The interviews focused on the participants’ awareness of business ethics and socially responsible enterprise, and the cultural differences in assumptions and expectations relating to the concept of CSR between the Cuban and non-Cuban interviewees. We find that Cuba at this early stage of tentative marketization presents a positive role model of socially responsible enterprise. Both the highly regulated State economy and the embedded norms and values of social equity that have emerged as a consequence of Cuba’s socialist revolution facilitate business social responsibility. The relevance of this research to current debates in relation to CSR is discussed and it is argued that capitalist economies may similarly benefit from tighter regulatory control and by cultivating more pro-social business norms that prioritise ethical over economic concerns.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.