|
[강남_0814(수)] Economist영어토론 and TIME CNN 영단어 단어범위 리스트 [ J-K]
Schumpeter
Cronies and capitols
Businesspeople have become too influential in government
Aug 10th 2013 |From the print edition: Business
[1] IN 1994 many Italians voted for Silvio Berlusconi in the hope that he could use his skills as a businessman to revive a sclerotic economy. He had built a property-and-media empire out of thin air. He had reinvigorated one of the country’s great football clubs, AC Milan. Surely he would do a better job of running the country than the old guard of corrupt politicians and introverted bureaucrats? Well, si monumentum requiris, circumspice. Mr Berlusconi was prime minister of Italy for eight of the ten years between 2001 and 2011. During that time Italy’s GDP per head fell by 4%, its debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 109% to 120%, taxes rose from 41.2% of GDP to 43.4%, and its productivity stagnated. Rather than using his business skills to revive the Italian economy, Mr Berlusconi used his political skills to protect his business interests.
[2] The great seducer is an extreme example. And with luck Italy’s long Berlusconi-themed nightmare is drawing to a close. But the problem at the heart of Mr Berlusconi’s Italy—the commingling of power and business—is a growing worry around the world.
[3] In “Can Capitalism Survive?” (1947) Joseph Schumpeter argued that the answer to that question was probably “no”. The great battle of the 20th century was between the state and business. And the state was likely to win because the thinkers and bureaucrats at its service were better at occupying the moral and intellectual high ground. “A genius in the business office may be, and often is, utterly unable outside of it to say boo to a goose—both in the drawing room and on the platform,” he said.
[4] Times have changed. Most politicians now believe that businesses are better than bureaucracies at generating growth. Prime ministers and finance ministers flock to Davos not to lay down the law to businesspeople but to court their favours. Businesspeople have learned not just to say boo to a goose but to put a ring through its beak. Today the problem is often the very opposite of the one that Schumpeter imagined: not the marginalisation of business but its excessive influence.
[5] The emerging world has gone furthest with what might politely be called “public-private partnerships”. The state grants franchises to well-connected businesspeople such as Carlos Slim in Mexico or Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa. Those businesspeople then use their wealth to influence the state. In emerging markets such as China and Russia a group of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) dominate the economy. In “khaki capitalist” countries such as Pakistan and Egypt the army controls businesses that account for big chunks of the economy: their bosses, both as generals and as general managers, enjoy much political clout.
[6] Crony capitalism seems to be getting worse. In China the SOEs call the tune: they suck up capital from the private sector and refuse to pay dividends to SASAC, the government body that nominally oversees them. Many of India’s dozens of billionaires made their fortunes in industries such as mining and infrastructure that are prone to rent-seeking, even if the most famous are in relatively politics-free ones such as computing.
[7] This all matters more than it used to. The emerging world may be slowing but it now accounts for more than half of global GDP (using purchasing-power parity) compared with less than a third two decades ago. And SOEs strut the global stage. A quarter of the companies on the latest Fortune Global 500 list are from emerging markets, up from 15% in 2010. Of these, 58% are Chinese SOEs. The government has set them a target of getting half their profits from abroad in five years, up from 38% now.
[8] The Anglo-Saxon world looks askance at Mr Berlusconi’s mixing of business and politics, and at the French phenomenon of pantouflage, in which senior civil servants move on to cushy jobs in business. But its superior attitude is misplaced. In Britain the revolving door is spinning ever more rapidly. Over the past decade 18 former senior ministers and civil servants have taken jobs with the biggest three accountancy firms, whose work includes helping businesses minimise their tax bills and lobby the government. They include Dave Hartnett, until last year the head of the revenue service, now a consultant at Deloitte. The boards of British energy firms are packed with ex-ambassadors and ex-spies.
Rome on the Potomac
[9] In America relations between business and politics are even cosier, and more worrying. Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business left Italy in 1988 because he felt his country was being destroyed by cronyism. But in a recent book, “A Capitalism for the People”, he worries that America is turning Italian. Washington, DC, has taken over from Silicon Valley as the metropolis with the highest income per head. Spending on lobbying has more than doubled in the past 15 years. The Washington Post’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, promises that its coverage will not be the servant of his interests—but his company, Amazon, spends millions of dollars a year on lobbying. The Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision has given companies carte blanche to spend freely on influencing elections. The Treasury has all but dug an underground passage to Wall Street: four of the past seven treasury secretaries had close ties to investment banks.
[10] Policing the relationship between government and business in a free society is difficult. Businesspeople have every right to lobby governments, and civil servants to take jobs in the private sector. Governments have to find the best people to fill important jobs: there is a limited supply of people who understand the financial system, for example. But governments must also remember that businesses are self-interested actors who will try to rig the system for their own benefit. The sad state of Mr Berlusconi’s Italy shows that a government that is too close to businessmen may be neither businesslike, nor do much to promote businesses other than their own.
Economist.com/blogs/Schumpeter / From the print edition: Business
[Kim Seong-kon] K-pop is not enough on its own
[1] Despite the increasing popularity of K-pop and Korean TV dramas overseas, Korean literature does not seem to attract foreigners’ attention much. With the possible exception of Shin Kyung-sook’s “Please Look after Mom,” which was on the New York Times bestseller list for a while, Korean literature in translation still seems to be left out in the cold in the international book market. Even Shin’s novel might not have been so lucky, had it not been for Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” which inspired Western mothers’ curiosity of how to raise children in East Asia.
[2] Under these circumstances, the prospect of promoting Korean literature in Western countries does not seem rosy, partly because of its uncertain marketability, and partly because of the unwillingness of the Western publishers to tolerate cultural differences. Therefore, only those publishers who are dedicated to minority literature are willing to publish Korean literature in translation at the risk of financial loss.
[3] Dennis Maloney, publisher of White Pine Press in New York, who has devoted himself to publishing non-Western literature in the United States, points out the difficulties, saying, “It is difficult for supporters in Korea and other countries where we publish translations from to realize how hard it is to market such work in this country. It seems each year the number of people who read foreign literature in this country decreases and those who read foreign literature in translation, a small minority to begin with, get even smaller.” Indeed, it is well known that English-speaking people, especially Americans, tend not to read books in translation. They seem to think: “Why bother to read translations when there are so many good books written in English already?”
[4] Perhaps that is why active marketing for Korean literature in translation is indispensable. For that matter, Maloney asserts that foreign publishers need marketing funds from Korea: “We have suggested to the foundations in Korea that they provide some marketing funds in addition to the publication support so we can attempt to develop the audience for Korean literature.”
[5] Some Koreans who are proud of their literature complain, “Why should we, not the publishers, spend money on marketing books on Korean literature overseas?” //// The problem is that few foreign publishers spend money on advertising books on Korean literature which do not sell well.
[6] Maloney comes up with some ideas to promote Korean literature in the West. First, we need “a good directory with contact names of professors who teach Korean literature and a contact list of Korean community resources in this country (also Canada and England).” Second, we need “funds to advertise in appropriate periodicals.” Third, we need “funding to develop website links with such commercial sites as Korea link and other academic sites to advertise our Korean titles.”
[7] Added to these extreme difficulties is the realization and fact that the effort on the part of Korea to promote its literature overseas has been far from satisfactory. Paul Norbury, editor and publisher of Curzon Press in England, writes, “Since we published ‘Simple Etiquette in Korea’ in 1988, we have contacted various Korean institutions concerned, including Korean Air for its publicity and sales. Surprisingly enough, not a single institution has responded. Even the Korean Ministry of Culture has not, even though the book came out just before the 1988 Olympics. The indifference of Korea was complete.” Although it happened a long time ago, it still is quite embarrassing to hear such a complaint from foreign publishers.
[8] Luckily these days, the Korea Literature Translation Institute and the Daesan Foundation are doing a superb job to promote Korean literature overseas in many ways. Nevertheless, we still have to go far to make Korean literature conspicuous in the international community. Of course, we are greatly encouraged by the enormous popularity of K-pop and Korean television dramas overseas these days. Nevertheless, we should also try to promote Korean literature at the same time, because literature is the best medium for understanding a foreign culture comprehensively. Indeed, literature provides the reader with abilities to understand other people and other cultures, and to have the capacity to embrace cultural differences. Besides, the understanding and discussion of Korean culture through Korean literature will let the foreign readers broaden the horizon of their knowledge, nurture their ability to perceive their own national culture and identity in comparative perspective, and develop a better insight into Korean society. This literary attainment can also serve as a priceless pillar that defends us from cultural imperialism, a dark side of globalization, and against abuse of commercialism.
[9] Undoubtedly, pop culture is the best medium to attract foreigners’ attention. Surely, however, pop culture alone will not be enough; serious literature should follow and back up K-pop, Korean movies and dramas in order to make foreigners understand and appreciate the essence of Korean culture rightly. K-pop, for example, is far from traditional Korean culture; rather it is a mixture of Korean and Western culture. Korean literature, however, is uniquely Korean, eminently emitting authentic Korean sentiment and cultural identity. We need to promote not only Korean pop culture but also Korean literature overseas.
|