The rules have changed but the game is still rigged

            Between the readings and the soliloquy this week, there were numerous topics of interest that drifted across the brain. The reading I found most interesting was that of Naeem Inayatullah and his essay on the dilemma of sovereignty and political economy. While reading it, I began to recognize the significant disparity in the global economic system and the disadvantage post-colonial states have in developing an economy designed to bring wealth to its citizenry, rather than provide wealth to a former colonial power or, as is frequently the case now, the ruling elites of that country.
            As was pointed out via the historical examples Mr. Inayatullah provided, (Egypt, Haiti, India) all colonial economies were designed to provide raw materials and captive markets for finished good to their imperial owners. There was never any intention of developing those territories’ economies to provide for their own well-being but rather the colonial powers utilized what Dr. Jackson referred to as “underdevelopment through functional specialization” and the global economic system still reflects that. In fact, the post World War II economic institutions continue to perpetuate this system via different means. I’m specifically thinking of the IMF and the use of conditionality in their loan terms. An almost de riguer policy requirement is for the loan recipient to liberalize their economy and open it to foreign investment, trade, and companies. In all the ways that matter, this is no different than the United Kingdom using Egypt for cotton or India for tea and spices or any of its other colonial possessions for raw materials. Only now, the raw material being exploited is the labor rich pool provided by a loan recipient and the significantly lower wages required to obtain their labor or financial institutions desperate for foreign capital.

Relatedly, I found it interesting that in the Haggard and Maxfield article, the authors discuss balance-of-payment crises and the role those incidents played in various countries’ attempt to liberalize their economies, but never once mentioned any role the IMF did or did not play in those countries attempts to adopt those policies in response to their crises. To me, it seemed intentionally obtuse, as though they had a specific reason to not mention the IMF.

            Following back into the topic of colonialism, a part of Dr. Jackson’s soliloquy made me think of an under-mentioned aspect of American history, when he spoke of corporations and their use of violence and then later alluded to the incident of the American Banana Wars in Central America and the Caribbean during the first three decades of the 20^th century. America with impressive regularity would deploy military forces, typically in the form of US Marines, in order to protect the interests and power of American companies. In this particular case, it wasn’t the fruit company itself (or oil company or sugar company or financial institution) utilizing force directly but strongly influencing the government of its home country to intercede on its behalf. It is certainly an interesting intersection of public authority defending private interests at the expense of another, weaker state's sovereignty.