Political Economy Differences, Research Paper Example

Who said this? When?

“Do not live in a country that does not allow you self-respect, honor, means of living, a family, kith and kin, friends, well-wishers, ways of education and self-development. Quit such country. It is not fit for living.” This quote is attributable to Chanyaka, a philosopher, instructor and political advisor. Chanyaka made this declaration in the 2^nd or 3^rd (depending upon historical estimates) century B.C.

Study the Differences in Current Political Economies of United States, Russia, China, and India in context of the above statement and write a report on your findings.

When analyzing Chanyaka’s remark in terms of contemporary political economies and the real differences that subsist between them, clear distinctions emerge. For example, to consider the political economies of the United States, Russia, China and India, each respective nation evince problems in satisfying what may be the Chanyakian politico-economic criterion. Whereas a good deal of what Chanyaka declares as necessary to a good state demonstrates personal and subjective paradigms, such as “honor” and “well-wishers”, in his words there is an underlying objective measure of what makes a political economy relevant to those that inhabit it, which therefore makes Chanyaka’s analysis relevant to the present day.

In the context of the political economy of the United States, such a failure to satisfy the Chanyakian politico-economic criterion is apparent. For example, the United States commitment to ways of education is not universal. Hence, the prestige of private universities in the United States means that quality education is afforded to the wealthy. As Gaita notes, “private universities in the US which charge fees favour the rich or those with the confidence to take out loans.” (235) In the U.S. education remains interrelated with capital of the private sector. This relation of wealth and quality education also appears to be present in China. For example, although under Mao private education was prohibited, there now exists over 70,000 private schools, as Chinese parents invest more money into education than in any other sector. (Hsu, 136) Education is also problematic in India, as the Constitution dictates that education is not a national issue, but rather a state issue, such that laws concerning education very state by state. (Rao, 18) This demonstrates that there is a failure to commit to education in contemporary India on a national level. In Russia, the political shift from communism abrogated the public university system, as a parallel private system has emerged. This has led to increasing costs of education as a whole. (Panibratov, 50) All four countries thus offer ways of education according to Chanyaka, but not according to the universalism that is implied in his message: economic issues still determine the education system in all these political economies.

Self-development issues are also determined by the increase in the private sector in all four countries. Whereas education can be considered to be an aspect of self-development, there are other issues of self-development, such as the freedom for economic practice. In the United States, this appears to be the case, but once again such practice is limited by policy, as in the case with India, Russia and China. (Rao, 178)

Means of living may be simply defined as the ability to find work. China possesses a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.5%, as does Russia 6.6%. The United States has a rating of 9% and India 9.8%. (indexmundi.com) Whereas these figures can be considered adequate, not all citizens have found work, although such statistics do not include the so-called “black economy.” The quality of jobs in such countries, however, is not covered by such statistics, and to the extent that Chanyaka infers a respectable means of living in his remarks, this question remains open.

Certainly, Chanyaka set a high standard for political economies with his remarks. Nevertheless, there are clear areas in which world countries are nevertheless failing to aspire to these aims. This is above all clear in terms of education, where the public and private gap turns education into an economic issue, a development that Chanyaka would certainly oppose. Works Cited

Gaita, Raimond. Good & Evil: Absolute Concepts. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Hsu, Robert. China Fireworks: How to Make Dramatic Wealth from the Fastest-Growing Economy in the World. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Indexmundi.com. “Country Comparison: Unemployment Rate 2011.” Retrieved at: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=74

Panibratov, Andrei. Russian Multinationals: From Regional Supremacy to Global Lead. London: Routledge, 2012.

Rao, D. Bhaskara. School Education in India.  New Delhi, India: Discovery Publishing House.