NAME WAQAR KHAN

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

TED TALK 1: GOVERNMENT; INVESTOR, RISK TAKER AND

INNOVATOR.

TED TALK 2. A TALE OF TWO POLITICAL SYSTEMS.

1st Talk
This Ted Talk points out the fact that privately funded firms are unconstrained and innovative,
while public agencies are stuck with bureaucracy. Using the iPhone as an example, the speaker
explains how government agencies engineered the device’s revolutionary innovations. It’s more
of a secret to “dynamic capitalism”. This talk also emphasis on many questions including: Why
many people believe that the private sector is more innovative than the public sector. Why this
misconception is harmful and How policy makers can counteract its effect.

What did we learn.

 Most of the time people wrongly assumed that innovation thrives in the private sector
and wilts in publicly funded organizations.

 Still government agencies funded many of today’s revolutionary innovations, including

Siri, GPS, touch-screen technology and many new drugs.
  The government funds revolutionary projects and gives them time to develop.

 Lowering government to the provision of basic services, such as infrastructure and

education, impedes the creation of healthy public-private partnerships.
 When policy makers recognize government’s role in value creation, they may be able to
structure financial models to get more of the monetary rewards.

Summary
Many people assume that private sector funding promotes innovation and commercialization,
while projects and companies receiving public support suffer due to conservative attitudes and
layers of bureaucracy. The public discourse perpetuates this assumption. Many people view
great innovators such as Apple’s Steve Jobs as dynamic, groundbreaking cowboys unfettered by
traditional ways of doing things. The media echo this sentiment, often describing the public
sector as a behemoth that strangles creativity. This narrative encourages innovation policy
makers to assign the state the task of financing the fundamentals – education, infrastructure,
preliminary research – and to leave the real thinking to creatives outside their purview.
However, the foundational assumption of this reasoning simply isn’t true. For example, the
game-changing innovations featured in the iPhone were all government funded: The US
military’s program financed the development of GPS; the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency funded language-interface research; and the Central Intelligence Agency and National
Science Foundation provided public grants to develop touch-screen displays. Government-
funded research has been “shaping and creating” new markets across industries, including
nanotechnology and pharmacology. The government has acted similarly to a venture capitalist,
but with more patience; whereas VCs demand returns in three to five years, state funding
agencies are committed to the long term – a timeline many innovations require. Public-private
partnerships offer the best way to promote and support an innovative economy, but casting the
state as a bureaucratic, risk-adverse partner stymies the creation of beneficial collaborations. A
better route is to build innovative “entrepreneurial state organizations” that can accept failure.
Although the public sector assumes the high risks of innovation, it reaps few rewards.
Economists argue that states profit through taxation, yet firm’s offshore jobs and find legal
loopholes to reduce their tax burden. Some governments are starting to retain equity in
companies as recompense for their financial risk. For example, the Brazilian Development Bank
retains equity in clean technology firms that they fund. When the US government recognizes its
role as a value creator, it may begin to think more strategically. An “innovation fund” that
realizes even a small share of the profits for which state funding is responsible would siphon
money back into the communities that are home to innovation.

Moreover, innovation depends on bold entrepreneurship. But the entity that takes the boldest
risks and achieves the biggest breakthroughs is not the private sector; it is the much-maligned
state. The failure to recognize the role of the government in driving innovation may well be the
greatest threat to rising prosperity.

This talk relates to the Ideology of Economic Nationalism. In Economic terms, the market can
only function properly when the states intervene and helps the infant industry grow. State is
the main actor in playing the “Game of Economies”. In today’s world this act is done by the
government of United States of America. It’s been involved in a trade-war with china, which
gives a chance to local manufacturers and entrepreneurs to evolve.

Personal Point of View. I support the argument that the state has played a central role in
producing game-changing breakthroughs, and that its contribution to the success of
technology-based businesses should not be underestimated. Countries that are suffering from
crisis (such as Italy and Greece and many others) is because of the fact that they have spent less
on Research and Development and Education. There are many reasons why policymakers must
modernize the state and bring entitlements under control. But one of the most important is
that a well-run state is a vital part of a successful innovation system . Government is most
effective when it acts with confidence, as evidenced in places such as China and Brazil, which
have successfully developed technologies for the anticipated ‘green revolution’ with the help of
state aid.
2nd Talk
As a society progresses, it eventually becomes a capitalist, multi-party democracy. Right? Eric X.
Li begs to differ. In this talk he asks his audience to consider that there's more than one way to
run a successful modern nation. Li uses China’s economic strength as proof and asks political
theorists to consider the viability of alternative forms of government. This talk questions many
different assumptions, including: why the assumption on china’s political system is wrong, why
western should consider other political systems.
What did we learn.

 China’s and America’s political models against each other in a battle for supremacy.
 Since the 1970s, China has emerged as the world’s second-largest economy, lifting 650
million Chinese out of poverty.

 Though Western democracies view China’s one-party system as rigid, closed and
corrupt, China owes its success to its “adaptability, meritocracy and legitimacy.”
 China’s model is not exportable. Unlike proponents of Western democracy, the Chinese
don’t force developing countries to adopt their model. However, China’s success in
recent decades proves that democracy is not the only game in town.
 Chinese don’t force developing countries to adopt their model. However, China’s
success in recent decades proves that democracy is not the only game in town.

Summary.

Chinese culture shows a story that societies progress through various stages of social
development until they reach the zenith – communism. Yet the road to this this “paradise on
earth” is fraught with peril as the forces of evil capitalism clash with the goodness of socialism.
In contrast, American culture internalizes a story that individuals desire the vote above all so
they can create representative governments and everyone will prosper through capitalism. Yet
before they can attain this “paradise on Earth,” they must fight evil socialism until the goodness
of electoral democracy reigns supreme. This second narrative gained worldwide popularity, and
by 2010, the number of democratic countries had increased to 115 from 45 in 1970. During that
time, China became the world’s second-largest economy, lifting 650 million people out of
poverty. China’s success story disproves three assumptions about one-party systems: that
they’re rigid, closed and corrupt.

In fact, China owes its success to the one-party system’s “adaptability, meritocracy and
legitimacy.” The system continuously reforms, evolves and “self-corrects.”. Rapid political
reform over the past 30 years has touched every level of Chinese society. While corruption
remains an issue, China’s meritocratic system rewards those with proven abilities. Of the 300
members of the Central Committee, few come from privileged families. Members progress
through one of three avenues: “civil service, state-owned enterprises or social organizations.”
They undergo tough reviews to win promotion. The competitive system weans out weaker
candidates, and only the best advance to the highest positions. President Xi Jinping spent three
decades working his way up through the system. US presidents George W. Bush and Barack
Obama, on the other hand, wouldn’t have had enough experience for the role of “even a small
county manager in China’s system.” Research reveals that 85% of Chinese citizens are satisfied
with the direction of the country. In contrast, the share of satisfied citizens in electoral
democracies often lies below 50%.

This Ted talk points out how socialism has helped the Chinese to get developed. The fact that
no other nation can get developed like the Chinese did is because all the Chinese are one
nation, there is no diversity in their identity. A Chinese loves to do business with Chinese, A
Chinese loves to live with another Chinese. Their writing style is different, their foods are
different, their learning style is different. They don’t follow a western culture, nor fashion, nor
business idea. In fact, they don’t even use their applications and technology gadgets.

Personal point of view.

 I cannot agree more with Eric’s points about “plurality”. We shouldn’t constrain ourselves by
a singular destination of human society. Different nation has its own history, culture and
characters comprised of their citizens, geographical features, or even weather conditions.
which are all factors that affect the operations of the government and the politics of the
nation. We are so diverse and so different. How come one single political system could fit all the
countries? Only by setting ourselves free from the dogma of the universal political system can
we start to design one that fits our nation the best on the basis of the unique national
characters.

However, I found this argument is logically problematic for two reasons. First, the economic
success isn’t the only criterion to evaluate the performance of a political system. Second,
Chinese political system is not necessarily the reason, or the only reason that accounts for the
economic achievements. It is not simply the sufficient-and-necessary relationship between the
economic growth and the political system. At least, we should give credits to the tradition of
diligence, wisdom, and tolerance among the Chinese people. It’s those heroes who devote their
lives to make that happen.