Borincano
30th May 2002, 06:33
Independence and Cultural Economics in Puerto Rico
Luis Orlando Gallardo Rivera
(I didn’t write the essay)
Different systems work for different people. As mentioned in Dogs Don’t Meow Like Cats, cultures that have been in the development for centuries or even millenniums will react differently to a political and economic system modeled for and by a completely different culture that has been in development for just as long. If this is not the case, then why is it that all of Anglo-protestant cultures perform quite well with liberal democracy and capitalism while most other cultures that attempt to follow in their foot steps fail miserably? Is it just a coincidence or are the developing countries doing something wrong? Note that most developing countries carry on policies that derive from or directly molded by First World models.
The Third World contains its cheap labor, its vast natural resources, and the incentive to “progress” but why does it fall so behind the First World? Many African nations during the beginning of the age of European colonialism in the continent voluntarily handed over their sovereignty over to the colonial powers for “development” and “modernization” purposes. Many of these African nations made the effort to “develop” (using the European model) before that same development took place in the imperial powers’ Anglo-protestant colonial extensions (Canada and the United States for example). Why do they still lag behind? They have the labor, the resources, and the incentive, so why not the development? It is because this type of “development” sought by the Third World is a development that has been a product of an alien culture. Anthropologist Max Weber calls this development a “cultural phenomenon”. It arose from the rubble of one culture, so what makes one think that it can so easily be picked up and adopted by another?
When multiple ethnic groups are put into the same economic and political environment, and when similar institutional models and economic policies are implemented in two different countries, this “culture matters” theory is put into practice as one party “developed” more or faster than another. Puerto Rico is a perfect example. Puerto Ricans, whether on the island or in the U.S. tend to perform worse off than their Anglo-protestant counterparts. With more “opportunity” than most (if not all) states of the union, Puerto Rico remains to rank the lowest. Even when a Puerto Rican is removed from the island and is placed in one of the fifty states, he or she still lags behind mainstream Americans in socio-economic terms. It is not the conditions on the island, the political status, or a lack of aid that is keeping Puerto Rico “underdeveloped”, it is the system that they use which was not modeled for them in the first place.
It is true that Puerto Rico can succeed better within its current Western-style economic and political system but that can only be done by the westernization of the population. To better succeed in the American system, we have to become Americans. Some degree of Americanization has already occurred in Puerto Rico, which was accompanied by economic stimulation. Many political leaders both in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico are suggesting further Americanization – such as the adoption of a Western-concept of time and the widespread usage of the English language – both of which, we are told, will result in economic development. Why is it that Puerto Rico cannot adopt a system that works for its culture? Why must we continue to practice a system where we are forced to change who we are in order to progress?
In Ronald Inglehart’s Culture and Democracy, Inglehart clumps and charts a number of cultures on a two-dimension chart generated by survival/self-expression values, and traditional/secular values; Baltic, Confucian, Orthodox, Catholic Europe, Protestant Europe, English speaking, Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. The members within each of these cultural groups do not only share similar cultures, values, and social structures, but also share similar economic performance rates. The borders that make up the “developed” world and the “underdeveloped” or “developing” world can be drawn in accordance to culture. I cannot stress enough how visible it is that the reason the Third World is drowning in a puddle of its own urine is because it is aiming to piss in a toilet bowl thousands of literal and cultural miles away. As seen by Singapore and Malaysia, progression can be achieved through alternate pathways.
So then what system would work better for Puerto Rico? While an in-depth answer can only be provided after a study of Puerto Rican culture as a whole, in this essay I will attempt to concentrate on the three main key conditions in Puerto Rico:
1) Puerto Ricans, in general, do not own enough capital for investment.
2) Intensive and aggressive foreign investment and trade easily flush out the domestic markets that do exist.
3) The island of Puerto Rico cannot feed itself with the few natural resources and arable land that it has, therefore requires some form of trade.
The lack of local investors forces Puerto Rico to resort to foreign investment. This foreign investment results in an export of wealth. The problem with foreign investment is that it is carried out in accordance to the interest of who is investing – not where the investment is. Even though the wealth that is generated and exported by these foreign companies would do a lot more good if it stayed in Puerto Rico, it is shipped off. These companies and investors cannot really be blamed: it is their investment – they cannot be expected to just hand over their profits to their areas of operation. To make up for the inconvenience (and at times the lack) of foreign investors, investment can be carried out directly by the government (much like the public development projects that occurred during the early Muñoz Marín days). ‘Dabs’ of socialism within a capitalist environment worked quite well for Puerto Rico and is what kicked-off Puerto Rico’s industrial age. The most amazing trait of Muñoz’s socialism was not its impressive results but the fact that it was culturally compatible.
To make up for the assault on domestic business by foreign business, protectionist policies should be enacted. Nothing is wrong with the commercial exchange of goods that are not available domestically, but when Puerto Rican farmers selling their fruits and vegetables on the side of the road are going out of business, there is no real need to import those same fruits and vegetables. While government agencies, such as the Puerto Rican Industrial Development Company (PRICO) make it a point to make it easier for foreign business to operate in Puerto Rico, it is my opinion that they should be making it harder for foreign businesses and easier for domestic businesses to function.
As we all know, Puerto Rico does not have the ability to feed and supply itself with the appropriate resources. As one of the most condense areas in the world in terms of population, Puerto Rico can only produce enough food for 400,000 of its 3.8 million inhabitants. In order to survive Puerto Rico must have some sort of trade with other countries. When I rant on about how Puerto Rico needs to increase its self-sufficiency, many people mistakenly think that I am suggesting that Puerto Rico becomes totally self-sufficient. I am aware that this is impossible but I still believe that we should become as self-sufficient as we can be. If we can feed 400,000 of our own people, then we should feed all 400,000 of them. At least 11% of our food imports could be cut down.
Sure we will still have to import 89% of our food products but the question is from where? Currently we import most of it from the U.S. – a trend that statehooders support, and commonwealth-supporters and independentistas do not pay much attention to. As stated in English in Puerto Rico, “With trade comes cultural exchange and an import/export of values”, so cultural reform will occur as long as we carry on with our current trade system. To survive = to trade. To trade = to change who we are (through the “rubbing off” of culture from our trading partner). Is it possible to continue the trade that we require to live but without becoming (or attempting to become) something that we aren’t?
All Puerto Rico has to do is chose trading partners that share similar cultures, so that this “cultural exchange” will not have to much of an impact. While we currently depend on our neighbors to the north (under 300 million people) for trade, all we have to do is make a 180 degree turn and face south, where a continent and a half of more than 500 million people and refine the path from which we draw out imports. Puerto Rico trading with the Dominican Republic, Panama, or the rest of Latin America, for example, will carry a less (if any) cultural exchange than when doing trade with or through the U.S. The Puerto Rican government needs to decrease trade with the U.S. and begin to compensate it with trade from Latin America. Only then will Puerto Rico have the ability to maintain (or strengthen) both its rich cultural heritage and the trade that it desperately needs.
Direct government investment was a torch that was carried by former governor Luis Muñoz Marín, former governor Rafael Hernandez Colon enacted economic protectionism, and an increase in trade with Latin America is occurring at the moment with Governor Sila Maria Calderon (all of which represent the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party, PPD). While independence leader Rubén Berríos stated that “Puerto Rico must develop an economic strategy responsive to its own needs, not subject to rules and regulations designed for the much wealthier continental U.S. economy”, his idea of an appropriate system resembles European democratic socialism. Much like the U.S. system, the European system was not modeled for us. It is pathetic that the only party in Puerto Rico that offers a true systematic alternative from the current U.S. system is not the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP).
Independence groups and parties in Puerto Rico are interested in implementing systems similar to those used in not only Europe, but also Malaysia and other non-Latin American countries. Statehooders, on the other hand, wishes to maintain and further integrate into our current economic system. The suggestions presented above which lay out a more “culturally compatible” economic system would be impossible to implement if Puerto Rico was a state and are too radical of a system for a U.S. territory. Independence is the only environment in which these policies could be cleanly carried out but none of the independence groups plan to use them. Is it possible to gain the status wanted by the PIP while at the same time the economy urged by the PPD? If Puerto Rico becomes independence, then that is most likely what will happen.
The PIP in no way will ever win a referendum, so there are only two realistic ways that Puerto Rico can gain independence: if the U.S. just gave it to us (like they did with the Philippines) or if it “crept” onto Puerto Rico. How could the later be carried out? Well, the PPD throughout the past and present have wished to gain more autonomy (not exactly an attempt to gain independence), and they never seem to be happy with what they get. If in fact Puerto Rico moves from commonwealth to associated republic status, like many PPD leaders want, than most likely within few decades the PPD will be asking for even more autonomy. These steps to independence are so small and slow paced that most PPD supporters are not even aware of their long-term effects. Sooner or later, under this trend, Puerto Rico will just “float” away from the U.S. until we pretty much become independent without knowing it.
Whichever way it is achieved, if independence comes then there is expected to be a migration from the island towards the U.S. Already, to a small degree, a small out-flow of Puerto Ricans has already begun; mostly disgruntled pro-statehooders who feel that the current PPD administration is leading us to independence. On Puerto Rico’s primary pro-statehood radio station, programs that call her “tyrant” and “dictator” are accompanied by commercials that advertise migration to pro-statehood communities in Florida.
If Puerto Rico gains independence, a medium to large number of islanders (specifically rightists and statehooders extremists) are expected to leave the island. The reference to migration due to independence is a topic that is commonly brought up, but is barely studied for its political effects. Note that currently the independence sectors of the population are predominantly leftists, socialists, and communists, while the PPD is made up of leftists, quasi-socialists, and liberals. The New Progressive Party (PNP) is split between hard-line rightists and left wing liberals who occasionally sympathize with PPD congressional measures. Currently both the PPD and PNP have more or less equal sized pools of support, thus exchange political power every one or two elections. If just a small percentage of the PNP left Puerto Rico, than the PPD would be left with the support of the majority of the population, thus allowing it to carry out whatever economic models it wishes. Leaders like the President of the Senate Fas Alzamora would now be able to pass their socialist, protectionist, and pro-Latin American trade policies without much opposition. Much like in every other Latin American country, a coalition of progressive parties and a coalition of conservatives would arise. A leftist coalition would most likely consist of the predominant PPD and the smaller PIP and progressive PNPs, while a rightist party would be made up of the PNP conservatives who stayed behind.
My suggestions for a “culturally compatible” economic system are almost guaranteed to occur if independence is achieved due to the migration of right wing conservatives.
Luis Orlando Gallardo Rivera
(I didn’t write the essay)
Different systems work for different people. As mentioned in Dogs Don’t Meow Like Cats, cultures that have been in the development for centuries or even millenniums will react differently to a political and economic system modeled for and by a completely different culture that has been in development for just as long. If this is not the case, then why is it that all of Anglo-protestant cultures perform quite well with liberal democracy and capitalism while most other cultures that attempt to follow in their foot steps fail miserably? Is it just a coincidence or are the developing countries doing something wrong? Note that most developing countries carry on policies that derive from or directly molded by First World models.
The Third World contains its cheap labor, its vast natural resources, and the incentive to “progress” but why does it fall so behind the First World? Many African nations during the beginning of the age of European colonialism in the continent voluntarily handed over their sovereignty over to the colonial powers for “development” and “modernization” purposes. Many of these African nations made the effort to “develop” (using the European model) before that same development took place in the imperial powers’ Anglo-protestant colonial extensions (Canada and the United States for example). Why do they still lag behind? They have the labor, the resources, and the incentive, so why not the development? It is because this type of “development” sought by the Third World is a development that has been a product of an alien culture. Anthropologist Max Weber calls this development a “cultural phenomenon”. It arose from the rubble of one culture, so what makes one think that it can so easily be picked up and adopted by another?
When multiple ethnic groups are put into the same economic and political environment, and when similar institutional models and economic policies are implemented in two different countries, this “culture matters” theory is put into practice as one party “developed” more or faster than another. Puerto Rico is a perfect example. Puerto Ricans, whether on the island or in the U.S. tend to perform worse off than their Anglo-protestant counterparts. With more “opportunity” than most (if not all) states of the union, Puerto Rico remains to rank the lowest. Even when a Puerto Rican is removed from the island and is placed in one of the fifty states, he or she still lags behind mainstream Americans in socio-economic terms. It is not the conditions on the island, the political status, or a lack of aid that is keeping Puerto Rico “underdeveloped”, it is the system that they use which was not modeled for them in the first place.
It is true that Puerto Rico can succeed better within its current Western-style economic and political system but that can only be done by the westernization of the population. To better succeed in the American system, we have to become Americans. Some degree of Americanization has already occurred in Puerto Rico, which was accompanied by economic stimulation. Many political leaders both in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico are suggesting further Americanization – such as the adoption of a Western-concept of time and the widespread usage of the English language – both of which, we are told, will result in economic development. Why is it that Puerto Rico cannot adopt a system that works for its culture? Why must we continue to practice a system where we are forced to change who we are in order to progress?
In Ronald Inglehart’s Culture and Democracy, Inglehart clumps and charts a number of cultures on a two-dimension chart generated by survival/self-expression values, and traditional/secular values; Baltic, Confucian, Orthodox, Catholic Europe, Protestant Europe, English speaking, Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. The members within each of these cultural groups do not only share similar cultures, values, and social structures, but also share similar economic performance rates. The borders that make up the “developed” world and the “underdeveloped” or “developing” world can be drawn in accordance to culture. I cannot stress enough how visible it is that the reason the Third World is drowning in a puddle of its own urine is because it is aiming to piss in a toilet bowl thousands of literal and cultural miles away. As seen by Singapore and Malaysia, progression can be achieved through alternate pathways.
So then what system would work better for Puerto Rico? While an in-depth answer can only be provided after a study of Puerto Rican culture as a whole, in this essay I will attempt to concentrate on the three main key conditions in Puerto Rico:
1) Puerto Ricans, in general, do not own enough capital for investment.
2) Intensive and aggressive foreign investment and trade easily flush out the domestic markets that do exist.
3) The island of Puerto Rico cannot feed itself with the few natural resources and arable land that it has, therefore requires some form of trade.
The lack of local investors forces Puerto Rico to resort to foreign investment. This foreign investment results in an export of wealth. The problem with foreign investment is that it is carried out in accordance to the interest of who is investing – not where the investment is. Even though the wealth that is generated and exported by these foreign companies would do a lot more good if it stayed in Puerto Rico, it is shipped off. These companies and investors cannot really be blamed: it is their investment – they cannot be expected to just hand over their profits to their areas of operation. To make up for the inconvenience (and at times the lack) of foreign investors, investment can be carried out directly by the government (much like the public development projects that occurred during the early Muñoz Marín days). ‘Dabs’ of socialism within a capitalist environment worked quite well for Puerto Rico and is what kicked-off Puerto Rico’s industrial age. The most amazing trait of Muñoz’s socialism was not its impressive results but the fact that it was culturally compatible.
To make up for the assault on domestic business by foreign business, protectionist policies should be enacted. Nothing is wrong with the commercial exchange of goods that are not available domestically, but when Puerto Rican farmers selling their fruits and vegetables on the side of the road are going out of business, there is no real need to import those same fruits and vegetables. While government agencies, such as the Puerto Rican Industrial Development Company (PRICO) make it a point to make it easier for foreign business to operate in Puerto Rico, it is my opinion that they should be making it harder for foreign businesses and easier for domestic businesses to function.
As we all know, Puerto Rico does not have the ability to feed and supply itself with the appropriate resources. As one of the most condense areas in the world in terms of population, Puerto Rico can only produce enough food for 400,000 of its 3.8 million inhabitants. In order to survive Puerto Rico must have some sort of trade with other countries. When I rant on about how Puerto Rico needs to increase its self-sufficiency, many people mistakenly think that I am suggesting that Puerto Rico becomes totally self-sufficient. I am aware that this is impossible but I still believe that we should become as self-sufficient as we can be. If we can feed 400,000 of our own people, then we should feed all 400,000 of them. At least 11% of our food imports could be cut down.
Sure we will still have to import 89% of our food products but the question is from where? Currently we import most of it from the U.S. – a trend that statehooders support, and commonwealth-supporters and independentistas do not pay much attention to. As stated in English in Puerto Rico, “With trade comes cultural exchange and an import/export of values”, so cultural reform will occur as long as we carry on with our current trade system. To survive = to trade. To trade = to change who we are (through the “rubbing off” of culture from our trading partner). Is it possible to continue the trade that we require to live but without becoming (or attempting to become) something that we aren’t?
All Puerto Rico has to do is chose trading partners that share similar cultures, so that this “cultural exchange” will not have to much of an impact. While we currently depend on our neighbors to the north (under 300 million people) for trade, all we have to do is make a 180 degree turn and face south, where a continent and a half of more than 500 million people and refine the path from which we draw out imports. Puerto Rico trading with the Dominican Republic, Panama, or the rest of Latin America, for example, will carry a less (if any) cultural exchange than when doing trade with or through the U.S. The Puerto Rican government needs to decrease trade with the U.S. and begin to compensate it with trade from Latin America. Only then will Puerto Rico have the ability to maintain (or strengthen) both its rich cultural heritage and the trade that it desperately needs.
Direct government investment was a torch that was carried by former governor Luis Muñoz Marín, former governor Rafael Hernandez Colon enacted economic protectionism, and an increase in trade with Latin America is occurring at the moment with Governor Sila Maria Calderon (all of which represent the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party, PPD). While independence leader Rubén Berríos stated that “Puerto Rico must develop an economic strategy responsive to its own needs, not subject to rules and regulations designed for the much wealthier continental U.S. economy”, his idea of an appropriate system resembles European democratic socialism. Much like the U.S. system, the European system was not modeled for us. It is pathetic that the only party in Puerto Rico that offers a true systematic alternative from the current U.S. system is not the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP).
Independence groups and parties in Puerto Rico are interested in implementing systems similar to those used in not only Europe, but also Malaysia and other non-Latin American countries. Statehooders, on the other hand, wishes to maintain and further integrate into our current economic system. The suggestions presented above which lay out a more “culturally compatible” economic system would be impossible to implement if Puerto Rico was a state and are too radical of a system for a U.S. territory. Independence is the only environment in which these policies could be cleanly carried out but none of the independence groups plan to use them. Is it possible to gain the status wanted by the PIP while at the same time the economy urged by the PPD? If Puerto Rico becomes independence, then that is most likely what will happen.
The PIP in no way will ever win a referendum, so there are only two realistic ways that Puerto Rico can gain independence: if the U.S. just gave it to us (like they did with the Philippines) or if it “crept” onto Puerto Rico. How could the later be carried out? Well, the PPD throughout the past and present have wished to gain more autonomy (not exactly an attempt to gain independence), and they never seem to be happy with what they get. If in fact Puerto Rico moves from commonwealth to associated republic status, like many PPD leaders want, than most likely within few decades the PPD will be asking for even more autonomy. These steps to independence are so small and slow paced that most PPD supporters are not even aware of their long-term effects. Sooner or later, under this trend, Puerto Rico will just “float” away from the U.S. until we pretty much become independent without knowing it.
Whichever way it is achieved, if independence comes then there is expected to be a migration from the island towards the U.S. Already, to a small degree, a small out-flow of Puerto Ricans has already begun; mostly disgruntled pro-statehooders who feel that the current PPD administration is leading us to independence. On Puerto Rico’s primary pro-statehood radio station, programs that call her “tyrant” and “dictator” are accompanied by commercials that advertise migration to pro-statehood communities in Florida.
If Puerto Rico gains independence, a medium to large number of islanders (specifically rightists and statehooders extremists) are expected to leave the island. The reference to migration due to independence is a topic that is commonly brought up, but is barely studied for its political effects. Note that currently the independence sectors of the population are predominantly leftists, socialists, and communists, while the PPD is made up of leftists, quasi-socialists, and liberals. The New Progressive Party (PNP) is split between hard-line rightists and left wing liberals who occasionally sympathize with PPD congressional measures. Currently both the PPD and PNP have more or less equal sized pools of support, thus exchange political power every one or two elections. If just a small percentage of the PNP left Puerto Rico, than the PPD would be left with the support of the majority of the population, thus allowing it to carry out whatever economic models it wishes. Leaders like the President of the Senate Fas Alzamora would now be able to pass their socialist, protectionist, and pro-Latin American trade policies without much opposition. Much like in every other Latin American country, a coalition of progressive parties and a coalition of conservatives would arise. A leftist coalition would most likely consist of the predominant PPD and the smaller PIP and progressive PNPs, while a rightist party would be made up of the PNP conservatives who stayed behind.
My suggestions for a “culturally compatible” economic system are almost guaranteed to occur if independence is achieved due to the migration of right wing conservatives.