Comparison of the economic and social structures of Argentina, Indonesia and South Africa
As part of the study, comparison of economic and social structures, we had to choose three countries in order to examine their economic and social performance and to characterize the modes of capitalism. Argentina, South Africa and Indonesia are the countries which we have chosen to study. This choice was motivated by the desire to study the situation of countries that were dictatorships not so long ago (those of Videla, Viola, Argentina [1976-1983], or faced racist apartheid as in South Africa [1948-1991] and Suharto in Indonesia, [1966-1998]).
The main objective of this choice was to compare systems with many differences in appearance (geographical, historical, economic, political, social and cultural) but sharing a common and painful heritage. It seems interesting to discover the approach by each country in remission of the test, leading to the adoption of a model of capitalism.
Therefore, the challenge of this work is to highlight the causes and consequences of institutional convergence and divergence of these countries, showing the strengths and weaknesses, and structures that dominate in different countries. Initially, we will try to identify the overall performance of each country using objective data about macroeconomic indicators, synthetic, industrial, commercial and human.
According to Braudel, these indicators will allow us to determine the degree of maturity of the market economy and the dynamics of capitalism in each of them by assessing their Development Index of Capitalism (development of grid IDC). Thus, from the various CDI scores obtained for each country, we will try to compare their performance before characterizing their mode of capitalism in relation to the gate of five models developed by Bruno Amable.
In addition to the personality of the President, the Indonesian regime rests on two pillars: the military unit and a philosophy of government, the "Pancasila".
The army plays a major role in Indonesia which is not limited to functions military. Of professionals, but broad-based popular model of secular expression of the national idea, responsible for external and internal security, providing many social functions, it has since the war of independence, of a prestigious and offers attractive careers.
Manager including plantations mines and banks, it holds significant economic responsibilities. In 1981, most civil service posts in ministries were occupied by soldiers. Currently, the military continue to monitor closely the implementation of government decisions, but their representation in government has declined since 1998 due to a policy to encourage the use of civilian technocrats.
Their economic influence was also somewhat eroded as a result of the rise of Sino-Indonesian conglomerates private. Similarly, their prestige has probably weakened because they did not escape the case. Implementation in 1999, the separation of the police and armed forces, leaving the police responsible for internal security, was never really accepted by the military, especially at local level, where they lost some of their prerogatives and, often, opportunities for corruption that accompanied them.
The military command is nevertheless a key player in the future of Indonesia and a leading political force. Besides, economic difficulties and recent bloody separatist conflicts (Bali bombing) may result in a return of the army, questioning democratization.
Tags: Argentina; Indonesia; South Africa; economy; social structure; comparison between countries