In the “Structural Dependence of the State on Capital,” Przeworski and Wallerstein (1988) focus on identifying whether democracy is a political system that allows citizens to solve the inequalities created in their society by capitalism. Przeworski and Wallerstein analyze the theory of “structural dependence of the state on capital,” which states that all governments in capitalist societies are compelled to “respect and protect the essential claims” of owners of wealth in society (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 11). Assuming that the hypothesis of the theory is true, where the society of a capitalist nation is contingent on the “allocation of resources chosen by owners of capital,” the theory infers that the state must then depend on the owners
…show more content…
. . [while capital remained] . . . privately owned” (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 24). Przeworski and Wallerstein, however, argue that “virtually any distribution of consumption between wage earners and shareholders is compatible with continual private investment” with only “anticipations of future threats to shareholders’ consumption . . . [reducing] . . . investment and [imposing] costs on wage earners” (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 24). Appropriately, the only concern would be whether, or when, “the future benefits to wage earners [would] outweigh the costs incurred during the transition period,” since, according to Keynes, “‘if a state is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary’” (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 …show more content…
. . left his government awash with cash . . . [which] he used . . . to expand welfare provision,” and these “stronger public finances have brought economic stability” to the nation (“The explosive apex of Evo’s power” 2). In accordance with Przeworski and Wallerstein’s theory, Mr. Morales could have distributed consumption compatibly with continual private investment; however, he chose to nationalize private assets, which may have decreased the transition period during which costs could be incurred, thus avoiding adding the burden of costs on wage earners.
In my opinion, Przeworski and Wallerstein would predict that the future of Morales’s ‘Social Revolution’ is uncertain due to the fact that the state would be structurally dependent in a dynamic sense. As mentioned before, the result of the continual expectation of threats would lead to a fall in investment and result in additional costs for wage earners, with no guarantee that the costs of the transition period would be compensated with future benefits (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988
. . [while capital remained] . . . privately owned” (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 24). Przeworski and Wallerstein, however, argue that “virtually any distribution of consumption between wage earners and shareholders is compatible with continual private investment” with only “anticipations of future threats to shareholders’ consumption . . . [reducing] . . . investment and [imposing] costs on wage earners” (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 24). Appropriately, the only concern would be whether, or when, “the future benefits to wage earners [would] outweigh the costs incurred during the transition period,” since, according to Keynes, “‘if a state is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary’” (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988 …show more content…
. . left his government awash with cash . . . [which] he used . . . to expand welfare provision,” and these “stronger public finances have brought economic stability” to the nation (“The explosive apex of Evo’s power” 2). In accordance with Przeworski and Wallerstein’s theory, Mr. Morales could have distributed consumption compatibly with continual private investment; however, he chose to nationalize private assets, which may have decreased the transition period during which costs could be incurred, thus avoiding adding the burden of costs on wage earners.
In my opinion, Przeworski and Wallerstein would predict that the future of Morales’s ‘Social Revolution’ is uncertain due to the fact that the state would be structurally dependent in a dynamic sense. As mentioned before, the result of the continual expectation of threats would lead to a fall in investment and result in additional costs for wage earners, with no guarantee that the costs of the transition period would be compensated with future benefits (Przeworski and Wallerstein 1988