Student answer
A. (1) Use Mancur Olson’s theory to explain the behavior of Angola’s government, elite, and general public with respect to the CIF and CSIH’s contracts.
Angola’s government and political elite according to Mancur Olson’s theory are seen as distributional coalitions. Both parties have an incentive to partner with the CIF. China requires natural resources and the Angolan government and its elite want money. The funding is distributed amongst the group and society does not benefit at all. This behavior will continuously impede Angola’s economic growth. There is no funding for projects that create jobs to improve infrastructure. The general public suffers at the hands of this partnership. There is no trust of the government.
(2) What is stadium diplomacy? How does it fit Olson’s theory?
A form of cultural diplomacy that China uses as a means to gain access to another country’s market. They are presented as gifts or constitute some sort of partnership between China and the host country. What developing country wouldn’t want a newly constructed stadium? The return on a project such as this is assumes to be greater than the cost. That being to China shall we say.
B. (1) Are there parallels between China’s treatment of miners in Mozambique and Zambia and Eastover Mining Company’s treatment of workers in Harlan County, Kentucky? Explain.
There absolutely are parallels between China’s treatment of the Mozambique and Zambia miners and the workers in Harlan County. In both cases the workers were subjected to unsafe working conditions, unfair labor practices, and indecent wages. Fortunately, the Harlan County workers were able to strike and make a difference. In Mozambique and Zambia the state owned companies and the government swept it under the rug.
(2) Use Olson’s model to explain the Chinese government’s indifference to Aolong’s mistreatment and near enslavement of Chinese workers in Gabon.
The main goal of the Chinese government is to increase its presence globally and strengthen its own economy. China has increased in economic strength over the past three decades. The workers that complained to the embassy regarding the treatment they received from Aolong was addressed as a nuisance. The Chinese government has a bigger incentive to turn a blind eye to the treatment of the workers. The cost of improving working conditions and overall treatment of the workers aren’t seen as beneficial.
(3) Is Chinese unionism up to the task of defending Chinese workers in situations like Aolong?
It looks as those the state owned companies are protected by the government and has no incentive of changing its labor practices. Unfortunately, because of the relationship between unions and the government, the workers voice will not be heard.
(4) Why haven’t Chinese unions worked to improve conditions for non-Chinese workers in places like Zambia?
Chinese unions have no incentive to improve working conditions for the non-Chinese worker. As long as the Zambian government continues to have a poor attitude toward labor practices there is no need to improve conditions.
Student answer
A.(1) Use Mancur Olson’s theory to explain the behavior of Angola’s government, elite, and general public with respect to the CIF and CSIH’s contracts.
The relationship between them is pragmatic and strategic, the Chinese need natural resources and Angola wants development.
From Angola’s perspective, the Chinese provide funding for strategic post conflict infrastructure projects that Western donors don’t fund. Chinese financing offers better conditions than commercial loans, lower interest rates, and longer repayment time.
(2) What is stadium diplomacy? How does it fit Olson’s theory?
China’s practice of donating and building stadiums in Latin America and Africa functions as part of the country’s foreign aid policy.
Stadium diplomacy is a form of cultural diplomacy practiced by the People’s Republic of China through building and donating stadiums and sports facilities in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and the South Pacific.
In the long run this benefits China, giving them access to do business with the country.
A.(1) Are there parallels between China’s treatment of miners in Mozambique and Zambia and Eastover Mining Company’s treatment of workers in Harlan County, Kentucky? Explain.
Certainly, Chinese run copper mines are breaking the law with poor health and safety conditions, hostility to trade unions and dangerously long shifts. Unlike Harlan County workers who were able to strike, Chinese managers bribe or threaten miners to keep them from reporting accidents or other problems to the government’s mines safety department. (This according to an article I read http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/nov/03/chinese-mining-zambia-mistreating-workers )
(2) Use Olson’s model to explain the Chinese government’s indifference to Aolong’s mistreatment and near enslavement of Chinese workers in Gabon.
The Chinese don’t like complaints, they’re known for intimidation and firing whoever they feel as a threat or a problem. They’re in for the mass production and not the proper treatment and safety of their workers.
(3) Is Chinese unionism up to the task of defending Chinese workers in situations like Aolong?
Since Chinese unions are a tool for the government committed to maintaining stability, this doesn’t benefit the workers by leaving them neglected of problems they continue to face at the work place.
(4) Why haven’t Chinese unions worked to improve conditions for non-Chinese workers in places like Zambia?
Zambia has not effectively enforced either domestic or international labor law in the Chinese owned copper mines in Zambia. The Zambian government has not effectively intervened to address the problems. The Chinese focus more on production than safety.
Student answer
A. (1) Use Mancur Olson’s theory to explain the behavior of Angola’s government, elite, and general public with respect to the CIF and CSIH’s contracts.
The behavior of Angola’s governement, elite and general public with respect to the CIF CSIH contract is that there is an encompassing organization that has very little incentive to make the society in which they operate more prosperous. So their incentive to redistribute income to their members is low.
(2) What is stadium diplomacy? How does it fit Olson’s theory?
Stadium diplomacy is a tactic that China uses to infiltrate a country and exploit their goods, in a discreet ninja style manner. China donates a stadium to the country of their choosing, particular one in which they can somehow profit from. The donation is a gift of creating economic boost and friendship. Once China has graciously been accepted into the country, they begin their work in mining for economic success, but not for the country that they inhibit, but for their homeland. They are there for one reason and that is to bring the wealth back to China. This creates collusions that reduce efficiency and make political life more divisive.
B. (1) Are there parallels between China’s treatment of miners in Mozambique and Zambia and Eastover Mining Company’s treatment of workers in Harlan County, Kentucky? Explain.
There are parallels between China’s mistreatment and the Eastover Mining Company’s treatment of workers in Harlan County. The use of gun thugs or hired hands of force is the common that the two situations share. In China, the use of hired hands is at quite a larger extent, where they are used to convince employees to stay.
(2) Use Olson’s model to explain the Chinese government’s indifference to Aolong’s mistreatment and near enslavement of Chinese workers in Gabon.
Aolong’s mistreatment is explained through Olson’s implication of members of small or weak groups, who have little influence, will have disproportionate organizational power. Further more the incentive to help Aolong was diminished as they saw that the cost to fix the issue was substantially more than coercion.
(3) Is Chinese unionism up to the task of defending Chinese workers in situations like Aolong?
Highly doubtful. Unions rely on their governing bodies for representation, thus if China’s oppressive and corrupt government continues, it will only be incorporated to shady dealings within the unions, which will not help defend the workers.
(4) Why haven’t Chinese unions worked to improve conditions for non-Chinese workers in places like Zambia?
Chinese unions have not worked to improve conditions for non-Chinese workers in places like Zambia because the effort is wasted and not worth it. It seems like there is a belief that the Chinese believe that they themselves are the best, and there is a lack of representation even for their own people. There is an issue with governing bodies and mentalities from not only China itself, but also with the places like Zambia with weak governments. These weak governments are incapable of organizing, thus the society has an easily collapsible framework for rights.
Jermaine Byrant
Nicole Johnson
OVER
RATING
YEARS
