Keynesianism vs. Classical Economic Theory: European Refugee Crisis and the Fall of Multiculturalism

  • Aliaksei Igor Patonia University of Liverpool University of St Andrews
Keywords: European Union, global economic crisis, Fukuyama, Hofstede, cultural dimensions, liberal democracies, Keynesianism, classical economic model, refugees

Abstract

Posing arguments against statistical evidence picturing the European Union as the key world economy, the research views the economic model of the EU through the prism of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, explaining its lower resistance towards the global economic crisis and comparing it to China – a country with authoritarian governmental methods – that suffered to a significantly lesser extent. Based on the example of these two entities, the paper views the topic of the current refugee crisis in Europe representing it as a new crucial trial for the EU that potentially checks classical economic theory for consistency. According to the author, if found effective, in the foreseeable future it will form a sound basis for further development, if not – it will likely be replaced by the Keynesian paradigm. Thus, with the current refugee crisis in Europe, the author juxtaposes liberal economy with the state-regulated one. This is done to give hints at the importance of the crisis per se, as it is believed to be capable of shattering some of the fundamental principles of the current world order.

Author Biography

Aliaksei Igor Patonia, University of Liverpool University of St Andrews
School of Management, University of Liverpool

Department of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews

References

[1] Ambrosio, T. (2014) The Rise of the ‘China Model’ and ‘Beijing Consensus’: Evidence of authoritarian diffusion?. Contemporary Politics, 18 (4), pp. 381-399, DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2012.728029, Retrieved September 18, 2015.
[2] European Commission (2015). EU position in world trade. Retrieved September 18, 2015 from: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/
[3] European Union (2015). Economy. Retrieved September 18, 2015 from: http://europa.eu/about-eu/facts-figures/economy/index_en.htm
[4] Fukuyama, F. (2013). The ‘End of History’ 20 Years Later. New Perspectives Quarterly, 30 (4), pp. 31-39. DOI: 10.1111/npqu.11399 , Retrieved September 18, 2015.
[5] Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. 2nd Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
[6] Hofstede Centre (2015) Countries: Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved September 18, 2015 from: http://geert-hofstede.com/germany.html
[7] Jiang, Y. (2015) ‘Vulgarisation of Keynesianism in China’s response to the global financial crisis’. Review of International Political Economy, 22 (2), pp. 360-390. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2014.915227, Retrieved September 18, 2015.
[8] Ramachandran, V. (2012) Global Development: Views from the Center: The Value of Rejecting Expert Advice. Retrieved September 18, 2015 from: http://www.cgdev.org
[9] Ravenhill, J. (2005). Global Political Economy. 1st. Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[10] Stiglitz, J. (2002). Challenging the Washington Consensus. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 9 (2), pp. 33-40.
[11] Warner, M. (2015). Keynes and China: Keynesianism with Chinese Characteristics. Asia Pacific Business Review, 21 (2), pp. 251-263. DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2014.905096, Retrieved September 18, 2015.
[12] Weale, A. (2014). Citizenship in Europe and the Logic of Two-Level Political Contracts. German Law Journal, 15 (5), pp. 867-881.
[13] Yasheng. H. (2010). Debating China’s Economic Growth: The Beijing Consensus of the Washington Consensus. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24 (2), pp. 31-47. DOI: 10.5465/AMP.2010.51827774. Retrieved September 18, 2015.
Published
2017-09-25
How to Cite
Patonia, A. (2017, September 25). Keynesianism vs. Classical Economic Theory: European Refugee Crisis and the Fall of Multiculturalism. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 7(2), 13-20. Retrieved from https://jecs.pl/index.php/jecs/article/view/10.15503.jecs20172.13.20