Collective Goods Problem: China, Haiti, France

By: Dakota Taufeeq

The collective goods problem can be described as the problem of how to provide something (goods, services, etc) that benefits every member of a group regardless of what and how much each member contributes to it. For a community, family, small group, or country this problem is relatively easy to solve. For example, in the USA there is an issue of older people not having enough financial resources to retire or stop working safely. The solution to this is to tax all members of the community, at rates that they can afford, and use that money to give back to the USA citizens when they reach 62 years old. This is called social security and stemmed from the social security act. This is not a perfect system but it was relatively simple for the American government to find a problem and provide a solution. However, it is significantly harder to solve the collective goods problem in a global sense. There are three different methods but each method has its own pros and cons. The three primary methods are Dominance, Reciprocity, and Identity. Dominance is the idea that stronger counties are at the top of the hierarchy and because of their strong positions, they receive the most resources and benefits. These countries also wield more power when it comes to decision making and through this hierarchy, there is a sense of stability and order. The only downside is that it is not an equal distribution of resources or decision-making, and less powerful countries can grow to resent the ones at the top. Reciprocity is based on the response to another country's actions. For example, if France decided to have no tariffs with the USA, the US could decide to eliminate all of its tariffs with France as well. This system is reminiscent of a barter and trade system. The down-sides of reciprocity are the “eye for an eye” ideology where countries punish other countries in retaliation. Identity is the last example solution to the common goods problem and the best way to analyze this solution and more specifically its downsides are to look at an actual country. 

Recently Xi Jinping announced a new “Common Prosperity” campaign that focuses on closing the wage gap between the rich and poor and a renewed dedication to China’s values. For fixing the wealth gap, big tech companies are pressed to donate millions to charities and there are new rules that ban for-profit tutoring companies in core school subjects. As for China's value system, there is a new requirement for more classes on China’s President Xi Jinping and more extensive rules banning foreign books for preference of Chinese ones. Lastly, in the entertainment realm, China has limited the number of hours children can spend on online games and according to a TV regulator in the Chinese government “Broadcasters must resolutely put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics”, citing the fear that these men fail to encourage young men in china to be masculine enough.  In terms of the identity solution, China appears to be sacrificing its global tech prowess and entertainment power for a stronger focus on class equality, less materialism, and superficiality, for an overall more healthy sense of self. If these ideas were true, it would help China in the global sense for setting a good example for what countries should value. Internally it would improve China's citizens’ morale. This solved the common goods problem internally by highlighting community goals and setting up stronger values. However, this is how things appear at surface value. It is true that strengthening a country's values can make it stronger in a global sense, but in this example, the Chinese government is simply pushing its own purification values onto its citizens. Forcing the big tech companies to donate more money does nothing to solve China's massive problem with overexerting its workers  (as demonstrated by the surprising  “lying flat” movement) and limiting students’ access to private tutors makes learning all the more stressful in a toxic education environment. As for the issue of the male celebrities, China cites ending superficiality and emasculation, however, they are instead of forcing all of their men to fit one mold. This is a strong example of “demonizing an out-group” because men who do act more feminine or present femininely are at risk from the Chinese government. Men or other people who identify with these celebrities have lost people/characters that they can relate to. All in all, while these goals are noble-sounding, it comes off more like a last-ditch effort by the Chinese government to expel western values in an attempt to reinstate their communist/socialist principles that they lose bit by bit as their economy and place in the world grows. 

A big topic dominating news channels right now is the fight over submarines between Australia, the UK, the US, and France. For some slight background, France and Australia had a deal for Australia to purchase French submarines. This deal would have provided an economic boost for France and would have made the diplomatic relationship between the two countries stronger. It also would have made the countries more likely to work and cooperate with each other in the future. However, according to France Australia reneged on this agreement and instead choose to purchase submarines from the UK and the US. In retaliation, France decided to pull its diplomats out of all three of the countries. This is a major deal in terms of state relations because diplomats serve as prime liaisons between countries. The lack of french diplomats makes it harder for french opinions and viewpoints to be heard in these three countries but more importantly, it demonstrates that France does not want to communicate with them. There could be several different leading reasons for why Australia switched the deal: the french submarines did not have suitable enough technology, allying with the USA was a stronger deal, and France’s blase (but still very economically significant) view on China in comparison to Australia’s more wary standpoint. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that there was a deal between Australia and France, and Australia rescinded which caused France to form its counterattack. No matter if this is more of a symbolic action than a permanent one, it is still a prime example of how reciprocity can go poorly. Instead of the positive “, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” approach it is more so exacting revenge. This is something that is important and needs to be addressed between countries because even though the retributions or paybacks can be minor, they can have major consequences in the future in terms of allyship and wars. 

The latest news to shock America is the indifferent and merciless handling of Haitian migrants at the Texas Rio grande borderline. Many Haitians have fled Haiti due to political instability and numerous destructive natural disasters. It is likely that these Haitian migrants have already been in central America, it is just that now many of them have finally made their way to Mexico, USA border to seek asylum in the united states. The atrocities and discrepancies come into play when looking at how the US guard patrol is handling this uptick in migrants. There are horrifying pictures of guards on horseback charging towards and nearly stepping on Haitian refugees in the Rio Grande. There have been reports of Haitians having to go farther into Mexico to buy supplies because they are not able to access the necessary resources that they need. The USA has continued to push the Haitians out via scheduled flights despite reports that the Haitians who fled, will risk violence and harm when returned. What makes this case particularly interesting is how it is in direct opposition to the sweeping changes that President Biden said he would enact on immigration in America. However, this issue goes beyond American political parties, and instead, it is a problem with America as a whole. America has this sense of superiority so much to the point where stepping on other countries both, literally and figuratively, is seen as a viable option to get ahead. Historically, Haiti has only mattered to America (and by fault of relation, Americans) when it needs to fulfill its savior complex by promoting and aiding poorer countries. America does not actually care about the Haitian immigrants because it is too powerful a country to worry itself with the meddlesome affairs of a small one. This is the crux of the problem with the dominance solution for the CGP. The whole point of dominance is that it relies on stability. However, when there are moments of instability like this there are direct and brutal forms of suppression. This example with America and Haiti proves that the dominance solution of CGP can not operate completely in peace and that there has to be routine callous subduing of countries that step out of line for it to continue to operate.