Book Reviews

But his new book stands four-square on the inter views. A sample of his quotations includes a trade unionist, James Stewart of Pittsburgh (who spoke of "the unintended consequences of free enter prise"), Jim Smith, a Dallas entrepreneur ("Free enterprise is the secret of American success."), Jim Parker, an advertiser from Chicago ("Free enter prise is the thing that makes America tick."), 1. L. Carlton, a bus driver (Free enterprise is "our secret for everything we've achieved so far"), and Bill Stump, a Houston aerospace engineer ("We be lieve in free enterprise."). We can be sure that Sit hole is accurate, but the question of the validity of his sample arises. He chose activists, not professors, for the interviews. And he obviously asked all of them the same leading question. One wonders how his listeners would have responded if he had opened his interviews with a request for opinions about the way we elect our Congressmen, or the way we put up with pressure groups, or the way we put Presidential choices for the Supreme Court through the mill. We might not seem so perfect if Sithole had not practically directed the inter viewees.

Even so, nobody will seriously dispute the idea that free enterprise has been primarily responsible for American prosperity. Some of our teachers whose tenure dates to the Sixties may deride busi ness, but it was John D. Rockefeller who subsi dized the University of Chicago and Leland Stan ford who supported Stanford. Sithole fills long pages of a big book with what individuals like the Rockefellers have done. He writes: "As one lands and takes off from the various American airports and sees scores and scores of American interna tional and domestic airlines and hundreds and hundreds of small planes, one is impressed by the fact that all of these are privately owned, and not government owned. . . . the most powerful news paper networks that circulate millions of copies daily . . . the TV and radio networks that inform and entertain millions of American adults, teenagers and little children are privately owned . . . property ownership by the American individ ual is unprecedented in the recorded history of mankind. . . . the question now arises, who con trols the American mind? Is it the people them selves or the government?"

The answer to this question is surely obvious. The American regards government as his servant, not his master. Sithole wants to see the American system trans ported almost totally to Africa. He lists 16 points of imitation for African governments to pick up. Some of the points are repetitive. Number Six ("Allow the profit motive to have full expression.") is practically the same as Number Two ("Allow the people free enterprise, and they will succeed beyond belief"). But there are nuances in the repetitions. Despite his schooling in British-owned Rhode sia, which was part of a commonwealth that has no written constitution, Sithole endorses his Point Seven ("Give Africa impartial written laws instead of the whims of her rulers"). Sithole is very Jeffersonian in his insistence that government be bound by a constitution. He would also protect inventors. "Governments," he says, "have never invented anything. Communities have never invented anything. It has always been the individual. Only the individual knows where his shoe pinches." In Point Twelve Sithole says, "Let everyone in Africa have his own dream, not another's dream .... In colonial days people were forced to become subjects of the colonial power; in present day Africa people are still forced to be come Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, communists or socialists. In other words they are forced not to be come themselves, but carbon copies of others."

Sithole has a most positive psychology. He hymns the virtues of education and hard work. If Africa will only adhere to his 16 points, he says, "success cannot fail to come her way." It's all breath-taking as Sithole paints his picture of the future. But one goes from his book to the map on the wall. Sithole's own Zimbabwe is smack in·the middle of a belt of African states that are more Marxist than not. Jonas Savimbi is trying to change Angola, but he could be forced into a dis astrous compromise by the Portuguese-Marxist two-thirds of the country (including its big cities) that he hasn't taken over. Mozambique is support ed in socialism by troops from Zimbabwe itself. Elsewhere in Africa there are states that tum di rectly to Moscow. Ethiopia has provinces whose dissident people were calculatedly starved to death by a dictator who used donated foodstuffs to feed his friends. Idi Amin was driven out of Uganda, but to the south of Uganda the tribesmen of Rwanda and Burundi cheerfully slaughter each other. Tan zania is stillstrugglingto feed itselfwith agricultural socialism.Libya wants to lord it over Chad and has built the facilities to make poison gas. Kenya is not the free place is was in Kenyatta's time.

There is diversity in Africa, all right, but a diver sity that includes thousands of mercenaries under the control of Fidel Castro is not the diversity that 79 the Reverend Sithole wants. The "great hope" for Africa is that Moscow's Gorbachev may get tired of paying Castro's bills. But that hasn't happened yet. D OPENINGUP THE SOVIETUNION by Jerry F. Hough The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Wash ington, DC 20036-2188 • 1988 • 100 pages • $8.95 paper Reviewed by Russell Shannon D uring the "blockbuster" film summer of 1989,there was one particularly astonish ing film shown on American screens called Little Vera. Unlike such mythical and adven turous films as Batman and Indiana Jones, this film showed the stark reality of life in the contem porary Soviet Union, replete with alcoholism, boredom, and air pollution. But what made the film especially remarkable was the fact that it was produced in the Soviet Union by Russian film makers-strong testimony to the success of Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of glasnost (open ness).

Yet the film makes one wonder if the other ele ment of Gorbachev's reforms, perestroika (restruc turing), has any chance of success. Furthermore, how should we Americans react to the dramatic changesthat are now being promoted in the land we have long thought of as our archenemy? These two questions are the subject of this fine little book by Jerry Hough, a professor of political science at Duke University. Hough has read widely in current Soviet publications and conduct ed numerous personal interviews, so he is both well informed and able to provide some unique in sights. After taking a brief look at the present situation regarding the Soviet Union and its relationship to the outer world, Hough examines internal forces both retarding and promoting perestroika. In the third chapter, he details the steps Gorbachev has taken over the past decade or so to obtain and con solidate his power. So extensive have been his ef forts and so wide-ranging his success, involving both the Politburo and the ruling Central Commit tee, that one is left strongly persuaded to share Hough's conviction that Gorbachev is not a man we can lightly dismiss.Hough then examines relations between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world, 80 THE FREEMAN • FEBRUARY 1990 first explaining the new foreign economic policy and then considering how both American business people and our government should respond.

In Hough's view, perhaps the greatest fault of the Soviet economy-and yet the one least recog nizedis its policy of economic protectionism. As Hough points out, this policy does not involve the simple tariffs and quotas which nations such as the United States use to deter foreign trade; rather, the Soviet government monopolizes and restricts all trade. This bent toward autarky is a legacy of Lenin, reinforced by the anti-Western attitude of Stalin and his men. As a result, Soviet producers lacked the benefit of foreign competition; in Hough's words, "protectionist policies are as disastrous for economic performance in the East as in the West." Soviet economists recognize the problem. Hough quotes one of them, Anatolii Dinkevitch, as stating that "economic autarky is, as history shows, a course without a future." But can the So viet economy change? Willbureaucrats, content in their positions of power and perquisites, permit it?

Even more important, will the Soviet people chal lenge change? Although, as Hough notes, Marx is part of the panorama of Western ideas which many Soviet leaders spurn, it is Marx's view of capitalism that has held the Soviet economy in thrall. Readers fa miliar with Marx's works know that he particularly condemned capitalism for two alleged failings: first, because capital accumulation supposedly de stroyed jobs and created a "reserve army" of un employed; and second, the standard of living for workers supposedly was pressed down to the sub sistence level by capitalist greed. To overcome these presumed flaws, the Soviet rulers have as sured jobs for all workers and have subsidized the costs of food, housing, medicine, and other basic needs. If the Soviet economy in its drive for efficiency does actually become more capitalistic, then work ers must face the prospect of losing their jobs if they are not up to snuff or if market conditions change. And at least initially,the prices of food and shelter willhave to rise to approach their true costs of production. So resistance is likely.

But Hough points out that Gorbachev is han dling this resistance in adroit fashion. That's where glasnost fits in: the Soviet people have more free dom of expression and movement, so perhaps they will be willing to tolerate some measure of eco nomic insecurity. (Alas, this is a lesson the Chinese Communist leaders haven't learned. While it had appeared that reform of the Chinese economy was outstripping that of the Soviet Union, the Chinese regime has refused to grant other freedoms. The frustrations of the Chinese people and the deter mination of the rulers met head-on in Tiananmen Square last spring; the Beijing massacre was the tragic result.) If economic reform does occur in the Soviet Union and the cold war continues to thaw, how should we react? As for business people consider ing joint ventures in the Soviet Union, Hough ar gues that they need have little to fear regarding ex propriation, since that would be counter productive for the reform efforts. But there is still a lot of uncertainty and red tape to deal with. Yet Hough argues that there will be at least some American producers so anxious to serve the vast Soviet market and so eager to gain a foothold from which to make future ventures that they will be willing to overcome such obstacles.

Should we permit them to do so? Hough notes that in recent years we have learned that "govern ment control and regulation are not necessarily the answer to every problem," so there has been a trend toward domestic deregulation. He suggests that such an approach is just as applicable to for eign as it is to domestic policy. He notes that economic sanctions and embargoes against foreign countries have usually "accomplished nothing productive": Castro's Cuba is surely wit ness to that statement. Perhaps Hough best captures what he believes should be our approach to perestroika by men tioning a story by Aesop which is as charming as LittleVera is chilling.The story involves a contest between the North Wind and the Sun to see who could get a man to remove his coat. "The North Wind blew and blew,and the man clutched his coat more tightly around himself. The Sun simply came out from behind a cloud-and won, for the man took off his coat by himself."

Hough believes that American firms operating in the Soviet Union will provide irresistible evi dence of the superiority of our system. More than anything else, the examples we furnish might as sure the success of perestroika. D Professor Shannon teaches in the Economics Depart ment at Clemson University.