Talk:Third Way (centrism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Mussolini removed from list

Mussolini's Third Way is mistakenly defined as a centrist policy in this article. As we know, the term 'Third Way' has been applied to more than one spot on the political spectrum (see Third Way (France), Third Position, Third Way (UK), and so on and so forth, ad nauseam), thus there is room for misinterpretation. To quote from the source used as reference to present Mussolini as a centrist third way politician:

It evolved into a new political and economic system that combined totalitarianism, nationalism and anti-communism, designed to bind all classes together under a capitalist system (the "Third Way"). This was a new capitalist system.

That most certainly is not "centrist".

Same problem with the mention of Obama. The article that was linked had nothing to do with centrism, but with the balance of organizing and leading through government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.42.235 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The ref specifically cites Barack Obama as third way. I'm in Australia, and even I know the primaries are over. Get over it, now. Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More detail is needed

The so called third way is an ideology which had a tremendous effect on the policies of centre-left governments around the world for the last two decades yet the examples given of their actions are pretty minimal. I added a pretty substantive section about the history of "third way" politics in both the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party I feel that it gives better insight into the kinds of policies adherents to the third way usually advocate and what effects they have had. I think a much more informative section should be devoted to explain the policies of Tony Blair and his so called New Labour government as they were also very influential, not just on Britain but much of the western world, for better of worse. (Canadianpunk77 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Muammar Gadaffi

I believe Muammar Gadaffi refers to his politics as the third way. Worth a mention?

does anyone know sources about Blair and his third way?


Blair's Third Way is inspired from the theories of Anthony Giddens, British sociologist, from works like Beyond Left and Right (1994) and further works questioning the nature of modernity. To be honest, that was what I was expecting to find in greatest detail in this page since it is the most popular incarnation of Third Way politics (although some might say that it is arguably Continental European corporatism). Third Way (disambiguation) contains more information on Blair's Third Way and Anthony Giddens than the article it directs to, which is ridiculous. BTW Third Way and centrism are not the same and I'm uncertain if Giddens would appreciate that. Jeshmir

[edit] Radical Middle merge?

Probably not a good idea, third way is much broader, radical centrism is only one of the many variations of it. Besides, both articles are long enough to merit their own article space. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton, a Centrist?

I think not. He, if anything was a Liberal(in the American sense) and had to contend with a Conservative Congress. Thus he was forced to moderate his views.--68.81.205.212 13:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Bill's views seem to change after Newt ttook over the House. The House came up with ideas, Bill lessen them after (and got the credit). When he did have ideas, they seem to flop (i.e. charge Microsoft with monopoly charges. The Tech bubble pop soon after). -- March 17, 2006

Bill Clinton is most definitely a third way politician. The problem is that the third way isnt centrism and its wrong for centrism to appropriate something that is very different. Jeshmir

Yes, Clinton was forced by a growing Republican majority to moderate his views. He backed off on tax cuts, signed the Telecom Act of 1996, but NEVER supported decentralizing government. If anything, he wanted more Washington bureaucracy. Consider his calls for socialized health care, etc. That's a U.S. liberal. "Third Way" is not a term that applies to U.S. politicians often. --Andy, Oct. 25, 2006

Bill Clinton claimed Third Way policies, and they claimed him. You can't meaningfully discuss Third Way without him. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895 Thomas B 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Way is a centrism because it embraces market mechanisms in pursuit of traditional social objectives. Bill Clinton did just that with all his reforms, like workfare. Moreover, he did support deregulation in various areas, most notably the banking system: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml You can dismiss all of his moderatism as simply bowing to Republican pressure, but that's more conspiracy theory and caricature than historical fact. Thomas B 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate here over whether Clinton was a Liberal or a Third Way Centrist arises because we forget that Thirdwayism is not an ideology. It is a political maneuver and it should be treated as such in the article. Left-wing and right-wing are not very meaningful as terms used to describe ideology but at least they have the benefit of being terms that are seldom used for political gain. After all no politician wants to say "I am on the left" or "I am on the right". To say that of ones self is to admit that you do not share the views of John Citizen. To say "I am a centrist" or "I am all about the third way of politics" is an effort to associate yourself with the mainstream views of the country you seek to represent. Yes OF COURSE Bill Clinton is a left-wing (or liberal as you say over there) politician. If for no other reason than because his most significant opponents, the Republicans, sit on most issues to his right. Yes OF COURSE Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Jean Chretien and Kevin Rudd all enjoy and actively encourage being described as "Centrist" or "Proponents of the Third Way". It allows them to wedge their opponents into adopting difficult policy positions and to claim they are in touch or have the ear of the people and brand their opponents as extremists. This is an article on Politics. Can we please have more of the healthy cynicism and skepticism that belongs in an article about Politics? Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course Clinton is a centrist. He has economic right views in a historically left of centre party. Next please. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh Timeshift! I enjoy your brief and insightful rebuttals!! Bill Clinton is either a centrist or a left-winger depending on how you want to define those terms. It isn't important. What is important to the general discourse of politics and to this article in particular is that those involved in writing about politics remember that politicians have an enormous political motive for convincing the electorate that they are "Centrists". If Bill Clinton managed to sell the idea that he was a centrist what does that mean he managed to convince us of his Republican opponents? That they are extremists or radicals on the fringes of ideology? That is precisely why he does it. Thirdwayism as it is described in this article is a rather meaningless philosophy on how a state should be run. Thirdwayism is a synthesis of socialism and laissez-fair doctrines you say? Well that is pretty meaningless: every political party in the developed world (certainly USA, Britain, New Zealand and Australia) with a chance of winning government have understood the importance of that synthesis for at least the last 50 years. We ought to have at least some reference in this article to the fact that aside from being a rather meaningless philosophy for running a country it is much more importantly a very useful tactic for winning elections. Ryan Albrey (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got to make judgements. Gough Whitlam didn't implement left wing economic policies (infact he slashed tariffs by 25 percent across the board after 23 years of Labor being in opposition) yet I wouldn't for one second call him Third Way. Yet i'd apply that to Hawke and Keating. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, you get no arguments from me on that. But I am not really talking any longer about who should be regarded as thirdway and who should not. My initial point was simply that who is centrist and who is not is always going to be a very highly debated (to the point that it is nearly unresolvable) issue because of the fact that this middle ground is such valuable territory to occupy in politics. I would like to have more in this article that makes reference to the fact that it is far more important to Blair, Clinton, Rudd that they be perceived as "centrists" than any policy reality. They may or may not be centrists but the perception of their position doesn't necessarily have to exactly match the reality. We can start by finding a reference that talks about how thirdway or centrist politicians are, in the recent politics of the developed world, highly highly highly electable. From there we can go on to say that as a result of this, debate over who is thirdway and who is not will naturally be highly contested. Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa McDonough, a Centrist? No, no, no...

She's what is discribed here at wiki as a democratic socialist (with an arguement for social democrat), and definetly not a centrist! Every election she ran on she kept redefining what was "rich" in Canada. I believe she started at $60,000/yr and by her last election she worked her way down to $40,000/yr (and the avg wage in Canada is around $32-35k). She never fought for decentralizing anything, and only gave lip service to fair trade when it became the new "thing" for socialists to attack free trade with. Quite literally, she had fought against free-trade her whole time as leader then some musician (maybe Bono) says the term Fair Trade, and suddenly the next day she admits Free-trade is okay.. when it's fair trade. Ah.

She should be removed in this list. Just because she was a socialist party leader during the Clinton/Blair years doesn't make her politics the same.



It's interesting though that to many in her own party her views were seen as being rather centre-left and close to those of Tony Blair. That uneasiness over her political position was one of the catylists that forced her from the leadership in 2003 and brought Jack Layton to power. After which he promised to keep the NDP away from the "mushy middle". (Canadianpunk77 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

What the hell does this mean "She should be removed in this list. Just because she was a socialist party leader during the Clinton/Blair years doesn't make her politics the same." Tony Blair was the leader of a former socialist party, but the Democratic Party USA (with a history of varying ideologies ranging from rightwing populism to social liberalism) has never, ever even been close to being socialist. (Canadianpunk77 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Can someone explain?

This article misses the point--Third Way is more than centrism or a compromise: It values a smart and effective integration of Left and Right politics.

Centrism is usally associated with watering down or compromise: Third Way is, at least in it's intentions, not this-- it's an integration that creates an entirely new entity with strong values placed on effectiveness as well as social progress- free market and social responsibility working together rather than as they have been traditionally polarized-- and therefore eternally at odds with each other. Avoiding the paralysis of polarization, Third Way instead marries Left and Right into a hybrid politics of social responsibility and economic practicality, with a great deal of focus on practical application.

72.16.201.2 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


From intro:

The Third Way is a centrist political ideology that, at least from a traditional social democratic perspective, usually stands for deregulation, decentralisation and lower taxes.

Why is this "Third Way"? Isn't this just "Conservative"? I honestly cannot tell from the article what would distinguish the two. Someone help me out. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In terms of US politics deregulation and decentralization are conservative party lines, and lower taxation is politally ambiguous as liberals push for lower taxation for thos in the lowest income brackets but higher taxation for middle and upper income wage earners while conservatives push for lower taxation accross the board. I think Clinton is a strange choice to state as espousing conservative ideology, but the very unregulated dot-com rise was on his watch -- a bit too unregulated as would appear too be the case after it came to light most of the dot-coms did not return any value and went bust. I am having difficulty making any sense of much of this article. 81.244.26.2 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really the wrong person to ask: I think the "Third way" is mostly intellectually bankrupt (and the authors of this article apparently feel the same way, as it has some major NPOV problems). But the idea is that the traditional "big government" leftism of the past has been in significant part a failure, and ought to be replace by a new recognition that, while government has a role to play (i.e., not the slash and burn of Thatcher and Reagan), it ought to be a smaller and more dynamic role. RadicalSubversiv E 17:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what separates this from being "conservative", or maybe what's now being called "paleo-conservative"? Is it the fact that some liberals don't want the conservative label? If you really aren't sure, is there someone else who may be able to help? And thank you nonetheless. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the alleged distinction is that proponents of the third way do not want to indiscriminately tear down government in favor of the free market, preferring to find a middle ground which makes use both of market mechanisms and some government activism, most often through incentives of various kinds. RadicalSubversiv E 01:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can see that. And I suppose this is only referring to the economy and size of government, and not social issues, where people may still be liberal or conservative. Thanks for your help. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Radical middle, Neoconservative and neoliberal, to which it is closely related. Sam Spade 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the welfare state is the Third way. The ulimate aim of democratic socialism was not the welfare state. It was the complete nationalization of the whole economy so that the means of production were controlled by the state. After the fall of communism people realized socialism wasn't working. The solution: keep the free market economic system but temper it with a social safety net and extensive regulation. This is of course exactly what was happening already. However it marked a significant ideological shift. Up till this point all social democratic parties in Europe had been committed to achieving complete nationalization of the economy (at least in theory). The third way was simply a matching of the ideological ideas of democratic socialism to the actual reality. I don't consider this ideologically bankrupt. As a matter of fact I consider all other ideas to be far more ideologically bankrupt since they have no relation to reality.

Your concept of the welfare state as the third way is flawed, especially since it (the welfare state) developed mainly in the era where communism was thriving, not after the fall of communism. But I see where you were coming from, however you seem to be describing Scandinavian Social Democracy. Jeshmir

[edit] Page move

I moved this page here, and intend to move Third way (disambiguation) to Third way. Comment here or @ Wikipedia:Requested_moves#20_October_2005 as you like. Sam Spade 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It should remain where it was. It is incorrect to say that the Third Way is neo-liberal, when it is as equally social democratic. Indeed, if anything, it is an offshoot of social democracy (or a "renewal", according to some adherents). Some even claim it to be post-ideology. But again, it is incorrect to pigeonhole it as "neo-liberal".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
But it is very obviously neo-liberal. It is social-democracy, as a liberal adaption of socialism, coming full circle and returning to liberalism. Indeed, if there is anything that the Third Way resembles it is classical liberalism - Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, for instance, clearly stand in the tradition of nineteenth-century liberalism. 213.1.45.2
It is not obviously anything. The Third Way has its origins in social democracy, not the other way around. According to its devisors, it's a re-merger of the the two great schools of thought: socialism and liberalism. It is neither exclusively. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what we name this page, that can be sorted out. But Third way can't redirect here, there are far too many interpretations of the term. See Third way (disambiguation). Sam Spade 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why can't it stay at Third way? Is there any real need to move the disambiguation page? It is difficult to think of any other clause for this article other than the generic "(politics)". But as you pointed out, there are many interpretations of the term, and most are political. However, those other interpretations are discussed under different terms, so maybe "(politics)" is acceptable afterall. But I think the primary topic disambiguation was fine to start with.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel strongly that it is not. This particular usage is really more a cryptic way of saying "neocon" or "neoliberal" than anything, and is a very misleading place for third way to directly link to. Sam Spade 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can compromise on that, can you compromise on moving the disambig page to Third way? Sam Spade 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It makes sense, actually, given this is no longer a primary topic disambiguation.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

Image:Third Way Emblem.svg
Third Way Emblem

In order to include this we need a verifyable authoritative/reliable source that links the image to the article topic. WAS 4.250 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even show up correctly for me... I only see a transparent square. —Nightstallion (?) 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somchai Phatharathananunth?

I'm all for incorporating negative perspectives, but right now the "criticism" section citing Somchai Phatharathananunth is almost as long as the rest of the article! Could someone (ideally more neutral than I) see if it could be trimmed down? Thanks. Drernie 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a rewrite of the criticism section. It was extremely difficult, mainly because the person who originally contributed the information failed to provide some key points of the arguments of Somchai and instead went on to describe in detail, the workings of a liberal capitalist state - which for Somchai and the contributor were somewhat less than good! I briefly glanced at his book in my uni library and have to say its more a general criticism of Thailands democracy than anything serious about Third Way governance. Anyway I have tried to summarise his only argument in regards to Third Way, in that it encourages social movements to support human rights abuses - a poor argument (with very little support) in the first place, however I think the edit is neutral, especially since I have given a criticism of Somchai to balance the paragraph - namely that his example is limited only to Thailand. Feel free to edit if its still too long etc LordHarris 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your making it more NPOV. My larger concern is that it mostly seems a criticism of Thailand, without any strong tie to the rest of the article. Plus, it is still painfully long. I'd be tempted to replace it with 1-2 sentences summarizing his argument (with a citation), and perhaps a link to Human_rights_in_Thailand, which seems a more appropriate venue for these facts. But, I don't know if that is just my bias. Anyone else have an opioion?Drernie 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is mostly a criticism of Thailand. To be honest I dont think its entirely relevant to this article and from the brief glance at the book - his ideas dont seem mainstream enough to be a critcism of the theory across the board. In many ways it might be best to delete the whole thing - unless someone wants to summarise it more concisely etc.LordHarris 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining "third way"

There is obviously no perfect agreement on what the "third way" constitutes, but for a century or more it has been understood by many to mean a mixed economy. On this basis it has been criticized by many capitalist intellectuals. In the Criticism section I have cited a few of those critics. Nicmart 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The critcism section is massive compared to the rest of the article - theres barely an information on what third way actually is, how its implemented, policies/lawsetc. Instead we have a large criticism section of a subject thats barely explained in the first place. Perhaps you would care also to expand some of the ideas on what third way is? As Im no expert on the subject. LordHarris 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You make a valid point. The criticism section isn't too large, but the rest of the article needs some fleshing out. It's a bit confused on what even constitutes the "third way." Nicmart 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler and Mussolini?

I don't believe it is appropriate to lump these two into the intro along with FDR and a handful of random world leaders of past and present. In fact, I think the author had a political agenda by using it, especially evident by using the Cato Institute as a citation. I'm speculating that this is an attempt to compare FDR to Hitler, something that is intentionally done on many wikis. Speculation aside, it shouldn't be there. The two fascist dictators are hardly defined by their "centrist" economic philosophies. They are defined by their extreme social philosophies as well as their imperialist war making. Likewise, the term "Third Wave" should hardly be characterized as a philosophy unusually held by arguably the most notorious figures in modern history. I wouldn't be surprised if people ranging from George Washington to Saddam Hussein shared this economic philosophy to some extent. If one were to list leaders (current and historical) who share this economic ideology, the list would be thousands of pages long. Bill Clinton and Tony Blaire are significant for resurrecting the term amid a recent period of partisan rhetoric within US and UK politics. It would make sense to list them in the intro. Two fascist dictators, not so much within the broad context which it was written.76.167.20.163 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the fascist movement presented itself as a "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism, and that movement has been all too influential; so if the article is about people and movements that present themselves as offering a "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism, there ought to at least be a mention of this fact. I see there's a reference on the disambiguation page to a "Third Position" which seems to be some kind of neo-fascist term. The difference between mentioning that the term was/is used by fascists, and listing every world leader who's ever proposed a socialism/capitalism synthesis, is to point out that the term is so vague, it can refer to any economic ideology from Nazi Germany to modern France, China, or America. Conversely, if we don't mention the fascists here, readers will get the false impression that "Third Way" consistently refers to modern capitalist/socialist hybrids. In fact, even calling the article "Third Way (centrism)" encourages that impression. Why not rename it "Third Way (ideology)" and explain that it's meant a wide range of things, while still having room to explain that Mussolini's Third Way is very different from Tony Blair's?
Alternatively, I propose that we rename an article on "Famous Politicians" to "Famous Politicians (good)" and then not have an article about the bad ones. 8)
-Kris Schnee (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the third way?

This article really should focus much more on what the Third Way actually is, rather than on examples and criticisms. Only the first paragraph offers any sort of description, and that is incredibly brief and vague. It could be used to describe any Centrist philosophy or ideal, and there is nothing in the article that actually distinguishes the Third Way from those other centrist philosophies. I'd like to know more about Third Way to find out whether or not it is similar to my own ideals, but there just isn't enough information in this article. Uniqueuponhim 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"...funding cuts led to a massive decline in the quality of healthcare services..." (under 'Canada'): this needs verification and, especially, citation. I am neither pro- nor con-Liberal, but this is clearly POV. What is 'massive'? 20%, 80%, 8%? How is 'decline' defined? Was there, say, an 18.2% increase in average wait times for hip-surgery for person aged 45-65 (as a fictitious example)? And if so, was this perhaps happening G8-wide and had nothing to do with domestic political policies? In fact, how is 'quality' of health-care even defined, anywhere, let alone here?

If studies themselves can not be referenced, at least statistical reports should be, such as those issued by Statistics Canada. Failing that, references should noted to articles on quality of health-care, published in major Canadian newspapers during the time-period being referenced here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead of article

I'm thinking it's better than rather add individual leaders of parties, we should be adding simply the parties. In the 21st century, it's obvious that the major centre-left parties of first world countries have all moved further to the right to the point of third-wayism. Australian and UK Labor, US Democrats, not familiar with Canada but i'd presume so, etc etc. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Does anyone have a reference for the following: Robert Putnam, Ian Winter (Latham cites Winter's "Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia" on p. 13 of the Latham diaries), and Mark Lyon are amongst a range of academics who have recently contributed key academic theory on the subject. Before adding it back to the article, can someone please add a citation and also explain the latter section - who is Latham, what does page 13 of his diary have to do with Third Way. Are these significant academics with published works - if so lets establish their notability. Thanks. LordHarris 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama

If you actually read the source for Obama being third way, you will notice that it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. There is no source provided that says Obama is adherent to this. Contralya (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"When Obama ran for his first elected post in the Illinois state Senate, he laid out a vision of the politician as political organizer, an expression of his hope in a political 'third way'." - the source/ref clearly states his leanings toward the 'third way'. Excuse me if i'm cynical in seeing this as a cheap tactic to get an accuracy tag at the top of the page. Removed as there is no substance given to the tag adding. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Read through the article. It is talking about a third way with regard to RACE.

"When Obama ran for his first elected post in the Illinois state Senate, he laid out a vision of the politician as political organizer, an expression of his hope in a political "third way." He saw it as an alternative to what he viewed as false polarities-the civil-rights movement's integrationist goals versus black nationalism, and the antagonisms between community organizing and traditional politics. "

It has absolutely nothing to do with economics. YOU are the one who needs to read through it. It has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Third way in this wikipedia article is about a third way as opposed to socialism and completely free market. Contralya (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the third way and cites Obama as third way. Discuss rather than revert. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a simple matter. Obama is listed as following this philosophy, whereas the listed source does NOT have anything to do with this article. Contralya (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Third Way, or Radical center, is a centrist political philosophy of governance that embraces a mix of market and interventionist philosophies. The Third Way rejects both socialism and laissez-faire approaches to economic governance, but chiefly stresses technological development, education, and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic progress and governmental objectives.
Which source are you referring to? Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)