78°F 
MARKA +232Unveiling his new ‘economic platform’, the president of the once unstable backwater, Polasciana, on the Gallian peninsular, has become the latest national leader to embrace nationalistic protectionism. Having triumphantly won re-election last year in this fledging democracy, the former military commander sensed an opportunity to strengthen his domestic standing – with a promise to protect the states of the country from ‘foreign interests’.
Concerningly, Gennadiy Artamova’s language signals a departure for this transitional nation – away from embracing its neighbours and diversifying its core economic fundamentals, and instead, renouncing its intention to sign new open trade deals. Mr Artamova’s focus, in his own words, is to give Polascianan companies access to foreign markets to develop its own export footprint, signing agreements that fall short of usual more comprehensive packages, allowing its government to reject similar arrangements for foreign corporations.
This ‘my way or the highway’ approach to international trade should strike fear into the heart of leading economies in the area such as The Union of the Free States, Erlangen-Ansbach and Belmonté.
Allowing such deals to even be discussed will allow other developing economies to be free to consider this route of negotiation a possibility – disrupting the current chain of international trade negotiations. The region must be prepared to respond to this growing economic ideology consistently and tactfully.
This is however just another timely reminder and the latest in a long line of nationalist and protectionist policies to be announced by a new breed of economy.
Polasciana entered the international marketplace in 2004, having spent almost ten years developing stable government and electing its first democratic leaders as a unified nation. In the 1990s the former Communitarian republics of the state, as well as their neighboring cousins of Scherbatskaya and the Central Republic, were dependent on imports across the Great Sea from Carentania, at least until a revolution there, as well as its eastern Communitarian partner Kadikistan. This dependency still haunts political leaders in the region to this day, having left them feeling exposed. It is the memory of such reliance that shapes much of their domestic and aspirational policy goals. Energy independence, for instance, has been stated as a ‘strategic goal’ for both Polasciana and Scherbatskaya, and this latest adventure into ‘stability economics’, particularly within the agricultural and technological fields, as announced by the Polascianan leader, is also the strongest sign yet that hopes their coming of age would bring some new form of outwardlooking transaction-based economic interaction is all but fading.
In 1994 leaders of Centrican and Cardian economies, at the time and still the world’s dominant economic players, formed the basis of an economic theory that would be described as ‘unionism’ – creating hyper-diverse regions of economic interaction where specialism is minimized and instead economic growth is powered by the usual transaction of both goods and services but also and more critically – knowledge.
For example, companies, in a unionist economy, do not just trade one product for another or simply for financial benefit but instead will co-produce aspects of the product having purchased insight and knowledge, plans and intellectual property from the other. Thus ensuring the balance between economic forces is maximised.
This cooperative form of economic development has ensured that economic growth is not just driven by asset bubbles or wealth formation – but instead by the transactional agreements and transfer of power between nations. The developed economies on the continent then formed the Gallian and Centrican League – designed to promote, foster and facilitate such a theory across the Gallian region – and safeguard its status as the world’s leading economic model. Some twenty years on, the failure to expand and adapt this model to the emerging economies of the east Gallian and early Greconia has enabled a protectionist edge to be ingrained deep within the leaders of such states. Likewise, the failure of Cardian nations to do the same.
True, negotiations with nations such as Polasciana have taken place – both in terms of full membership but also in trading agreements – but all failed at the first attempt and were never explored again. The League was too eager to force conditions, such as the ending of entrance and exit visas, work permits and migration offsetting onto the ‘new economies’ that feared public backlash or protest as a result of any immediate or swift changes from League membership. The failure to re-open such discussions and negotiating chapters has resulted in many being skeptical of the aims of such pacts – fearing their dominance, rather than embracing the opportunities they represent and thus preventing the growth and expansion of unionist economic modeling in the continent.
For Polasciana, ethnic tensions within its past also make geopolitical and geoeconomics much harder – having to carefully balance moves to both the east and west with each other for fear of protest and dissatisfaction with bias towards one economic pact or another.
The failure of the League to find a membership model that can embrace such political decision-making is a failure for which it will pay the price. Economic and trading standards within Polasciana are continually developing – but this simply allows its leaders are able to sign preferable deals with individual neighbors. Namely, Eiffelland that itself retains a ‘one foot in one foot out’ relationship with the League, as well as the Gallian Defence Force. It’s aging population compared to Polasciana’s growing and dynamic young workforce puts it at a strategic disadvantage and allows the new economy to dominate trade negotiations at an individual level at the detriment to all other League members.
Suppose we consider ‘unionism’ as an economic theory now surplus to requirements – we must now consider how ageing economics and populations compete in an increasingly dog eat dog environment. The Free States Union has been slow to reform its labour laws in retaliation to protectionist agreements, allowing foreign [read non-League] companies to freely enter an incredibly closed market through individual ‘leaky’ trade deals. Its leading financial city, the largest in Gallia, Threveburg, is expected to gain another two million residents in the next year and a half – unless it was to suspend, repeal and withdraw from its unionist agreements – and yet, this so-called ‘competitive draw’ will see its local citizens lose out to the tune of some ₲300m – with estimated funds travelling abroad and exiting the League to hit some ₲1bn by the end of a four year period. Should that continue to be the case for the rest of this decade and the next, Threveburg will end up contributing more to the revenues of other, emerging, global cities than it does to itself. In response, the government of the Free States must develop a new form of economic theory to deal with such a shift in economic terms or eliminate loop-holes within the League and force its members to stop signing individual trade deals. Threveburg’s hyper-diversity for example is almost exactly as planned under the original terms, but almost all the benefits would, in the future, sit outside the League. This conundrum leaves policy makers stumped on its future direction. Either, the Gallian continent must embrace this post-order state, with Threveburg operating as a free city with declining benefit to its ‘host-nation’ or roll back its existing ties and clamp down on non-League entry into such economies.
The alternative is, of course, for the League and unionism to find itself at the heart of these resurgent economies of the meridian and east by opening up its agreements and leadership and to develop a more modernising and relevant economic model for this decade.
Polasciana alone is expected to see its economic activity double before the end of that decade. Even though its young population is maturing rather than growing, its workforce is likely to dominate within the region. Some 15 million young adults will be looking for work – and Polasciana’s leaders are failing to see the draw and benefits of sending them out across Gallia and beyond to enrich its own economy. Instead, the President plans to create at least three domestic million jobs a year for the rest of his presidency – using Polascianian industry to drive forward the economy. The Unionist Party from which Gennadiy Artamova hails, ought to take a look at its founding principles that are just as relevant to its economic future as much as its historical context.
Economies will be stronger and richer for working together – but the imbalance that will be created by these economies coming of age and increasingly domestic in focus will challenge the orthodoxies of Gallian and Centrican leadership for decades to come.
The new economic platform of Polasciana should be a warning signal to the leaders of the League: ignore these early signs of this shift and fail to change at your peril.
