Whither mainstream comparative economics

The collapse of the Soviet Union cast a dark spell on socialism as an economic model of choice for countries around the world. The time was the late 80s and early 90s and the world was awakened to a new order, pretty much without other different options. The 'fall' of socialism was welcomed with much enthusiasm around the western world, which regarded it as a victory for capitalism, or was it? The analysis should look at in what context should the resultant warmth towards capitalism be considered a victory for its supporters. Is capitalism better than socialism or countries were forced to adopt it through various means resulting in its world-wide adoption? This is important in trying to understand the evolution of comparative economics in the 90s and 00s. Towards the end of the cold war, major research in this economics sub-field became concerned with the differences between socialism and capitalism with the 'top' scholars such as Andrei Shleifer advocating for an economic transition from Marxist ideological economic systems such as socialism to capitalism citing an array of benefits from good governance to better standards of living. The former Soviet states of Eastern Europe and much of Africa and Latin America endured these prescripted Structural Adjustment Programmes mainly pushed forward by Western backed developmental institutions such as the World Bank and USAID. This 'shock doctrine' which included 'liberalising' the economic field via mass privatization of state-owned enterprises and reducing government's role in the economic playing field among other things. We all know what eventually happened after that. There was mass unemployment resulting in a decrease in household and national incomes. Prices also rose astronomically during this period.This was described by the proponents of this shock doctrine as an initial side effect which was bound to disappear and the 'numerous' benefits would star to flow in.

In particular reference to Africa, these benefits did not flow in as promised and immediate blame is put on the shoulders of African leaders, who are described as corrupt and lacking good governance. But is this the real problem? Is comparative economics which mostly based on northern hemispheric economies appropriate for countries based mostly south of the equator? If comparative economics was not predetermined in its outcomes as it is right now, we can easily see that Africa's problems are not exclusively caused by 'bad' African leaders. There is more which meets the eye. Like I said comparative economics' outcomes are predetermined at the outset because nowadays mainstream literature is not assessing capitalism with various alternatives to select an appropriate choice but it is presenting capitalism as the only choice which must be implemented by all economies. Of late humanizing capitalism via issues such as democracy and human rights is entrenching capitalism as the 'one' to follow.

So it is important for serious scholarship to emerge which can correct this anomaly in thought dominating the world. Without it the African 'tragedy' will remain so because it was not properly explained.