One of the more established ideas in the social sciences is that there are advantages to be derived from going first. Whether it is entrepreneurs coming up with new gizmos or countries pioneering new ways of organising economic activity and even social life, there seem to be unambiguous “first mover” advantages to be had by those who are consciously or unconsciously part of the avant-garde.
How else can we explain the rise of a small, rather insignificant island off the European mainland to become the world’s first global hegemon? Were it not for a rather fortunate and entirely unplanned confluence of domestic circumstances, Great Britain would not have pioneered capitalism, the industrial revolution or the sort of state and empire building (and exploitation) that became such a feature of a more general process of nineteenth-century European expansion.
Likewise, the undoubted dynamism of the American version of capitalism not only facilitated the rise of that country to global prominence, but its domestic technological revolution continues to underpin its economic and geopolitical dominance. True, other countries can learn from, copy or even steal the things that helped those at the cutting edge to succeed, but being at the head of the pack still seems to have advantages.
Or it did, at least. Whatever merits arguments about first mover advantages may have in explaining major historical changes and the rise of great powers, they’re not good at explaining the ability of states to tackle collective action problems.
In an ideal world Australia could offer a sort of “exemplary power” that might be more useful and appropriate than the more traditional hard and soft varieties.
After all, the advantages of being a first mover tend to accrue to individuals, be they economic actors or even states. Why would they want to share their good fortune and enterprise with anyone else, even from within their own tribe, much less the anonymous others who make up the rest of humanity?
The problem we face today, no matter how difficult it may be for policymakers and self-starting plutocrats to recognise it, is that we now face problems that even the most powerful and capable of states cannot address on their own. Climate change is the most obvious and intractable example of this possibility. It also highlights the disadvantages of being a first mover.
One of the mantras that unites the major political parties in this country is that there is no point in shutting down the coal industry or not allowing mega carbon-emitting projects such as the exploitation of north-western Australia’s gas fields to go ahead, because if “we” don’t supply foreign customers, someone else will. In other words, being a “good” international citizen is a pointless, vote-losing exercise in gestural politics that will only benefit our less principled competitors.
At one level this is correct. There is little doubt that other countries and companies will rush to replace Australian exports, completely undermining the utility of what is arguably exactly what the world needs at this increasingly critical juncture. Climate breakdown is becoming increasingly evident and undeniable and yet there is little value in individual countries making “pointless sacrifices” for the collective good, it seems.
And yet it is difficult to see how we – in this case the population of the planet – will escape from this first mover trap without some countries setting an example of what might and should be done if we are to survive, let alone enjoy the proverbial good life. Unfortunately, the institutions of global governance that have developed in order to encourage and facilitate collective, cooperative responses to the environmental crisis have proved woefully inadequate and incapable of acting at the speed and scale required.
In an ideal world, Australia could offer a sort of “exemplary power” that might be more useful and appropriate than the more traditional hard and soft varieties. Demonstrating that it is possible to be both a good international citizen and a responsible government mindful of the long-term interests and safety of its own population would seem even more important when the great powers remain locked in unhelpful and destructive struggles for primacy.
Indeed, demonstrating to the world and ourselves that there are other paths to long-term security in addition to acquiring ruinously expensive weapons systems of dubious utility might be the most useful thing this country could possibly do to influence the course of future international relations, or whether we have a future at all, for that matter.
Will it happen? Hardly. Such an idea is impossible for either of the major parties to contemplate, much less implement. And how could they? Apart from the implacable logic of wedge politics, how many people in this country would be willing to vote for something that might impinge on their immediate living standards, even if it was for the long-term good of them, their offspring and the planet? After you with the noble gestures.
