The Political-Economy of Hawaii Gerard Sullivan Gary Hawes Guest Editors Social Process in Hawaii VO~!Jlme 31, 1984/85 Copyright © 1985 by the Departrm:llt of Sociology, University of Hawaii at lvlawJd. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the UnitedStates of America. University ofHawaii Press Distributed by Univu'sity of~[aw,1;iF'res8 Honolulu 2840 Kolowalu Str1eet,H(]iI!olu1:u, "'-a.."".7'-'".... The Political-Economy ofHawaii §((J)d.21li IP'Ir((J)(Ce§§ nrm IHI21w21nn Volume 31, 1984/85 Guest Editors: Gerard Sullivan and Gary Hawes CONTENTS This issue of Social Process was typeset using facilities of the Social ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v Science Division, University of Hawaii at Manoa, under the supervision FOREWORD ; ............... .. vii of the Guest Editors. Sam Pooley, for the Editorial Board JB.IIOGRAPHJlES OF CONTRlIlHJTORS xi ARTICLES THE TRAGKC MATURKNG OF HAWAH'S ECONOMy ..... 11 Bob H. Stauffer RKNG OF STEEL: NOTES ON THE MKUTARKZAnON OF HAWAH 25 Ian Y. Lind THE GREAT HAWAHAN MKLK CRKSKS: SCKENCE, POUCY AND ECONOMKC KNTEREST 419 Richard Pratt SECTORS OF PRODUCnVE CAPK'fAL AND INCOME INEQUAUTY IN HAWAH, 1975 77 Joyce N. Chinen HAWAHANS, AMERICAN COLONIZAnON, AND THE QUEST FOR KNDEPENDENCE 11011 Haunani-Kay Trask THE HAWAH MUSIC INDUSTRY 1137 Elizabeth Bentzel Buck THE POLnnCAL ECONOMY OF HAWAH AND WORKING CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 1155 Edward D. Beechert COMMENTARY ACJKNOWlLlEJI)GlEMlEN'JrS §TRAWS liN THE WIND 183 Noel Kent We have received help from many people in preparing this BOOKREVIEWS special issue of Social Process in Hawaii. The executive editor, Kiyoshi Ikeda, and general editor, Mike Weinstein, have given A REVliEW OF RONAlLD TAKAJlU'S PAl U HANA: their support to this issue and helped facilitate its production. PLANTAlTIONLIFEANDLABORINHAWAlII 187 Dean of Social Sciences, Deane Neubauer, has taken an interest Dan Boylan in this issue of the journal and has been generous with financial and other support. Editorial Board members Phyllis Turnbull NOTES ON THE COST OF JL:H:FE liN MODERN HAWAH: A REVmW OF NOElL J. KENT'S HAlWAII: and Sam Pooley have been especially helpful and given gener­ ISLAlNDSUNDER THEINFLUENCE 195 ously of their time. Shanta Danaraj, Dale Fukumoto, and Kathy Robert S. Cahill Janolino have helped at various stages in the production of this issue, especially in the preparation of the manuscripts. Wilson Miller labored long and hard to typeset the issue, giving it a pro­ fessional appearance. Fe Caces, Emma Porio and Roger Komori ,I provided production advice. Special thanks are due to Peter Nel­ ligan who put in a great deal of time, particularly in the early stages, to get the issue under way. His guidance and skills were a great asset. Finally, we would like to thank the authors, our panel of reviewers, and the members of the editorial board for their help and cooperation in preparing this issue. Gerard Sullivan, I Guest Editor ,I ]FOREWORD It has been 15 years since anti-war protests at UH culminated in ar­ rests at Bachman Hall. Shortly thereafter, Hawaiian and land use activ­ ists were the target of arrests at Kalama Valley. That period was full of political awakening in Hawaii, and the effect was felt within the University, especially in the formation of the Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies programs, and New College. Political activists tried to become better organized, from catholic Action to the Kahoolawe Ohana, and a small left press was born. Yet the participatory democracy and community involvement which seemed the promise of the early seventies has not been fulfilled, and failures in social analysis may have contributed to the political malaise we now face, for political action in Hawaii is overwhelmingly and narrowly issue oriented. This is a special issue of Social Process in Hawaii and is our attempt to promote research and discussion on the political economy of Hawaii. Yet the concept of political economy itself has its own ambiguity in Hawaii, an ambiguity tinged with the disparate directions of liberal, radical, and Hawaiian politics in this state. A few years ago, political economy became a magic touchstone for contemporary social theorists throughout the U.S. While one might wish to claim that this paradigm became acceptable because of its sweeping acceptance as a world view, such is obviously not the case. Neither historical materialism, dialectics, nor more recent realist versions of social science, informs the majority of work passed off as popular political economy. The reason political economy was even approached by mainstream social scientists undoubtedly lies in the failure of liberalism (the best and the brightest) to comprehend the wide social changes which have beset modern corporate capitalism since 1968 (the year of the Tet offensive in Vietnam and the Paris and Czech uprisings), and with the success of radical theorists in gaining an audience for alternative perceptions of social reality. The declining social relevance of the Democratic Party in Hawaii, the demise of a number of local environmental organizations, and the os­ sification and gentrification of much of the University of Hawaii are all aspects of the failure of liberalism, and for that matter, radicalism as well. Perhaps only in the native Hawaiian movement can some success be claimed in nurturing an alternative conception ofthe Hawaiian herit­ age and in developing a widespread political base at the grassroots level. Even so, the Bank of Hawaii and other corporate "sponsors" are trying with some success to subvert this social movement for their own purposes. Critical analysis of the social relations of modern corporate capitalism must still fight for the right to speak. I' I ! viii ix The essence ofcritical political economy in the U.S. has been concen­ nature of Hawaii's political economy (as a social system) has been the tration on a historical and systematic view of social and political activity subject of deep controversy since the growth of multinational tourism in which economic structures play important (ifnot determining) roles. in Hawaii. Last year's debate between the foes and promoters of tour­ After all, that is the etymology of the expression. The process ofpoliti­ ism raised emotions about Hawaii's future to a high pitch, but the cal economy is an intellectual battle, often linked to political practice, debate also showed how weak is the defense of tourism. As Noel Kent to create a coherent picture of the social interrelationships which com­ said of tourism's defenders, "The emperor has no clothes." Bob Stauf­ prise the modern corporate capitalist world. As abstract as these rela­ fer (Jr.) 's lead article in this issue of Social Process in Hawaii, is an ambi­ tionships are, they are real and they have real effects. Knowledge of tious attempt to marshall the State's own statistics against the these relationships does much to sort out the myriad facts and presump­ "maturation" of Hawaii's economy. Stauffer's piece goes to the heart tions of everyday life. Yet it is the nature of the concrete impact of this of Hawaii's political economy and to political economy as method. His social system on people which presents the focus for political economy. argument is that to trace the flows of income originating from tourism Political economy is not a monolithic discipline, and that is clearly as a system of production and distribution is to trace the loss of local shown by the heterogeneity of points of view incorporated in these control of Hawaii's political future. The data are not definitive - not I pages. Political economy allows considerable variation in its frame of only are the concepts of value addressed by Stauffer difficult to reference, although our central orientation as we prepared this issue of measure, but the techniques of national income accounting analysis are Social Process in Hawaii is certainly toward the collective interests ofthe not designed to challenge the hegemony of the multinational financial I, mass population of these islands, and not toward some classless social intermediaries who operate in Hawaii. Stauffer extends Kent's welfare. Political economy is not, however, the politics of economics, dependency argument and by doing so should help focus the issues nor is it the economics of politics. These are merely the adaptations of over local control of Hawaii's economy. Joyce Chinen makes a parallel I traditional social scientists to widespread objections to the standard contribution by applying James O'Connor's seminal sectoral analysis I practice of "disinterested" research. Hawaii has had the benefit of a (from The Fiscal Crisis ofthe State) to Hawaii's industrial structure. Her large number of liberal pluralist studies of the social processes which analysis examines some ofthe structural causes ofinequality in Hawaii. comprise the social fabric of this state. Many useful insights have been The dependency perspective offered by Kent and Stauffer has not I derived from these studies, and many of us offer thanks to these been universally applauded, even on the left. In our book review researchers. However the essence of modern political economy is a re­ section, Bob Cahill writes an imaginative review of Kent's Hawaii: Is­ jection ofthe pluralistic hopes ofmodern liberal social theory. lands Under the Influence. In a lengthy essay, Cahill first addresses how I The alternative perspectives of political economy have had a hard the book will be received by the powers that be in Hawaii, amongst I row to hoe in Hawaii. Traditional departments at the University have others, and explores the state of political myth. This section indicates maintained largely traditional orientations toward social research. The the conceptual problems and practical difficulties alternative analytical Ethnic Studies and Women's Studies programs have had to fight perspectives have in Hawaii. Cahill quite rightly points to the different regularly for survival.