Here is an application of PAEI to political science and economics.
What did the colonialists bring when they colonized the country? (A). Systems, order, from their own home country. What was the strength of Britain? Why did Great Britain become great? Because they had a lot of (A), a lot of systematization and that's what they brought to the colonial countries.
Colonies had no indigenous big (E) in their culture either. Look at Mexico. They can start a taco stand in the street. But it is (P). Underdeveloped countries have a (P) and (I) culture. Work the land and tribal relations that guide behavior. No (E) nor (A). In an agricultural society, you don't need (E). You plan maximally for the next season. There is not much of (A) either. You plant, harvest, and sell. So developing countries are missing (A) and they're missing (E), which was brought from the outside by the colonists and later on by the multinationals. The indigenous don't have it. They're going to remain underdeveloped until they develop their own (A) and (E) in their culture. Indigenous populations in developing countries know how to work hard and that's it. No real order. No long-term vision but they have their community. Like somebody once told me, we don't have institutions in this country. We have connections.
What are institutions? (A). And what are connections? (I). No(A). They use (I) instead of (A) to manage themselves. And what could be the collateral damage of using (I)connections to get things done rather than (A)? Corruption.
If the local developing countries are going to develop, they need to develop (E) in their culture, which means starting from an early age education. And (E) cannot be taught. It has to be experienced and fed and reinforced. (A) can be taught, but even that is behavior so you'll have to teach people to experience (A) and to stick to it. All the aid, sending money that developed countries are sending to developing countries, is only maintaining their underdeveloped status. We are really enablers. The money that should be sent to them should not be helping poverty. It should be for developing that (A) and (E) that will keep them out of poverty.
When I consulted to the President of Mexico, I reorganized the Mexican Executive Branch and built the pro forma government. No formal deputy was there for (A). There were agencies or a ministry to develop the (A) in the government. No federal prosecutor. No way to clean corruption of the judiciary etc…No (E) in the government or a ministry to encourage and develop (E). So we built a ministry to start building systems, and digitalization. And the Vice President for development, middle-class development, economic development, and educational development, all development that the country needed; cultural development, and I’m not talking about more trees or more factories, cultural development, developing (A) and (E) behavior. I did the same by the way for the Serbian government in 1991.
We can analyze countries by looking at their culture. For instance,what role did Yugoslavia not have? (I). How about Israel? What does it have? Lots of (E). It is 60 percent desert and is a technological empire. (E). Greece has (E). And those countries are deficient in which role? (I). And who has a lot of (I)? Japan. And what are they missing? (E). Do you see that if one role is very high, the other has to suffer? Something has to suffer. Now you have to bring it together without losing what you have. And you can only do that with a complementary culture. To be discussed in future tapes.
Samuelson the Nobel winner in economics taught about competitive advantages. The strength one country has vs another that is strong in some other PAEI roles, if they exchange services and products, both benefit. The same for accepting and nourishing cultural diversity…
In order to survive, you have to have the four roles, not necessarily in the same person, not necessarily in the same ethnic group… Diversity…That’s what made America big. Successful. Diversity of ethnic nationalities and religions working together each contributing their strength that complements the weakness of the other one.