For most of my life, I have naturally been inclined to read a text of marginalized communities due to my own identity. These historical writers who have been marginalized from the mainstream context of scholarship are often criticizing the establishment or pushing back against the norm. As someone who has had schooling in both an American and non-American (Cuban) context, I have had two different pieces of training when it comes to heterodoxy scholarship and activism in scholarship. Growing up, the premier scholar that ruled most of the schooling in Cuba is Jose Marti, a thinker and extremely revolutionary writer with a clear call for activism and nationalism. This is mostly because the nationalist message of his writings integrates well with many of Cuba’s current issues, while in an American context thinker like Hobbes and Locke make more sense for the American debates.

From these last two week’s readings and discussion, I often wondered if reparations for the scholarship is merited when the work of great thinkers is marginalized due to their temporal situation. On one hand, it is a very rational feeling to try to right the wrongs of the past and shine light onto those who were pushed in the darkness, at the same time however, there is the possibility to think that we are reflecting our own contemporary views onto the pass and in an attempt to balance the historical field we pay more information to thinkers that were not as influential as the mainstream thinkers. There were comments made in our class discussion that I agreed with the most, sentiments that argued that we must recognize the institutional disadvantages that existed in any given time which might have prevented the work of a scholar from being influential, but that doesn’t mean that we must shift the reality of those who really made an impact and decide to focus on them.

Ultimately, I would argue that it is not societies decision whether a historical character should be separated or not. We must continue to study the most influential and impactful scholarship to best understand the greater dialog, but we should always be aware of the marginalized scholarship and why such thinkers were marginalized. This framing helps my research because I am often questioning whether or not I should be focusing on sources from the “exile”, Cuban’s who live outside of Cuba and normally attack the Cuban government. So far in my work, I have worked almost exclusively on Cuban government sources because it is the most influential source and scholarship on the island. Many scholars are marginalized in Cuba for their political stances and therefore are not able to be as influential as those who are given the means to really create motions and change in my specific research. This debate has helped me understand how to frame the scholarship of those who are left outside the margins and allowed me to help justify my major focus of government sources.

The world continues to become more and more connected place, especially in the field of trade and international investment. Cuba remains as one the last strongholds of Communist ideology in the 21st century, but the government has started to allow for more Foreign Direct Investment which brings the question as to what economic model Cuba will use in the future. The introduction of free market activities like FDI and also the growth of private markets has created a drastic shift in the identity of the Cuban economy. This shift has led me to the question and what does this change represent the ideological stance of the Cuban government? At the moment there is no one economic model that is similar to the current Cuban economic status, some scholars try to compare the Cuban model to the Chinese model but the Cuban economy does not have the market prowess and consumer power that the Chinese market hold. I will attempt to conduct a historical analysis using a case comparison using Mill’s method of difference, focusing on three distinct periods of the Cuban economy to try to provide an understanding as to what factors can lead to socialist actors partaking in free-market activities. These findings can be used to examine how economic actions by socialist states might show signs of lack of belief in communist economic ideas or show actions towards the economic survival of a state.

There are a number of factors that come to mind when reflecting on how and why I came to my topic. The clear frontrunner is my aspiration to study topics related to my identity as a Cuban, but the specific subject of FDI in Cuba came from an observation and conclusion that the allowance of FDI in Cuba contradicts many of the communist ideological values that the Cuban revolution expressed. Another reason for research is to explore and bring attention to the subject of international business negations that have existed outside of the new focus of business relations of Cuba and the U.S. after the thawing of relations. It is often forgotten that Cuba had been performing similar partnerships with countries other than the U.S. before the thawing of relations and I use this lesser known fact to motivate my research. I am also interested in bringing attention to how much Cuban government has changed in economic terms since the beginning of the revolution. I feel that although these reasons are heavily influenced by my personal background it would also fall into Aristotle idea of contributing to a “richer world” because it is intended to create more knowledge.

I feel like some of my motives have a clear interpretivist approach since some of my motivations are to find a change in dialog but I have decided to pursue a Neo-Positivist Case Study approach because I feel that the best to explore changes and growth of FDI in Cuba is by analyzing the subject using eras to compare and contrast them. This approach still allows me to analyze the change in dialogue. I think that my research makes the normative assumption that the inclusion of Cuba in FDI is key to a less oppressive and ideologically different Cuban government.

In all, the ultimate goal is help create a broader understanding of the context of business negotiations in Cuba. Many times, any type of dealings with the Cuban government are politically charged, but this also comes with an emotional charge that often leads actors blind.

For my research project, I am proposing to research the growth of the Cuban private market after the thawing of U.S.-Cuban relations. I want to find out how the Cuban economy has reformed from a socialist economy to a more global market to help my readers understand how economic reform takes place in socialist governments. This phenomenon is supported by my research by many different sources who have noticed a correlation in an uptick of private sector niches being filled in Cuba after the thawing of relations.

The Cuban private sector has existed since the early days of the Revolution. However, for many years, the private sector was discouraged and often illegal during the leadership of Fidel Castro. However, a change in language and policy came when Fidel’s brother, Raul Castro, was made a leader of Cuba. In Raul’s speech on July 26th, 2007, the acting-President at the time (Fidel issued a temporary transfer of power to his brother Raul on July 31, 2006, due to his poor health; Raul would not become the official President of Cuba until February 24, 2008) promised the introduction of “structural and conceptual changes” to the economy.[1] In the years to come, structural changes were made leading to the legalization to many private businesses. This was one of the first speeches that Raul made in which he spoke to the people of Cuba and showed that he was willing to make some differences and was willing to engage in economic reforms. I would like to use this piece to exemplify the change of mentality of the Cuban government and establish the historical background of my research topic.

In Gonzalez-Corzo and Justo article, “Private Self-Employment under Reform Socialism in Cuba”, the authors discuss the different elements and principals in which the Cuban private market can exist while the fundamental attributes of the socialist system are still present and what factors limit the growth of Cuban entrepreneurs. [2] Their main argument and conclusion are that Cuba’s private market is growing, but there are excessive prohibitions and a wide range of distortions that still affect self-employed workers and the rest of the emerging non-state sector.[3] The authors come to this conclusion through a statistical analysis of the Cuban economy since 2010 and a comparison to similar socialist economies in western Europe that went through similar economic reforms in the post-Stalin era.[4] I plan to use this Journal article to convey some of the problems that currently exist in the Cuban private market. I also plan to use this article as the starting point for research about economic reform in other socialist countries.

When President Obama visited Cuba in March 2016, he became the first U.S. President to make an official visit the island nation since Calvin Coolidge in 1924. During his visit, the President addressed the Cuban people directly in a speech that was broadcasted throughout the whole island. In Obama’s speech on March 22, 2016, in Havana, Obama addressed the Cuban governments ability to start opening their markets and highlighted a few entrepreneurs. [5] Obama made it clear that the U.S. government would back the movement for a free market in Cuba emphasizing that the main reason why the thawing of relations happened was for the Cuban and American people to exchange ideas and promote innovation and entrepreneurship in both countries.[6] I plan to use this primary source to help one of my hypothesis that one of the goals of U.S. foreign policy during the Obama administration was to reform the Cuban economy.

In Richard Feinberg’s book Open for Business, Building the New Cuban Economy the author explores the recent history of how the thawing of relations came to be and performs several case studies to better understand Cuban entrepreneurs and Cuba’s place in a global market.[7] In Chapter Six of the book; “Emerging Entrepreneurs and Middle Classes” the author makes the claim that the Cuban cuentapropistas (private business owners) are the new middle class of the Cuban society and he also concludes emerging middle classes in Cuba will soon aspire greater economic prosperity because of the new exposure to the internet and interactions with foreigners.[8]  Fienberg’s book brings a different light to my research as he also discusses how Cuba does business with other free market economy countries like Mexico.

The significance of my research topic is not to create a policy recommendation, but to examine and research how and why the thawing of relations between the United States and Cuba has affected the identity of the private market in Cuba. By determining the results of the thawing of relations in the economies of Cuba, policy making is made easier. U.S.-Cuban relations is especially topical at the moment since there is uncertainty as to what the new administration’s plan for Cuba is.

Two research questions I have going forward would be:

• Has the newly emerging private sector in Cuba changed the ideological mindset of the Cuban people?
• In what way has the United States economic model influenced Cuban entrepreneurs and cuentapropistas?

[1]  Raul Castro. “Celebration of the 54^th Anniversary of the attack on Moncada and Carlos Manuel de Céspedes Garrisons.” Speech, Camagüey, Cuba. July 26, 2007.

[2] Mario Gonzalez-Corzo and Orlando Justo. “Private Self-Employment Under Reform Socialism in Cuba.” Journal of Private Enterprise 32, no. 2 (Summer, 2017): 45-82.

[3] Ibid, 78.

[4] Ibid, 62-65.

[5] Barack Obama. “Speech to the Cuban People.” Speech, Havana, Cuba. March 22, 2016.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Richard Feinberg. Open for Business, Building the New Cuban Economy. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Inc.)

[8] Richard Feinberg. “Emerging Entrepreneurs,” in Open for Business, Building the New Cuban Economy. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Inc.), 167-171.