A couple of days ago, I was attending a small meeting that was discussing the role of the state in society. As a libertarian, i was not surprised that many people take it for granted that the existence of the state means that it must undertake any activity that it chooses or that people urge it to take upon itself.
tThe more surprising part for me was the poor reading of history by educated people. This was because an uncomfortably large number of people took it for granted that China and the east Asian countries have proven that there is a special formula for quick economic growth.
I have stated it here for a long time that China's development record is unprecedented and certainly impressive. What I am unwilling to yield is that there is a "China Model" which proves that political liberalization is a secondary matter in the quest for economic growth. As I heard, China is very organized and provides a model worthy of emulation by Asian, African and other low income countries. I therefore find immense comfort in the more accurate and sensible interpretation of history by Dani Rodrik in
this informative article.
As it is, the piece is self-explanatory. Authoritarianism is
mnot a short cut to growth and any leader who tries that model is more likely to fail than succeed.
4 comments:
Quite true - authoritarianism is not equal to progress, and is unlikely to be, in Africa particularly. China, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia got it right, mostly as a function of time (being in the right place at the right time), and that formula is unlikely to work anywhere else. Even Botswana is beginning to unravel, with the current Head of State actively catalysing the process.
One thing you cannot deny though, is that while authoritarianism is out, a weak and indecisive leader is guarateed to be on a hiding to nothing. Prominent examples abound too - no mentioning of names!
The superiority of democratic political systems over authoritarian regimes is hardly contestable now; what bothers me, however, is the denialism that seeks to cover up the role that states have played (to stabilize) in the wake of recent economic disasters in the US and Europe, and worse, the havoc of free trade on poor economies in the name of democratization.
Lyn, I do not argue that action by governments after the financial crisis through stimulus programmes did not forestall more serious problems. However, I also note that the crises were the result of direct policy by government to let some people own property that they could not afford added to poor regulation. At the same time, governments wasted public funds by saving firms that should have been wound up. On the issue of free trade, it is hardly true that free trade is responsible for the poverty of any individuals. Recall that countries are neither poor nor affluent. It is individuals that suffer from poverty or benefit from wealth. However, policies by countries in the name of self-sufficiency are obstacles to individual prosperity and that cannot be debated. Free trade suggests that individuals exchange without coercion and therefore I see no person who would trade to his or her disadvantage.
Post a Comment