Posts
The empirical evidence on the economic impact of democracy is really mixed. While the literature tends to show that democratization is good for the poorest economies, the opposite is true for rich ones. My hunch is that the poorest economies are in such a state because of massive mismanagement, in particular corruption, and a democracy can avoid the brunt of this.
But for a rich country, why insist on democracy? Look for example at the Southern European countries, where reforms are very obviously necessary, their pension systems come first to mind. Yet, governments have a very very hard time wringing these reforms through and may even fail to do so. The public is easily manipulated and governments have to give in for their own sake.
Look also at the United States. Elections there are now determined by who can hammer the most frequently his version of the facts on televisions ads, with the media failing to fact check anything because it needs all this ad revenue. This is populism to the extreme, nobody bothers to explain trade-offs and politicians on both side advocate impossible policies. The realist has no chance.
What is the solution? A benevolent dictator would be ideal, but how to make sure the dictator is and stays benevolent? Or maybe the problem is really with representative democracy, that is politicians depend on popularity contests for their livelihood and those contests are easily rigged. A solution then could be direct democracy, which gives much more responsibility to the electorate, who may they seek to get more educated about issues before voting. But this could also go horribly wrong if it fails to do so.
I am really torn. But I am sure about one thing: democracy is certainly not the panacea civics textbooks seem to teach.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Restrict voting to Econ PhDs (granted by top 50 institutions). Problem solved. I am super serious. Personalized, lump-sum taxes, here we come!
You need a democracy to get buy-in for decisions that you personally did not support, but you supported the process which lead to them.
I agree in some way, technocracy is the way to go. Have people vote on an objective, and then let the technocrats figure out the tools to get to the objective.
Currently, much of the "democratic" process is about determining what tools to use, and little about objectives.
Thus: people vote on objectives, technocrats vote on policies.
Michael: I have no idea what you are trying to say.
EL: While you seem to be on the line for once: What you are proposing is elitism, and you know this will never fly if proposed in a referendum. And in most places, this is the only way to adopt it.
I am sick and tired of those know-nothing politicians who screw up the best policies. The latest that got me steaming was how they perverted the cap-and-trade policy to make major gifts to the major polluters. Frustrating...
Elections there are now determined by who can hammer the most frequently his version of the facts on televisions ads,
-------------------
Do you have any data to support this claim? I suspect most people vote for the candidate that is closest to them ideologically and are much less influenced by advertisements than people think.
It has been quite obvious in the US that repeating over and over in the media something something that is wrong makes it true to the public.
Bush was not illiterate, he was in fact a voracious book reader. Obama did not raise taxes, he in fact reduced them. The US does not give away 20% of the public budget in foreign aid, it is much closer to 2%, and this includes military aid to Israel and Egypt. Obama did not bail the banks out, Bush did it. Obama reduced the deficit, he did not increase it (the record deficit was inherited from the Bush administration). Etc.
EL, I think you are calling for a technocracy, and the best example of it currently is China. Once it has fully converted to a market economy, along with a technocratic government, it is going to be great.
I have had some experience with both the US and China in terms of land zoning for environmental purposes. While it has been impossible to pursue in the US, despite it being a Pareto improvement, it has been really easy in China.
With the problem viewed the way you've presented it, sortition would appear to be a solution.
If legislators were selected randomly, jury style, it would remove the popularity contest element of elections, while ensuring that those making the decisions were handling the task as a full time job, avoiding the rational ignorance problem associated with direct democracy.
Sortition may be a solution for the biases of populism, but there is lack of competence.
I personally like direct democracy. With the threat of referenda and popular initiatives, politicians need to behave or their decisions get overturned. Many long standing debates would have been settle a long time ago in the US.
That said, the US has technocrats, in some way: the judicial system. In fact, this is a meritocracy which can overrule legislation under some conditions. These conditions would simply need to be broadened to get better outcomes. well, maybe.
Democracy in human history is limited to very few episodes. We are not wired that way, and dictatorships are going to return big time. So let us at least work towards dictatorships that have interest in the common good.
I do not think the situation is as dire as you and some commenters seem to indicate. The US government has plenty of ways to gather information about optimal policies, through hearing on Capitol Hill and mostly though advisory committees in its many agencies. Many academics also serve in those agencies, and even in the White House (Council of Economic Advisors, foremost).
The sore point is the last hurdle in the legislative process: Congress. I agree this is a major hurdle, but there are good laws that came out of it. And if you think about it, the US is still the richest country in the world, despite all its deficiencies. We could do better, but we already do pretty darn well.
Vilfredo, a lack of competence may be an issue with sortition, but I don't see why you think that direct democracy would be anything other than considerably worse in that respect.
The situation here in France is particularly bad. The minority that marches in the streets has often an unduly large influence on the government. It looks like, for once, the government is not giving in, so far...
What baffles me most in the current situation is that the ones who are leading the demonstrations are the young, and they are the ones to benefit the most from the government reform! That is stupendous stupidity.
living conditions in Italy or Greece are better than in any China, Korea or Saudi Arabia, só hoe can argue that "The empirical evidence on the economic impact of democracy is really mixed. While the literature tends to show that democratization is good for the poorest economies, the opposite is true for rich ones."?
Once more, it seems that my rants that are not directly tied to discussing research seem to generate the most discussion. That probably highlights how difficult it is to get some discussion going about research through this medium.
To answer some points made: Yes I am aware that this may be utopian or politically not achievable. But that does not mean that this should not be discussed. If we do not look into option because "politicians would never go for it", then we have never the option of trying to convince them.
To the last commenter: The literature does not just looks at the average growth rate among democratic countries, or their average standard of living. It uses regressions that control for other factors as well. Once you take all these other factors into account, democracy has an ambiguous impact.
Thanks all for this discussion, and keep on going!
Dictatorship is the antithesis of liberty. A loss of liberty necessitates revolution and bloodshed. No dictators, ever.
Why should there be liberty at any cost?
Post a Comment