11 ms·

I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development

I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development of a nation?

woolvalley 9y ago
China was already an authoritarian nation, how much of an effective difference would this make?
- antichronology 9y ago
  provide an economic argument for not implementing additional authoritarian policies. Seems that these decisions are incredibly hard to measure. For example how much did Turkey's economy suffer from the previous failed coup?
  - martimarkov 9y ago
    That for me personally only strengthens my belief that it was orchestrated.
- ilamont 9y ago
  When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further. Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    And then there's Singapore. Ruled by an authoritarian, gum hating despot who provides nice civic infrastructure for the populace.
    - narrator 9y ago
      With a dictatorship it really depends on the competence of the leadership. This is not a robust strategy for organizing human civilizations.
      - jack9 9y ago
        Really? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.
        disgruntledphd2 9y ago
        Not sure if I would agree, given that estimates suggest that homo sapiens had evolved approx 400k years ago, and most of recorded history (with the somewhat stable hierarchies) lasts, at most, 20k years. So potentially much of recorded history, but certainly not proven to be necessary for evolution.
    - ericd 9y ago
      When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime. It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
      - liberte82 9y ago
        > When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. citation needed
        ericd 9y ago
        What kind of citation would you put there?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  - balthasar 9y ago
    Typo there with Chavez? Democratically elected and rose the quality of life of Venezuela.
    - ilamont 9y ago
      Hitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power. Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
      - balthasar 9y ago
        Chavez did none of these things. Is your knowledge of history so shallow that you must bring up Hitler appro to nothing every chance that you get?
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Chavez definitely dismantled democracy in Venezuela. (If you want to be technical, he started the project, and Maduro finished it.) Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.
        balthasar 9y ago
        Outside observers never saw or reported voting manipulation during Chavez's time. Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. I'm not familiar with the Court/Constitutional Committee issues that your raise but I assume they are post Chavez.
        alsetmusic 9y ago
        > Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. When you call someone a liar, the onus is on you to do the research and present your case for others. Asking everyone else to do the research doesn’t cut it. Your position should include citations that provide evidence that what you say is correct. What you have achieved here is essentially name-calling.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  What happened when Mao unilaterally declared that ploughshares should be melted down for the good of the economy? I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian systems, but individual people are even more fallible. Laying decision-making power on one individual is a recipe for failure; they're going to be wrong eventually, and chances are people will be reluctant to speak out against their god-emperor when that happens in a system where power is so ridiculously centralized.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Political stability encourages growth [1]. The form of government seems largely irrelevant [2]. China is moving from a stable if novel mode (small-group democratic dictatorship) to an unstable mode (single-leader dictatorship). [1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_instabilitygrowth.pdf?s https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_... [2] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >Political stability encourages growth Absolutely. That is why the US, thanks to having a multi-party democracy, never got anywhere with the industrial revolution. And that is why Putin's Russia is leading the world in technological innovation and economic growth. Of course, if when you say "political stability" you mean the absence of things like civil wars and coups, well yes, that really helps economic growth. But I don't think Xi is making himself dictator-for-life because China is on the verge of that sort of instability.

I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development of a nation?

woolvalley 9y ago

China was already an authoritarian nation, how much of an effective difference would this make?

antichronology 9y ago
provide an economic argument for not implementing additional authoritarian policies. Seems that these decisions are incredibly hard to measure. For example how much did Turkey's economy suffer from the previous failed coup?
- martimarkov 9y ago
  That for me personally only strengthens my belief that it was orchestrated.
ilamont 9y ago
When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further. Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  And then there's Singapore. Ruled by an authoritarian, gum hating despot who provides nice civic infrastructure for the populace.
  - narrator 9y ago
    With a dictatorship it really depends on the competence of the leadership. This is not a robust strategy for organizing human civilizations.
    - jack9 9y ago
      Really? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.
      - disgruntledphd2 9y ago
        Not sure if I would agree, given that estimates suggest that homo sapiens had evolved approx 400k years ago, and most of recorded history (with the somewhat stable hierarchies) lasts, at most, 20k years. So potentially much of recorded history, but certainly not proven to be necessary for evolution.
  - ericd 9y ago
    When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime. It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
    - liberte82 9y ago
      > When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. citation needed
      - ericd 9y ago
        What kind of citation would you put there?
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
- balthasar 9y ago
  Typo there with Chavez? Democratically elected and rose the quality of life of Venezuela.
  - ilamont 9y ago
    Hitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power. Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
    - balthasar 9y ago
      Chavez did none of these things. Is your knowledge of history so shallow that you must bring up Hitler appro to nothing every chance that you get?
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        Chavez definitely dismantled democracy in Venezuela. (If you want to be technical, he started the project, and Maduro finished it.) Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.
        balthasar 9y ago
        Outside observers never saw or reported voting manipulation during Chavez's time. Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. I'm not familiar with the Court/Constitutional Committee issues that your raise but I assume they are post Chavez.
        alsetmusic 9y ago
        > Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. When you call someone a liar, the onus is on you to do the research and present your case for others. Asking everyone else to do the research doesn’t cut it. Your position should include citations that provide evidence that what you say is correct. What you have achieved here is essentially name-calling.
leggomylibro 9y ago
What happened when Mao unilaterally declared that ploughshares should be melted down for the good of the economy? I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian systems, but individual people are even more fallible. Laying decision-making power on one individual is a recipe for failure; they're going to be wrong eventually, and chances are people will be reluctant to speak out against their god-emperor when that happens in a system where power is so ridiculously centralized.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

Political stability encourages growth [1]. The form of government seems largely irrelevant [2]. China is moving from a stable if novel mode (small-group democratic dictatorship) to an unstable mode (single-leader dictatorship). [1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_instabilitygrowth.pdf?s https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_... [2] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51

woodandsteel 9y ago
>Political stability encourages growth Absolutely. That is why the US, thanks to having a multi-party democracy, never got anywhere with the industrial revolution. And that is why Putin's Russia is leading the world in technological innovation and economic growth. Of course, if when you say "political stability" you mean the absence of things like civil wars and coups, well yes, that really helps economic growth. But I don't think Xi is making himself dictator-for-life because China is on the verge of that sort of instability.