5 ms·

Hogwash. Free market regimes that happen to be authoritarian have succeeded because of extrinsic reasons (international conditions), not intrinsic ones (the au

Hogwash. Free market regimes that happen to be authoritarian have succeeded because of extrinsic reasons (international conditions), not intrinsic ones (the authoritarian model is fundamentally a better one than the democratic model). During the Cold War, democratic regimes that were not free market (or did not sufficiently recognize private property, specifically private property owned by former colonial powers (i.e., US and Europe)) were consistently harassed or even toppled by the dominant superpower (see Allende's Chile, Mossadegh's Iran). For the most part, those regimes that were toppled were replaced by authoritarian (but free market) regimes. In the last half of the 21st century, being a free market regime was both a necessary and a sufficient condition for survival, whereas being a democratic regime was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for survival. These two facts strongly encourage the success of authoritarian free market regimes. Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes during the Cold War? Well, they certainly existed in Western Europe, but the development story there is complicated by Europe's historically high levels of development (and the Marshall Plan). Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing countries? Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Much of the private property in developing countries was owned by former colonial powers. A democratic government would be very tempted to dabble in nationalism (and nationalization), risking external regime overthrow. If the West is puzzled by the success of Singapore and China, they should examine the history of their own foreign relations. The West gradually opened up to China as China gradually became more free market, despite the fact that China didn't (at all) open up politically. Had the conditions for Western engagement been political rather than economic, we might have seen a democratic (but perhaps not free market) China.

jorgeortiz85 18y ago
Afterthought: Will we see more democratic free market regimes now that the Cold War is over and the success of the free market approach is virtually undisputed? I think we have and are and will: in the many former Soviet republics that are eagerly embracing free markets (like Russia itself) and the EU (with its dicta of human rights and democracy).
bokonist 18y ago
Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing countries? Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Isn't that like saying democracy is susceptible to democracy? Let's use the word "market supportive" to describe governments that support and enable property rights and contract law ( the essence of a free market). How many countries became more "market supportive" as a democracy? Britain, the U.S., Germany, Austria, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong - these countries all either developed their market oriented legal systems as authoritarian states or they inherited their system from a colonial ruler. I can think of numerous examples of democracies ( or failed attempts at democracy) moving in a less market supportive direction. Compare Britain 1884 ( the year of the Reform Act granting universal male suffrage ) to Britain 1950. Germany 1871 to Germany 1935. Russia under monarchy to Russia under the populist Bolshevik revolutionary government. Or Argentina in the first half of the 20th century to Argentina in the second half the century. France under any of the monarchies to France under any of the succeeding republics. India under the Raj to India post-Raj. Zimbabwe pre-universal suffrage, to Zimbabwe after universal suffrage. The only counter examples I can think of are the former Soviet republics. However, that is not really fair, since 1) it would be impossible to be more anti-property than the Soviet system and 2) the Soviet system arose as a result of a populist revolution. Ireland might be another example, though I haven't studied its history enough.
akkartik 18y ago
_"..the authoritarian model is fundamentally a better one than the democratic model"_ What I got out of this article was just that democracy isn't the only way that works even today. It helps us remember that it's a means for us to eventually find better forms of government. _"Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Much of the private property in developing countries was owned by former colonial powers. A democratic government would be very tempted to dabble in nationalism (and nationalization), risking external regime overthrow."_ Who said that democracy can't just happen in any society, it requires a certain degree of maturity?

jorgeortiz85 18y ago

Afterthought: Will we see more democratic free market regimes now that the Cold War is over and the success of the free market approach is virtually undisputed? I think we have and are and will: in the many former Soviet republics that are eagerly embracing free markets (like Russia itself) and the EU (with its dicta of human rights and democracy).

bokonist 18y ago

Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing countries? Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Isn't that like saying democracy is susceptible to democracy? Let's use the word "market supportive" to describe governments that support and enable property rights and contract law ( the essence of a free market). How many countries became more "market supportive" as a democracy? Britain, the U.S., Germany, Austria, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong - these countries all either developed their market oriented legal systems as authoritarian states or they inherited their system from a colonial ruler. I can think of numerous examples of democracies ( or failed attempts at democracy) moving in a less market supportive direction. Compare Britain 1884 ( the year of the Reform Act granting universal male suffrage ) to Britain 1950. Germany 1871 to Germany 1935. Russia under monarchy to Russia under the populist Bolshevik revolutionary government. Or Argentina in the first half of the 20th century to Argentina in the second half the century. France under any of the monarchies to France under any of the succeeding republics. India under the Raj to India post-Raj. Zimbabwe pre-universal suffrage, to Zimbabwe after universal suffrage. The only counter examples I can think of are the former Soviet republics. However, that is not really fair, since 1) it would be impossible to be more anti-property than the Soviet system and 2) the Soviet system arose as a result of a populist revolution. Ireland might be another example, though I haven't studied its history enough.

akkartik 18y ago

_"..the authoritarian model is fundamentally a better one than the democratic model"_ What I got out of this article was just that democracy isn't the only way that works even today. It helps us remember that it's a means for us to eventually find better forms of government. _"Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Much of the private property in developing countries was owned by former colonial powers. A democratic government would be very tempted to dabble in nationalism (and nationalization), risking external regime overthrow."_ Who said that democracy can't just happen in any society, it requires a certain degree of maturity?