3 ms·

What are those theories based on? Admittedly, I didn't offer much evidence; mine are based on what scholars and practicioners have long said about development.

What are those theories based on? Admittedly, I didn't offer much evidence; mine are based on what scholars and practicioners have long said about development. Also, it's a two-way interaction between democracy and economic development - wealthier citizens have more time and resources to demand democracy. > But the typical authoritarian isn't quite that omnipotent or that stupid People in a democracy could certainly believe a politician would be that stupid. Somehow a few people believe the hype about authoritarians. Plenty of examples of that stupidity, starting with Xi right now, who is taking economic decision-making from private business - even with the enormous success China has had with that - and centralizing it in the government. Look at North Korea or so many others, now and historically - it was the norm for history before democracy. Another bit of evidence: The very strong correlation between high-income countries and democracy. No authoritarian (or otherwise non-democratic) country has come close. Much more serious is the trendy infatuation some Westerners have with dictatorship. Ignoring the fundamental immorality - who is the dictator to tell anyone else what to do? - they are playing with high-explosives in their family's basement.

yorwba 3y ago
On the relationship between economic growth and democracy in general, I'm with Daniel Treisman's observation https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-043546 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-05... that more developed countries are more likely to democratize when the government changes than less developed ones, which often simply end up with another autocrat. But if the government is stable, autocracies can maintain economic growth for a long time, the current outlier being Singapore with 3 prime ministers in over 60 years and a more developed economy than most democracies. On Chinese ability to innovate, Jeffrey Ding points out https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2023.2173633 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2023.2... that China's innovation capacity is high relative to other countries, but the diffusion capacity necessary for widespread adoption of innovations is low. So theories focusing on the supposed inability of autocracies to innovate might be barking up the wrong tree. Even assuming that Xi actually makes all decisions attributed to him, that those decisions are stupid, and that they take economic decision-making from private business, he's still not omnipotent and the vast majority of economic decisions are made at a local level, in response to the particular conditions individual businesses are facing.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Democracies are far less corrupt, more free, and provide much more opportunity and welfare. And whatever the attempt at explaining it away - theories come and go - the fact, the correlation between high-income and democracy is undeniable. Your only counter-example is a quasi-democratic city-state. Nobody said Xi literally makes all the decisions. > the vast majority of economic decisions are made at a local level, in response to the particular conditions individual businesses are facing. Do you know how much impact central party instructions have on the day-to-day? In any case, the vast majority of economic decisions should be made by the businesses, for both economic and freedom reasons, not by party officials local or in Beijing.

yorwba 3y ago

On the relationship between economic growth and democracy in general, I'm with Daniel Treisman's observation https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-043546 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-05... that more developed countries are more likely to democratize when the government changes than less developed ones, which often simply end up with another autocrat. But if the government is stable, autocracies can maintain economic growth for a long time, the current outlier being Singapore with 3 prime ministers in over 60 years and a more developed economy than most democracies. On Chinese ability to innovate, Jeffrey Ding points out https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2023.2173633 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09692290.2023.2... that China's innovation capacity is high relative to other countries, but the diffusion capacity necessary for widespread adoption of innovations is low. So theories focusing on the supposed inability of autocracies to innovate might be barking up the wrong tree. Even assuming that Xi actually makes all decisions attributed to him, that those decisions are stupid, and that they take economic decision-making from private business, he's still not omnipotent and the vast majority of economic decisions are made at a local level, in response to the particular conditions individual businesses are facing.

wolverine876 3y ago
Democracies are far less corrupt, more free, and provide much more opportunity and welfare. And whatever the attempt at explaining it away - theories come and go - the fact, the correlation between high-income and democracy is undeniable. Your only counter-example is a quasi-democratic city-state. Nobody said Xi literally makes all the decisions. > the vast majority of economic decisions are made at a local level, in response to the particular conditions individual businesses are facing. Do you know how much impact central party instructions have on the day-to-day? In any case, the vast majority of economic decisions should be made by the businesses, for both economic and freedom reasons, not by party officials local or in Beijing.