5 ms·

This is not true. Japan and South Korea both experienced the majority of their growth as democracies. Eastern Europe only took off after the fall of the USSR. C

by Gimpei 3y ago

This is not true. Japan and South Korea both experienced the majority of their growth as democracies. Eastern Europe only took off after the fall of the USSR. Chile experienced most of its growth after Pinochet. India is the largest Democracy on earth and it is growing at a very fast clip. That being said, there simply aren’t very many countries and even less ones that made the successful leap to rich world status regardless of the political regime. There’s a huge small sample problem here. And then of course there’s also a huge endogeneity problem. The literature in general has found a weak positive association between democratization and growth. And that’s about the most we can say. Stop worrying about the data not being on your side; it isn’t on anyone’s side.

greenavocado 3y ago
That's not quite accurate. The dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for most of the post-war period has led to critiques regarding the vibrancy of political competition and the effective functioning of democracy. The chaebols, those massive family-run conglomerates, have essentially been the architects behind South Korea's economic renaissance since the '60s. Think Samsung, Hyundai, LG - these giants spearheaded the transformation from a post-war economy to an industrial powerhouse, under the guidance of policies favoring heavy industrialization and export-led growth. It's fascinating to see how the government played matchmaker here, doling out financial support and monopolistic privileges like candy at a parade. This strategic play birthed the "Miracle on the Han River," flipping the script from poverty to prosperity. But, as with all tales of meteoric rise, there's a darker subplot. The symbiosis between the chaebols and political elites isn't all roses. Issues of corruption, nepotism, and economic dominance cloud this success story, leading to a wave of calls for corporate governance reform and efforts to dilute their power. On a different note, South Korea's journey to democracy is a saga of its own. Decades of authoritarian rule gave way in the late '80s, thanks to the collective might of students, intellectuals, and labor activists. The June Democratic Uprising in '87 was a game-changer, forcing the military regime's hand to pave the way for democratic reforms and the country's first free presidential election later that year.
- thisislife2 3y ago
  Quite true - and even with democracies like Japan and India, it is quite apparent from their early history that they were kind of autocratic democracies with one large party / leader / family in power for a long period. In India, the Indian National Congress ruled for nearly 5+ decades since independence, and 3 of its Prime Ministers were dynasts (Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) from the same family. Note also that in Japan and South Korea, the US had a vested interest in not allowing democracy to thrive.
  - screye 3y ago
    I'm Indian, I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy. 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. India is admittedly stable. But it was very much an economic failure. Things only started turning around in the mid-90s.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Let's not forget that before the 1990s, there were the partitions with Pakistan and Pakistan-Bangladesh, Indira Gandhi's seizure of power ... > 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
      - suslik 3y ago
        > they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. What do you mean by this?
        wolverine876 3y ago
        I mean that much of the focus on India is on the "programmers in Bangalore" (which I'm using as a metaphor for the general economic boom). The people who remain in poverty are much more important, a much higher priority, IMHO. I'm not criticizing the economic boom per se - it provides resources that have allowed huge numbers to escape poverty.
Swizec 3y ago
> Eastern Europe only took off after the fall of the USSR The Balkans maybe don't count as Eastern Europe, but before ww2 we were predominantly agrarian. 75% of the population worked on farms[1]. By the 1970's Yugoslavia was a modern industrial economy with all the accoutrements you would expect from a European nation (power, sanitation, roads, etc). Only 29% of the population worked on farms[2]. Then in early 1990's the country fell apart, democracies came out of the ashes, and by 2004 the first bits of former Yugoslavia started joining the EU and NATO[3]. Overall a great success. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Farming [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Feder... [3] https://www.gov.si/en/topics/slovenia-as-an-eu-member-state/ https://www.gov.si/en/topics/slovenia-as-an-eu-member-state/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by Gimpei 3y ago

greenavocado 3y ago

That's not quite accurate. The dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for most of the post-war period has led to critiques regarding the vibrancy of political competition and the effective functioning of democracy. The chaebols, those massive family-run conglomerates, have essentially been the architects behind South Korea's economic renaissance since the '60s. Think Samsung, Hyundai, LG - these giants spearheaded the transformation from a post-war economy to an industrial powerhouse, under the guidance of policies favoring heavy industrialization and export-led growth. It's fascinating to see how the government played matchmaker here, doling out financial support and monopolistic privileges like candy at a parade. This strategic play birthed the "Miracle on the Han River," flipping the script from poverty to prosperity. But, as with all tales of meteoric rise, there's a darker subplot. The symbiosis between the chaebols and political elites isn't all roses. Issues of corruption, nepotism, and economic dominance cloud this success story, leading to a wave of calls for corporate governance reform and efforts to dilute their power. On a different note, South Korea's journey to democracy is a saga of its own. Decades of authoritarian rule gave way in the late '80s, thanks to the collective might of students, intellectuals, and labor activists. The June Democratic Uprising in '87 was a game-changer, forcing the military regime's hand to pave the way for democratic reforms and the country's first free presidential election later that year.

thisislife2 3y ago
Quite true - and even with democracies like Japan and India, it is quite apparent from their early history that they were kind of autocratic democracies with one large party / leader / family in power for a long period. In India, the Indian National Congress ruled for nearly 5+ decades since independence, and 3 of its Prime Ministers were dynasts (Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) from the same family. Note also that in Japan and South Korea, the US had a vested interest in not allowing democracy to thrive.
- screye 3y ago
  I'm Indian, I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy. 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. India is admittedly stable. But it was very much an economic failure. Things only started turning around in the mid-90s.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Let's not forget that before the 1990s, there were the partitions with Pakistan and Pakistan-Bangladesh, Indira Gandhi's seizure of power ... > 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations. Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
    - suslik 3y ago
      > they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. What do you mean by this?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        I mean that much of the focus on India is on the "programmers in Bangalore" (which I'm using as a metaphor for the general economic boom). The people who remain in poverty are much more important, a much higher priority, IMHO. I'm not criticizing the economic boom per se - it provides resources that have allowed huge numbers to escape poverty.

Swizec 3y ago

> Eastern Europe only took off after the fall of the USSR The Balkans maybe don't count as Eastern Europe, but before ww2 we were predominantly agrarian. 75% of the population worked on farms[1]. By the 1970's Yugoslavia was a modern industrial economy with all the accoutrements you would expect from a European nation (power, sanitation, roads, etc). Only 29% of the population worked on farms[2]. Then in early 1990's the country fell apart, democracies came out of the ashes, and by 2004 the first bits of former Yugoslavia started joining the EU and NATO[3]. Overall a great success. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Farming [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Feder... [3] https://www.gov.si/en/topics/slovenia-as-an-eu-member-state/ https://www.gov.si/en/topics/slovenia-as-an-eu-member-state/

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]