Is democracy truly necessary for economic growth?
Smith and Sells give the debate on if democratic regimes are more effective at economic management or authoritarian regimes. The readings was separated by several different variations measuring economic development. They are economic growth(mainly about gross domestic product/GDP), health and education, poverty, inequality and income distribution. In general, democracies outperform dictatorships with regard to social policy. On health and education, democratic regimes do better than authoritarian regimes. However, there is no distinct difference between democratic and authoritarian regimes on other rest variations.
When talking about economic growth, Smith and Sells mentioned one school of thought—authoritarian regimes are more effective at economic management the are democracies since autocratic leaders do not have to worry about prospects for reelection. They can implement policies for the sake of long-term benefits rather than short-term gratification. South Korea prior to their democracy transitions, Singapore and China can support these argument. Also, though authors said democracies outperform authoritarians on social welfare policies, it is not to say authoritarians do not contribute on welfare. Authoritarian governments have also created top-down assistance programs, such as Venezuela.
Democracy has been regarded as the symbol of the development of modern societies. From the past to now, no matter philosophers or the ordinary people compliments this form of government. However, since dictatorship can also achieve the economic developments, is democracy necessary? Or necessary for all people? In my opinion, democracy is designed for rational people who know what they need and what they want. If people have no sense about what is really good for them but they have the right to vote, they might be misdirected for some candidates’ guaranteed small profit. This is another problem about education level. People who get enough education will know how to be a good citizen. Before democracy, we may have more to consider about.
I believe that while democracy may not solely be responsible for economic growth it has its benefits as well as authoritarianism. Of course Asian countries under dictatorships or some sort of authoritarian regimes have proven that economic growth can actually be achieved irrespective of political regimes. I personally think that far from been a political issue, economic growth is extremely dependent on having the right policies. As long as the right policies are made and not politicized a country’s economy can rise. Many democratic countries have proven to know success economically whereas many countries with authoritarian regimes have failed economically because everything seems to be politicized however, the rise of China alone seems to pause a challenge to democracy. Although some may argue that dictatorship is good for development as we have seen the impressive economical development in South Korea, it is difficult to pin point that one is better than the other economically.
The way you approached the question of democracy vs democracy is interesting, however I disagree with the conclusion that you arrived at. I’m curious as to what your beliefs on self-determination lie, as it appears you take a selective stance on democracy for developing nations. While I agree that education is necessary for a democracy to be truly effective and beneficial for the people, I maintain that adequate education can be a result of a democratic government.
Though I agree with you that authoritarian leaders can be much more decisive due to the fact that they do not have to worry about reelection, I hesitate on your statement that in order to consider a democracy the education level would have to be where each citizen can be a good citizen. When you set the bar at a “good citizen” in order to have a democracy there is a lot of questions to what a good citizen is and what it means to be a good citizen. It is a good idea in theory with that each citizen in a democracy should know enough about each candidate in order to make the best decision not only for themselves but for their nation however in practice that is not viable even in the United States.
I think that you raise an excellent point about the need for an educated demos. If you have democratic institutions, but citizens that are not educated or able to vote in their best interests, there will be problems. This is very difficult to quantify however. At what point are people educated enough to make their own decisions? Moreover, there is certainly no guarantee that authoritarian leaders will make the correct decisions on their own; in fact, it is more likely that selfish and corrupt decisions will result when the leaders lack accountability.
There is certainly a correlation between democracy and economic growth–such policies as the Washington Consensus promotes; however, there are other ways to achieve this growth especially in light of cultural dynamics. Asian societies focus more on the collective benefit to society rather than the “rugged individualism” of the United States. This is why the Asian Tigers could have success or why communist China has remained incredibly stable in light of advancing technology. There is more than one path to economic growth, but to sustain it, democratic institutions are going to be more beneficial than not. This is especially true given the global environment in which we live. MNC’s and foreign powers will invest in places of stability, certainty, and free markets. and democracies more often lend to these conditions.
This is an interesting take, Yuchen. I think democracy does not equate economic growth, I think it does put in place really important constraints on decision makers. More authoritarian governments will rush to fix problems and over correct. I think a strong democracy stops overreaction by the inherent slow nature of it. A strong democracy with strong institutions will exhibit restraint that personalist authoritarians will not