« What has happened to job growth? | Main | The worst business regulations in the world »
Are autocratic successors less fierce?
Hypothesis A: Successors to tyrants will be less fierce, because tyrants themselves fear fierce wanna-bee underlings.
Hypothesis B: Hereditary monarchy does not breed for love of power, therefore successors will become less fierce than the first usurper monarch. Bryan Caplan attributes this view to Gordon Tullock.
Hypothesis C: Any method of orderly succession is better than recurring contests for national leadership.
Hypothesis D: Over time orderly succession becomes difficult to maintain, given the lack of fierceness of the rulers.
Hypothesis E: If you can prevent repeated coup d'etats, you are on your way toward economic growth.
Here is a Jonathan Klick paper on autocracy. Here is a Daniel Sutter piece on the transition from autocracy. Here is another painting by Neo Rauch.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 13, 2005 at 04:14 AM in Political Science | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e5509790e18834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are autocratic successors less fierce?:
Comments
semi-on-topic:
If your peaceful tribe is repeatedly being ransacked by a group of nomads,
it is better to pay them 'protection taxes' so that they get the same benefit
without causing carnage. It's even better to give their leader a sanctified title,
king, prince, etc. to make sure he has a legalized stake in this tax agreement and
protects your tribe from the ransacking by other nomads.
Thieves, not saints, become kings. And the most brutal are given the highest honours.
Posted by: MarcinGomulka at Sep 13, 2005 8:52:08 AM
"Successors to tyrants will be less fierce, because tyrants themselves fear fierce wanna-bee underlings."
How does the Lenin-Stalin succession cut on this question? (Lenin, who was brutal himself, was genuinely afraid of what Stalin would do to the nation; at the same time, Lenin couldn't prevent Stalin from assuming power.)
Posted by: alkali at Sep 13, 2005 10:13:25 AM
What are those Rauch paintings?
Posted by: christofay at Sep 13, 2005 11:32:10 AM
A: Another example (from 1 Kings 12):
[3] And they sent and called him; and Jerobo'am and all the assembly of Israel came and said to Rehobo'am,
[4] "Your father made our yoke heavy. Now therefore lighten the hard service of your father and his heavy yoke upon us, and we will serve you."
[5] He said to them, "Depart for three days, then come again to me." So the people went away.
[6] Then King Rehobo'am took counsel with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he was yet alive, saying, "How do you advise me to answer this people?"
[7] And they said to him, "If you will be a servant to this people today and serve them, and speak good words to them when you answer them, then they will be your servants for ever."
[8] But he forsook the counsel which the old men gave him, and took counsel with the young men who had grown up with him and stood before him.
[9] And he said to them, "What do you advise that we answer this people who have said to me, `Lighten the yoke that your father put upon us'?"
[10] And the young men who had grown up with him said to him, "Thus shall you speak to this people who said to you, `Your father made our yoke heavy, but do you lighten it for us'; thus shall you say to them, `My little finger is thicker than my father's loins.
[11] And now, whereas my father laid upon you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.'"
B No: Examples abound from Russian History, every time a Tzar lightened up, there was a rebelion and his son was even more brutal, so they overthrew the Romanoff dynasty and got Stalin.
C Is true. The repeated botched successions of the 3rd and 4th century were the true source of Rome's decline.
D Fierce rulers have had succession problems. Basil the Bulgar Slayer comes to mind. The source of succession problems are inadequate political institutions, not the personality of the rulers. Contrary to American belief, which is based on an idealized version of English law, many states have not developed an institutional basis for succession. Indeed, the more tyranical a regime is the less likely it is that it has developed an institutional basis, a true usurping tyrant will fear his heir apparent as a potential usurper. But, if he dies without an heir apparent, the realm would be cast into chaos.
E Yes see C above.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at Sep 13, 2005 3:07:15 PM
1. Ask any Roman whether king #7 was better or worse than king #1. or for that matter, how Nero compares to Augustus.
2. Let's add Hypothesis F: Hereditary monarchies practice inbreeding, which leads not to love of power per se but to insanity. Insanity may lead to unpredictable and destructive acts of violence, which are likely to be worse for the people and for economic growth than the rational, Machiavellian fierceness of the original usurper/tyrant.
3. As a corollary, your best hope for economic growth is that your autocratic rulers' particular insanity involves colonics, astrology, sexual affairs, and peculiar beliefs about architecture rather than rape, murder, and appointing their favorite horses as Senators and/or gods.
4. There is a counterargument that the average horse is smarter and better qualified for public office than the average U.S. Senator, but this is beyond the scope of this thread.
Posted by: DK at Sep 13, 2005 3:12:26 PM
free match maker - free match maker
internet dating - internet dating
social networking myspace - social networking myspace
myspace layouts - myspace layouts
online poker guide - online poker guide
Posted by: internet search at Mar 30, 2007 4:01:01 AM
I think it depends on their political backing. The first autocrat was likely someone who gained that power and had some real strong reputation. Mugabe had a strong reputation when he first took power, as a liberator from colonial rule. Mao also had massive reputation as a fighter against Japan. Castro has a great reputation as a liberator from the military dictatorship and foreign control. The successor probably is a bit more tame because he does not enjoy the strong reputation of his predecessor. However, as we have seen from Kim Jong Il they can still be quite inept at ruling.
-jean
Posted by: world political forum at Apr 10, 2008 8:31:11 PM
Let me also add that China's leaders following Mao have been a lot more cautious than Mao had been.
Posted by: jean at Apr 10, 2008 8:32:53 PM
aion gold
aion money
cheap aion gold
cheap aion money
buy aion gold
Mabinogi online gold
Mabinogi gold
buy Mabinogi gold
cheap Mabinogi gold
Mabinogi money
2moons dil
2moons gold
buy 2moons dil
2moons dil
cheap 2moons dil
flyff gold
flyff penya
flyff money
buy flyff penya
cheap flyff penya
cheap flyff gold
Dofus kamas
buy Dofus kamas
cheap kamas
Dofus kama
Dofus gold
Dofus money
Knight online gold
Knight Gold
Knight Noah
Knight online Noah
Posted by: aion at Jul 11, 2009 1:34:07 AM
