« Do carbon offsets work? | Main | Why do people own things? »
Why are Latin American politicians so bad?
A loyal MR reader asks:
[Please discuss] Latin American politics. Why do our politicians ****?
A few points:
1. I'm not convinced they are worse than average, once you adjust for per capita income. If East Asia looks better, perhaps the quality of the bureaucracy is more important than the relative quality of the elites.
2. Combining parliamentary, proportional, and presidential systems, as much of Latin America has done, is a recipe for disaster. Read Ljiphart and others on this topic. It is too easy to block reforms, there is too little accountability, and there is no coherent ruling coalition. If you are going to have a strong presidential role, try to restrict the number of major parties to two. Or if you want many parties, make the president directly accountable to a coalition.
3. The charismatic traditions in these cultures do not make for responsible politicians. Visit Eva Peron's grave in Buenos Aires if you need to be convinced.
4. It is difficult to rule a country with significant ethnic divisions. This covers many Latin countries, though not Argentina or Chile or Uruguay.
5. Latin tax systems are underdeveloped, so distortionary policies are needed to collect sufficient revenue. Citizens then become cynical about government, and consider it illegitimate. Tax evasion is rampant. The spiral worsens and again no one can govern well.
The bottom line: If they put me in charge of a Latin country, I don't think I could deliver superior growth performance. At best I would avoid some of the really stupid mistakes, but I couldn't turn the country around.
This post is #02 in a series of 50 (?).
Addendum: Bryan Caplan adds comment, but I think he is just proving my point.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 28, 2007 at 07:37 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
What happened to reason #3?
Posted by: Finley at Feb 28, 2007 8:07:37 AM
I've responded to Finley's quantitative critique of the argument...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 28, 2007 8:18:41 AM
Re #1.
Without attempting to distinguish between politicians and the bureaucracy, it is very clear that East Asian countries had vastly better government when they were poor.
Simple example, compare literacy in Mexico today to each East Asian country when its per-capita GDP was at the current Mexican level. The East Asians were approach full literacy at remarkably low levels of per-capita GDP.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Feb 28, 2007 8:37:37 AM
Tyler writes: "It is difficult to rule a country with significant ethnic divisions."
So why then advocate high rates in immigration from Latin America into the U.S.? Nothing against Latin Americans, of course. But one unavoidable effect of bringing millions and millions more of them in this country is to heighten the "significant ethnic divisions" thing.
Tyler writes, about his own prospects as a ruler in Latin America, "At best I would avoid some of the really stupid mistakes."
Wouldn't it be a good idea to avoid some really stupid, or at least completely avoidable, mistakes in the U.S. too?
Posted by: MIchael Blowhard at Feb 28, 2007 9:19:03 AM
It's all relative. Compare Latin American politics to African or (especially) Middle Eastern politics, and Latin America is a shining beacon of perfection.
Posted by: Peter at Feb 28, 2007 9:45:44 AM
It's because they don't speak English in Latin America.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Feb 28, 2007 10:10:41 AM
Practically every country in Latin America has been ruled by a military dictatorship at some point in the last 40 years. (Venezuela, surprisingly, is a rare exception.) It's easy to see how this would stunt the development of a political class -- many potential politicians are sullied by a link to the old regime, while others were sent into exile, killed, or never reached their potential due to an evisceration of the institutions which build politicians.
Posted by: neil at Feb 28, 2007 10:22:17 AM
So why then advocate high rates in immigration from Latin America into the U.S.?
He said 'divisions' not 'diversity.' The U.S. does a great job of assimiliating its immigrants. The anti-immigration blowhards are trying to change that, and the results would be unfortunate.
Posted by: neil at Feb 28, 2007 10:23:45 AM
I think one reason is that there is little conservatism, in the Anglo-American sense of the word, in Latin America. It seems to me that conservatives in Latin America tend to promise their constituents that they'll make government work better rather than promising that they'll reduce the size and scope of government. The principal exception being during economic crises when they are forced into austerity measures. Individualism doesn't carry a lot of currency south of the border.
Posted by: mike at Feb 28, 2007 10:41:34 AM
neil,
He said 'divisions' not 'diversity.' The U.S. does a great job of assimiliating its immigrants.
I'm curious as to how you define assimilation. If, by assimilation, you mean the mere acquisition of English after a few generations, then yes, the U.S. does a great job. If, on the other hand, you mean bringing the descendants of immigrants up to American educational and economic norms, then you are mistaken.
Take a look at the academic achievement of fourth generation Mexican-Americans and see if you can honestly call that a "great job" by the latter definition of assimilation.
Posted by: mike at Feb 28, 2007 10:49:07 AM
You find this quote from Alexander Pope alot in the debates and writings of the framers:
For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.
You can blame the presidential, caudillo system, or tax system, or whatever, but to what degree the culture is public spirited matters. That may not have any explanatory value (countries with poor government have poor government), but at least it doesn't invent a specious answer.
Posted by: bjakkd at Feb 28, 2007 11:23:36 AM
Are there any South American countries which are well governed? Are there any that have ever been well governed?
Posted by: sourcreamus at Feb 28, 2007 11:30:15 AM
Uruguay probably comes closest to being a well governed South American country--
but that is just by comparison to the others.
Posted by: spencer at Feb 28, 2007 11:42:33 AM
Steve Sailer points to this story today. It presents a case example of Latin American politics in the United States.
This is our future, folks.
Posted by: mike at Feb 28, 2007 11:56:24 AM
I think it is a mistake to overlook the influence of outside nations throughout history. I suspect interference by the US has gone a long way toward reinforcing caudillismo among other negative traditions.
Posted by: false_cause at Feb 28, 2007 12:11:06 PM
Income inequality means that conservatives are more corrupt and bought off than even here and leftists are more popular and radical than here.
Posted by: yoyo at Feb 28, 2007 12:15:36 PM
I tried to answer, here.
Posted by: sammler at Feb 28, 2007 12:25:23 PM
"4. It is difficult to rule a country with significant ethnic divisions."
The irony of this coming from an open borders advocate is overwhelming.
Posted by: Rob at Feb 28, 2007 12:34:01 PM
In response to mike's link to the article on Cudahy (from Sailer), how about this:
http://www.chicagohs.org/history/capone.html
There are two variables in the Cudahy story - it's a Latino town and drugs that are illegal. Makes one wonder which is the bigger cause of the problems there.
And how is it any different than Capone era Chicago?
Posted by: AZ at Feb 28, 2007 12:34:20 PM
Or Vegas pretty much anytime that wasn't the last 20 years?
Posted by: anon at Feb 28, 2007 12:53:44 PM
And how is it any different than Capone era Chicago?
It isn't, but then it is no different from modern Laredo or Juarez in Mexico either. That is the problem. I wouldn't want to live in either Prohibition-era Cicero or one of those two modern Mexican towns.
The larger point doesn't center upon the drugs, but the style of politics in Cudahy. What we are seeing here is machine politics of the worst kind. Chicago remained a very corrupt city long after Prohibition was ended and it wasn't because of illicit drugs. In fact, as I'm sure you are aware, the machine persists in a milder form to this very day. A similar style of politics dominates much of Latin America, irrespective of whether a particular locale is a significant transit point for narcotics.
The reason why machine politics in Chicago isn't as strong as it was in the past has as much to do with the assimilation of the Italians, Irishmen, Poles, and Jews, who made up the machine's primary constituents, into the middle classes, as it does the end of Prohibition. So, a big part of the question is whether Mexicans can be expected to similarly assimilate. Will Cudahy be merely a transient phenomenon? Judging by the educational data I referred to in a previous comment, the answer appears to be 'no.'
Posted by: mike at Feb 28, 2007 1:10:52 PM
In response to 'false cause,': South America(strictly south of Panama) managed to put itself through fantastically destructive wars without any intervention from outside forces (the War of the Triple Alliance, my particular favorite).
Also, for instance, I cannot see how one could explain away the destructive politics and economic policy of Argentina from the early 1920's through the end of the Peron era (or beyond if you like) and anything other than sui generis.
Blaming the foreigner is a long-time tradition of both those in power and those who wish to be in power in South America, whether it be Britain, Spain, the USA, or just the jerks accross the border. The buck is always passed because no one wants to pay the bill at home, politicians or electorate.
Posted by: ElamBend at Feb 28, 2007 1:12:13 PM
Let me offer an additional hypothesis. It has to do with religion. Perhaps influenced by Catholicism, it seems to me that, in general terms, the electorate tends to think that it (the electorate) does not have the ability to change or alter their immediate reality and that elected politicians provide the best way (or perhaps the only way) to do so rapidly and positively. Feeding on that, politicians promise heaven on earth (only if they are elected!) and, once in office, attempt to do so with grandiose ideas and programs. I have never heard a politician (at least here in Mexico) say that it is up to the people to change their own individual reality.
Another thing. In Mexico is much more complicated because there is no immediate reelection for any public office: President, Congress (Deputies and Senators), Governors, and Mayors…
And finally, I have lived in the US and the UK and I can say that Latin America does not have a monopoly on bad politicians...
Posted by: Jose at Feb 28, 2007 1:20:25 PM
Chile have been well governed for 15 years.It is over the USA in the transparency Index.
An experimental answer: Trinidad was part of Venezuela until 1795.Then was invaded by the Uk .Today per capita income 12k $.Venezuela 6k$( and is on the way to a dictatorship)
Monopolis are every where in latinamerica.Televisa in tv for example.yes, today a duopoly
Posted by: jcm at Feb 28, 2007 2:09:05 PM
"Chicago remained a very corrupt city long after Prohibition was ended and it wasn't because of illicit drugs"
So now we're bootin' out the Irish?
Posted by: Keith at Feb 28, 2007 2:22:44 PM
