« Assorted links | Main | Markets in everything »
Authoritarianism
A loyal MR reader asks:
Is authoritarianism excusable or permissible - for any length of time - if it is justified by a need for economic growth/reform (e.g. Lee Kwan Yew, Pinochet, Park Chung Hee)?
"Compared to what" is the first question. At the margin, individuals favoring democratization did the right thing in opposing those dictators. More democratic versions of those regimes would have been better. That said, I don't think absolute majoritarian democracy in Singapore, from day one, would have been better than the reign of Lee. It would have led to ethnic voting and the quick end of democracy, in destabilizing fashion. Yet now Singapore, a successful and well-established country, can and should become more democratic. When it comes to Pinochet, we should condemn part of the regime and praise some of the parts concerning economic policy. Viewing Pinochet purely as an individual moral agent, he was quite wrong to act the way he did. If you ask "would I be willing to endanger the good economic reforms by eschewing torture to enforce the rule of the regime," the answer is yes I would want to immediately end the torture and take that risk.
#43 in a series of 50.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 13, 2007 at 11:40 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
When recounting the actions of Pinochet, it is also important to take into account the climate in Chile when he came into power. Salvador Allende had nationalized the Copper mines, was in the process of nationalizing all farm land over certain acreage, and had established groups of leftist thugs to discourage protest of the Regime. The Chilean House of Deputies had passed a resolution calling for his removal from power, by force if necessary. That resolution went on to the Senate, where it was very narrowly defeated. At the same time, the Chilean Supreme Court was also calling for his removal based on his unwillingness to enforce thousands of judicial rulings. The fear was that Allende was fashioning himself as a South American version of Fidel Castro at the expense of the country. Even if Pinochet had simply pillaged the country for his own benefit, at least part of the blame would have to be placed on the shoulders of Allende for taking advantage of his the position he had been elected to fill.
I don’t know that the average Chilean would have preferred Pinochet over Allende had they known what was in store for the country, but the fact is that when given the choice of a tyrannical dictator whose actions were going to destroy the economy, or a tyrannical dictator who would promote economic prosperity, I would choose the latter any day.
Posted by: madbomber at Apr 13, 2007 12:09:01 PM
Like you say, in multiethnic countries democracy can get in the way of growth, as groups will vote to steal resources from other, better off groups (Malaysian masses vs Chinese elite, Germans vs Jews, Indians vs Whites in Latin America etc), so authoritarianism may be necessary to 'get the economic ball rolling,' and slice through the differences. Also authoritarian leaders can do things democratic ones cannot, no way Dengs reforms, which put millions upon millions out of work, could have been carried out in India.
Russia is much better off under Putin than under the wild gas of liberty (despite the endless whining of the western media, especially the insanely Russophobic Economist magazine)
People don't 'live' for democracy like many in the media would have it, politics has little impact on most peoples actual lives except once every 4 years. Supporting Pinochet, Franco etc, dictators with brains, was probably the best policy at the time, with the alternatives (Marxism) being far worse. Sometimes the people are just wrong and shouldn't be listened to.
Where would I prefer to live, democratic India or authoritarian Hong Kong or Singapore? Hong Kong/Singapore hands down.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 13, 2007 12:24:08 PM
"In order to get an omelette, you have to break some eggs" may be a morally reprehensible sentiment, but at least the authoritarian semi-capitalists delivered the freakin' omelette.
At the end of the day, however much you hate Pinochet (and you are entitled to plenty of hate there), you'd better have more saved up for Castro.
Posted by: Keith at Apr 13, 2007 1:02:46 PM
I wonder if there is a particular growth rate or GDP-per-capita below which democracy tends toward zero-sum ethic or sectarian rent-seeking and above which it does not. I assume there's been research on this question, and someone in this comments section is likely to have read it. If so, I'd love to know the state of play on that question.
It might also be to do with unemployment -- John Flynn's As We Go Marching suggests that fascism begins as a system for managing cyclical unemployment among the majority group or class. That thesis might generalize.
Posted by: Grant Gould at Apr 13, 2007 1:11:14 PM
@adrian:
"I don’t know that the average Chilean would have preferred Pinochet over Allende had they known what was in store for the country, but the fact is that when given the choice of a tyrannical dictator whose actions were going to destroy the economy, or a tyrannical dictator who would promote economic prosperity, I would choose the latter any day."
First all, the average agent in a real economy doesn't exist: it's a statistical construct. Let's say that
there are two groups: the poor lower 50% and the rich upper 50%. I would say that the Lower 50% would be
better off living in a Cuba-like Chili (no extreme poverty, hunger or lack of basic health care), but the Upper
50% is much better off under Pinochet, since there are no SUV's in Cuba.
If we say that Pinochet's regime was about as authoritarian and brutal as Castro's, what society would be
considered the best off? I can't say, honestly.
Posted by: JSK at Apr 13, 2007 1:34:48 PM
JSK - madbomber said that, not me. And Pinochet needed to be supported for geopolitical reasons anyway, he wasn't a commie, that's good enough for me.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 13, 2007 1:39:36 PM
Ah sorry about that, visually straining lay-out got to me.
Posted by: JSK at Apr 13, 2007 1:50:35 PM
"he wasn't a commie, that's good enough for me"
Yeah, that did work out well wherever it was tried, didn't it. Such noble policies have certainly meant that the United States is held in high standing all across Latin America today.
Posted by: graeme at Apr 13, 2007 2:18:49 PM
A Nigerian friend of mine told me a different version of the "crack some eggs" proverb (which seems to be more appropriate for this topic): "He whose head is used to open the coconut does not get to participate in the eating."
In all seriousness, I find Tyler's argument a bit misspecified. Democracy is not simply a matter of having elections. You cannot have a free and fair vote without guarantees of fundamental rights and the rule of law. The fulfillment of these prerequisites generates a positive spillover for market-driven growth.
Posted by: mike at Apr 13, 2007 3:26:32 PM
Val e diction - They Allende Myth
long but good and informative read.
That Allende died w/his gift from el Barbudo in his hands.
Posted by: Sandy P at Apr 13, 2007 3:32:32 PM
Democracy is too new. Even the U.S. was wealthy by contemporary standards when it formed a democracy. A more interesting question is, would you prefer to live under an authoritarian regime that respected individual rights or a democracy that did not?
Posted by: Matt at Apr 13, 2007 4:14:25 PM
Salvador Allende had nationalized the Copper mines
A policy which the Chilean right-wing parties were entirely in support of, and which Pinochet never did reverse, even as he privatized every other part of the government.
Posted by: neil at Apr 13, 2007 4:14:53 PM
Matt, would you prefer to live under a capitalist regime with extreme poverty or a communist regime with a high standard of living?
This is meant as a joke.
Posted by: neil at Apr 13, 2007 4:16:55 PM
There are two groups: the poor lower 50% and the rich upper 50%. I would say that the Lower 50% would be better off living in a Cuba-like Chili (no extreme poverty, hunger or lack of basic health care), but the Upper 50% is much better off under Pinochet, since there are no SUV's in Cuba.
That’s an interesting concept, but it doesn’t change the fact that the socialist system provides the biggest benefit to the least productive members of society. It also assumes that the bottom 50% have no interest in making an effort to improve their lot or experience any standard of living higher than that provided free of charge by the government.
Cuba is probably a great place for those that don’t want their own survival to be hinged on their value to society…in other words, the proudly unproductive. For those in the bottom 50% that would like to see a better life for their children than they had themselves, they might prefer to live in a country where success was largely dependant on one’s value to society. That would go a long way in explaining why so many risk their lives and the lives of their families to cross the straights into Florida. You don’t, BTW, see many of Castro’s supporters in the US jumping on innertubes in an attempt to escape to Cuba. That in and of itself should speak volumes about the differences between the two economic systems.
Matt, would you prefer to live under a capitalist regime with extreme poverty or a communist regime with a high standard of living?
While your question may have been made as a joke, I’m not aware of any communist country having a high standard of living. If nothing else, communism is a system that makes bad economic decision making standard. Even where a communist country did have a high standard of living, you would have a tough time proving they couldn’t do better under a liberalized system, based on historical evidence.
Posted by: madbomber at Apr 13, 2007 5:03:44 PM
That got all jacked up...
there should have been quotation marks around paragraph 1, and the last two paragraphs got shoved together. There should have additional quotation marks around P4
Posted by: madbomber at Apr 13, 2007 5:06:48 PM
Well, I guess we'll find out how extreme the poverty is in Cuba in the near future....
Posted by: Sandy P at Apr 13, 2007 6:10:59 PM
"I would say that the Lower 50% would be
better off living in a Cuba-like Chili (no extreme poverty, hunger or lack of basic health care), but the Upper
50% is much better off under Pinochet"
Of course, given the difference in economic growth, the first clause will at some point cease to be true. It's then a matter of discount rate.
Posted by: josh at Apr 13, 2007 6:11:13 PM
graeme, we have never really been held in high esteem.
Posted by: Sandy P at Apr 13, 2007 6:13:37 PM
In case anyone has forgotten, last time I checked the only people who do well in a communist country are the rulers and assorted cronies. The poor are just as poor, if not more so, than they would be in a free and market based country. The only difference is that a few of the poor may be relatively more skilled at making connections and get some power and wealth in a communist regime. However I wager that the great bulk of people (poor and rich) have more chances for a good life in a free market.
Posted by: mike at Apr 13, 2007 6:24:42 PM
When I think of Cuba, I think of makeshift rafts fleeing for Miami. Even Haitians don't try to escape to Cuba. What kind of rate of migration did Chile have under Pinochet? I've read a quote about Chile in which an official said "The economy is doing well. The people, not so well". A good way to see if the economic figures are just an artifact of government distortion or if they are reliable is to check the rate to look at how people "vote with their feet". That's why we know West Germany was better than East and South Korea better than North.
Posted by: TGGP at Apr 13, 2007 6:26:38 PM
Well, its true that the United States hasn't been held in high esteem for a while...but the causes for the lack of esteem have all been based on specific events within each country based on your interventions there. Eastern Europe generally holds you in high esteem based on your actions there. In Africa you have a decent reputation as you haven't been as involved in the traumas of that continent relative to other colonial powers.
In Latin America however, you have a long history of interfering in their affairs and of supporting autocrats and torturers, as opposed to reformers. This has not helped your reputation. This legacy cannot be brushed aside by saying fatalistically that you were never held in high esteem.
Posted by: graeme at Apr 13, 2007 8:51:33 PM
Adrian,
Most of what's better in Russia now is not due to anything done by Putin but by much, much higher oil and gas prices than were the case for long before. It's simply a different group of criminals running the place now. That, and the country is rampant with nationalists and racists (just banned the darkies from working in the markets...) If gas and oil prices go down the emptiness of the Putin regime will show and the racist and nationalist forces he's mobilized will come to the front. It won't be nice to see. But, there _was_ another choice. People could have tried social democracy. As the only honest politician in Russia (Yavlinky) once said, that existed only a few hundred miles from Moscow. People often tried to say that the Russians were too stupid or wild for it but I'll be damned if I'm enough of a Russiphobe to believe it. It's just a tragidy they've favored one gangster after another.
Posted by: Matt at Apr 13, 2007 9:11:55 PM
"the Lower 50% would be better off living in a Cuba-like Chili" - give me a break. so those people in the rafts are the affluent Cubans going after SUVs?
Posted by: Phoebe at Apr 13, 2007 9:18:44 PM
"If we say that Pinochet's regime was about as authoritarian and brutal as Castro's, what society would be considered the best off? I can't say, honestly."
But there is a time dimension as well. Pinochet was stripped of his dictatorial powers through a national referendum whereas Castro remains very much in power and, it is safe to say, will never hold a fair referendum on his rule. Countries like Chile, South Korea and Taiwan not only have far higher standards of living today than most countries in Asia and Latin America but are also democracies where the rule of law is relatively strong.
Posted by: Ricardo at Apr 13, 2007 9:27:33 PM
Why do people have such a blind faith in democracy?
Posted by: Kevin Nowell at Apr 14, 2007 12:19:55 AM
