« 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
JSK: Your point about distinguishing between benefits at different points on the economic spectrum is well-taken, but you vastly over-estimate the quality-of-life of the lower half in Cuba.
Chile's GDP/head is $13K. Cuba's is $4K. The raito-of-mean-income between the upper and lower halves may be lower in Cuba than in Chile, but in no country on Earth is that skew large enough to make up for more than a factor of 3 in mean income. Perhaps if you look at the lowest 5-10%, Cuba would start to look better, but it gets hard to justify keeping everyone else poor in order to boost the incomes of such a small fraction of the population.
The American left has all sorts of reasons to like Cuba. (The national health care debate, nostalga for of the youthful idealism of Che, nostalga for revolutionary militancy, a general sympathy for collectivist rhetoric...) An actually ability to make the lower half better off is not one of them.
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 14, 2007 1:10:49 AM
JSK: I couldn't resist actually running the numbers. Income inequality is conventionally measured by Gini coefficient, which ranges from 0 (all persons have the same income) to 1 (one person has all the income, everyone else has none).
Chili's Gini coefficient is 0.57, which places it among the most unequal countries on the planet. There are no internationally accepted statistics on Cuban inequality, but there are some claims floating around the internet that it's Gini coefficient is 0.22. If true, that would make it the most equal country on the planet.
If you accept those numbers, and my previously cited figures for GDP per capita, and assume a power-law income distribution in each country (a standard and usually reasonable approximation), you'll find that the average income of a person in the bottom half of Cuban society is $1300/year, while the average income of a person in the bottom half of Chillean society is $2200/year. So the average other-half Chilliean is still nearly twice as rich as the average other-half Cuban.
If you look for the percentile below which the mean incomes in both countries are equal, you'll find it's about 22%. So basically the bottom quintile of Cubans and Chilleans are about equally well off. (Yes, that would also mean I was off in my last post, when I guestimated that you would have to go down to the lowest 5-10% to find the crossing point.) Coincidentally, the bottom quintile is also one common definition of "the poor". By that definition, then, Chile's and Cuba's poor are about equally well-off. The difference is that Chile has allowed the other 80% of the population to get substantially richer, while Cuba hasn't.
By the way, if you compare the U.S. (GDP/head ~$42K; Gini ~0.4) and western Europe (GDP/head ~$30K; Gini ~0.3), the contrast is less stark, but the basic phenomenon is the same. The poor are about equally well-off in both places. The difference is that the rest of the population (and yes, in particular the top quintile) are much richer in the U.S. than in Europe.
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 14, 2007 4:48:51 AM
matt
Don't believe the anti-Putin propaganda of the western media, the Russian economy is diversifying big time. Since Putin's supply side reforms (incl a flat 13% income tax rate) the Russian economy has surged ahead into whole new areas - 600% growth in 7 years. The nineties were hell for most Russians, many families lost everything. Putin sorted things out.
As Charles Ganske points out "Putin did not create the raw materials; he created the conditions for a democratic market economy that can make use of the natural resources to fuel the economy."
or
"In addition to a better climate for investors and businesses, these changes have given millions of Russians the freedom to travel, to communicate instantly via email and cellphones, and greater access to Western media networks."
The idea that Russia is a Saudi-style resource-state is a myth, but one that strangely endures because either the western media just hates Putin, or just doesn't like Russia very much.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 14, 2007 5:02:45 AM
Russia is a great and ancient land, and will soon earn its rightful place among the nations.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 14, 2007 6:59:08 AM
adrian,
I rarely pay attention to Russian coverage in western media. What makes me dislike Putin is having lived there when he came to power (by starting a war- I lived in Ryazan and so am a bit sensitive about who was blowing up apartments) and visiting regularly for extended periods of time. Many things are better there economically. Economic life is obviously massively better. But, very much of this is due to the oil money flowing into the economy. Not all, but with that same oil money an earlier group of crooks could have done more too. In non-service sectors Russia isn't doing that well. Infrastructure is breaking down like mad and very little of the oil money is going into anything but rather gross massive buildings in Moscow (and to a lesser degree petersburg). Education is in a horrible tail-spin. (I worked at a former pedagogical university and so got to see this up close and hear about it regularly.) Again, none of the new massive wealth is flowing to improving or even keeping up what was a once-great but now seriously week education system. WIthout this Russia will never prosper. But my biggest worry is the huge rise in nationalism and racism. When there were pogroms in the north Putin claimed he could not get the governer to return his phone calls. He winks and nods at such things and has helped start a number of brownshirt groups (Nashi being only the largest). The ban on 'foreigners'in the local markets is just one small example of this truly terrifying development. Corruption is as high or higher than ever, despite Putin's claims he'd attack it. I say these things not because I dislike Russia- I love it. I lived there for several years, my wife is from there, I have many, many friends there and I visit regularly. But it's on a dangerous and scarry path and the fact that you can buy a computer on credit and shop at much, much nicer markets now can't change that.
Posted by: Matt at Apr 14, 2007 10:23:04 AM
As far as Chilean inequality is concerned, it is helpful to consider that Latin America as a whole has some of the highest inequality measures in the world. A quick check on the CIA World Factbook reveals that Chile has a lower Gini coefficient than Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. Most countries in this region seem to have Gini coefficients floating between .45 and .6 so Chile is quite normal as far as inequality is concerned.
Posted by: Ricardo at Apr 14, 2007 12:26:22 PM
Wow, seems everybody I talk to on MR seems to have a Russian girlfriend/wife (incl myself).
I reckon the nationalist/racist stuff is ultimately a byproduct of growing pains through a difficult transition - many East European countries have reverted to a wary nationalism & ancestor worship due to hard times (eg Poland). Russia is slightly different because it is both very large & very diverse.
Some of it is racist (expelling Georgians, barring foreigners at the marts & the barely disguised ethnic animosity toward the 'oligarchs' (6/7 Jewish)), but some of it is just nationalist common sense - Russia needs a strong leader, it is too big & diverse to survive a weak center. It also has genuine concerns about the expansion of Nato and the Sinification of Siberia.
Ricardo - most of the inequality in Latin America is explained by ethnic diversity. Homogenous, mostly european countries like Chile & Argentina have lowish levels of inequality, while the more heterogeneous nations (Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico etc) are much more unequal. This is in line with global trends - the more diverse a country, the more unequal it is. I remember one study found that within Latin America there was a correlation of .96 between GDP-per-capita and the percentage of the population that is white.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 14, 2007 12:51:37 PM
matt - i forgot my conclusion - i think the racist period will pass, it's just a transitional blip. 'Nationalist horseplay', if you will.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 14, 2007 12:59:58 PM
Adrian,
I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are on the nationalism/racism. It's growing, it's being both overtly and covertly incouraged by the government (and the government controlled media) and it's _very_ wide-spread, even among the educated. I see no reason at all to think it will go down. There is no movement by anyone with power to restrict it in any meaningful way. I'm not opposed to Russia being strong. I'd like it to be a strong and prosperous nation. (Though I wish it would leave Georgia and Moldova alone and at least not tell transparent lies about, say, Moldovan wine and Georgian mineral water.) But there are active pogroms in many cities now where the government does nothing or even helps, and quite large armies of brownshirts organized by the Kremlin (Nashi and others). I'd be happy if it's passing but I see no reason to think so. It will certainly get worse before it gets better. (The racist and nationalist line is also quite strongly supported by all state-controled media, which it to say about 90% of the media anyone actually sees.)
Posted by: Matt at Apr 14, 2007 7:43:18 PM
Perhaps. You're right actually, casual racism is very common among educated Russians, which is quite unusual by global standards. A Russian business Professor I was talking to last summer referred to Chechens as 'rats'.
Posted by: adrian at Apr 15, 2007 5:54:13 AM
It's not just racism against people from the caucuses but also against Africans (I've heard them refered to as 'monkeys' by more than one university professor in a lecture and asian and so on. And, a pretty general xenophobia (foreigners likely to be spies, everyone out to get poor old Russia, etc.) It's both used and encouraged by the authorities but I doubt they will be able to control it. Already those who murder foreigners are rarely prosectued and never given harsh sentences.
Posted by: Matt at Apr 15, 2007 10:03:29 AM
The purpose of government is good governance. Liberal democracy has the best association with good governance because it is accountable to the people. That is why it is preferred; it is not an end to itself. If an authoritarian leader can give better governance, then he might be preferred. However, the longer he is in power the more likely the level of good governance will decline. Even if he is not corrupt personally, those around him will become so. It is worth noting that Pinochet's reputation in Chile took a nosedive once it was revealed he was wealthier than expected. It is important not to fetishize aspects of liberal democracy, or we have situations of things looking good on paper yet he government is unable to govern. Liberal democracy is not just elections and free press; it is the rule of law, peaceful order, and a culture that approves of consensus.
The likely alternatives must be judged when stating whether to approve of someone like Lee Kuan Yew, Pinochet, or Putin. Given the sketchy stuff Allende was doing, Pinochet may have been the better option, but it is still appropriate to criticize him. Yew is an easier judgment - he provided extremely effective government. Someone like Marcos is also an easier judgment - it is likely someone else could have provided better government yet still kept the communists at bay.
Putin is harder to judge because we do not have enough perspective or time to evaluate his results. Restoring some order in Russia was certainly was good. But the chaos had less to do with "democracy" in general than Yeltsin's poor leadership style (probably due to his alcholism). I see very little good that Putin has done that could not have been done if he had still adhered to democratic norms. Appointing regional governors instead of allowing elections is not necessary to hold together the Russian state. It only enforces his own political power at the expense of Russia not developing a solid backbench of capable leaders. Stealing successful private companies in order to consolidate state power will also lead to trouble in the future.
Putin is sacrificing long term stability for current personal power. If Russia lived next to moribund or senile powers like the late Manchu China, it could probably do well in its current trajectory. But Russia's neighbors are more dynamic now and could position themselves well to prey upon it. There is a long list of things that Putin's Russia should have done - reformed its military, improved its medical infrastructure, reduced corruption, and reverse demographic decline - but it hasn't. Instead it's harassing private oil companies, destroying legitimate opposition, and murdering journalists who expose the truth. Wrong priorities.
I don't think a nation that has severe demographic decline, a worrying TB epidemic, a collapsed military, and a future leadership of cronies will take its rightful place in the world. There is a huge rot there, and Putin has not addressed it.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at Apr 17, 2007 1:14:13 PM
Posted by: aizheng at Apr 18, 2007 3:38:49 AM
I think it's a slightly different situation in the middle east since the run of the mill dictators are already at a pretty low level. I discuss it a bit on my blog. www.isaharr.com
Isaac
Posted by: Isaac Crawford at Apr 21, 2007 6:52:45 AM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 2, 2008 2:59:33 AM
