310 likes | 435 Views
Plan for Today Economic Reform & Democratization. Understand potential dangers for democracy in economic reform process. Learn and assess between sides of debate on “authoritarian advantage” in economic reform/ performance. Become familiar with typical “package” of reforms.
E N D
Plan for TodayEconomic Reform & Democratization • Understand potential dangers for democracy in economic reform process. • Learn and assess between sides of debate on “authoritarian advantage” in economic reform/ performance. • Become familiar with typical “package” of reforms. • Learn and assess between sides of debate on shock therapy vs. gradual reform.
Dangers for democratic regime • Leaders may seek to “ram through” reforms to break political logjams. • Temptation to abandon democratic decisionmaking.
Common issues of conflict and controversy • Role of the state in economic development. • Distributional consequences of reform (who gets what?). • Government accountability.
“Authoritarian advantage”? Debate over regime type and reform
Pro-Authoritarian Argument • Democratic governments may lack capacity for quick action. • Workers’ demands in democracy reduce profits and investment for growth. • Democratic citizen demands for social programs divert monies from investment.
Pro-Democracy Argument • Authoritarian advantage depends on enlightened dictator. • Why would dictator invest in country instead of squandering resources on self?
Pro-Democracy Argument • Democratic leaders face punishment at polls for failure.
Pro-Democracy Argument • Lack of rule of law in authoritarian regimes investors fear to commit. • Danger of losing property rights at any time.
Pro-Democracy Argument • Political freedom generates better information for decisionmaking.
Pro-Democracy Argument • Democratic governments are risk-averse. (Przeworski & Limongi) • Tend not to invest in grandiose schemes.
The Historical Record • “Authoritarian advantage” based on limited time period and regions. (Maravall) • 1960s-70s Latin America • 1980s-90s East Asian “tigers”
The Historical Record • No difference between dictatorships & democracies in growth rates 1950-1990. (Przeworski & Limongi)
Typical reform package “The Washington Consensus”(roughly) – John Williamson
Typical Reform PackageStep 1: Macroeconomic stabilization • Price liberalization. • Cut government spending. • Tighten up money supply (quit printing money). • Convertible national currency.
Typical Reform PackageStep 2: Longer-term Liberalization • Reduce trade barriers. • Remove foreign investment barriers. • Privatization. • Laws to protect property rights. • Fight corruption. • Reform social safety net.
Now “Washington Confusion”? Growing disagreement about proper speed and degree of reforms
Debate over best reform strategy Option 1 Option 2
Radical, Rapid, Neoliberal Reform • a.k.a. “Shock Therapy” or “Big Bang.” • Defenders: Haggard & Kaufman, Aslund, Sachs.
Arguments for Shock Therapy • Problems of economy so acute that radical action is required. • Inflation, debt, balance-of-payments crisis.
Arguments for Shock Therapy • Better to get pain over with quickly.
Arguments for Shock Therapy • Rapid reforms more likely to succeed – “honeymoon period” of new regime.
Arguments for Shock Therapy • Best to proceed quickly before enemies mobilize.
Arguments for Shock Therapy • Limit rent-seeking behaviour by rapid reforms.
Arguments for Shock Therapy • Idea that living standards decline in reform is a myth. • Due to erroneous statistics of previous regime.
Historical Evidence • Argue those who conducted radical reforms have more successful economies. • Poland (radical) vs. Romania (gradual).
Gradual, Moderate Reform • Defenders include: Przeworski, Stiglitz.
Arguments for Gradual Reform • We still know very little about how free markets interact with democracy.
Arguments for Gradual Reform • Adverse social and political consequences of neoliberal reforms.
Arguments for Gradual Reform • The state must play a role in facilitating market economy. • Enforcement of contracts. • Providing collective goods. • Equitable distribution of wealth.
Historical Evidence • “Alternative capitalisms” have succeeded quite well: • East Asia • European social democracies • Some neoliberal failures: • Argentina • Mexico • Russia