The Commercial Peace?
Dean
Dan Drezner notes a new paper from by political scientist Erik Gartzke suggesting that free markets are better at reducing war than democracy.
As I noted in Dan's comments, I'm skeptical of the more provocative conclusions. Democracies do not make war on each other. Of course you have to define democracy, but if you simply look at Freedom House ratings, no two nations rated either "free" or "partly free" has ever gone to war with another. As in ever. Claims that the sample size is too small or the number of years too low are simply based on ignorance; the sample size is staggeringly enormous; if you look at every set of neighboring free or partly-free nations that could go to war with each other but have not, you have literally tens of thousands of years of peace between them, and exactly zero of war. For a fast reference, see Professor Rummel's current Democratic Peace Chart. For deeper analysis, I can refer you to any number of more in-depth references.
What is a worry with democracies is what happens when they become unstable and their democratic institutions collapse. Now an interesting fact about that is that no democracy has ever failed once it achieved a per capita income of $6,055 per year. But what the data also shows is that, regardless of form of government, the higher income levels are the more stable a government tends to be, whether it's autocratic or democratic. Dictatorships which can deliver a high average income tend to be more stable too.
So is it possible that a "benevolent dictator" could force a pro-growth free market economy on people and bring them enough wealth that he stays in power? Sure. Mind you, I believe you'll find that democracies deliver free markets and economic growth better in most cases, but theoretically you could have such a regime. So, if you're willing to put up with a dictator who clamps down on free speech, forbids free press, forbids private firearm ownership, tortures its own citizens, commits mass murder against its own citizens, and so on and so forth, just so long as you have a free market and they never actually go to war, well, okay then.
I'll have to sit down and read the paper in more detail, but those are my initial reactions.
Related Posts (on one page):
Some things are worse than war; and if war is a way to stop them, then war is a good thing. Some of those things include lack of freedom, poverty (real poverty, not relative poverty like we have here in the USA), and the crushing of human rights
Now democracy, on the other hand, is a worthy goal in itself, because it leads to lots of good things... including freedom, prosperity, and human rights.
As you've promoted the democratic peace theory, I've been all for it, because it shows that democracy brings peace, along with all the other good things it brings. But it's the other good things that matter most. Peace in itself is only good if it's a free peace.
I also have strong doubts that free markets can last in a non-democratic society. One key element of free market decision making is knowing that the rules are fixed and knowable, so that you can find a way to work within them to your best advantage. In a tyrrany, the rules are just whims, and can change with the mood of the tyrants. That means decision makers are more cautious and less likely to take risks and invest in things that might lead to growth. You get more hoarding and less investment.
Give us a chance, Dean. There's no limit to what we can achieve if we put our minds to it. ;-)
Free markets, free minds, free people... it's a recipe for success.
There was nothing democratic in the entire chain of events except the one election where his party--not he, his party--did moderately well but certainly never captured a majority.
If you wanted to draw a comparison, imagine Bill Clinton in 1992, after winning 43% of the vote (which he did) within a few weeks dissolving the House and the Senate and firing most of the Supreme Court, installing his own cronies to replace most of them, and declaring himself Supreme Leader of America. That would be roughly equivalent--although even that would be more "democratic" and "freely chosen" than what happened under Hitler.
Read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for more.
Oh, did I just give myself the heebie-jeebies!
For "things worse than war", my understanding is that through all of history, some 100-150M people have died in war. For comparison, self-described socialists and communists have killed on the order of 150-200M people outside of war. In my book, that makes socialists worse than war.
Therefore I believe it is fair to say democracy resulted in Hitler and Hitler resulted in war.
Ironically, many Germans believed the Nazis would hold elections again once the war was over.
The CIA seems to disagree that Singapore is a dictatorship.
Government type: parliamentary republic
Suffrage: 21 years of age; universal and compulsory
Economy - overview: Singapore, a highly developed and successful free market economy, enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the Big 4 West European countries.
They're a republic, and certainly not a very democratic one, and basic civil liberties are severely lacking. For the region, which includes places like China and North Korea, on the other hand, they're above average.
Their average income is high and they aren't warlike. And if you were Chinese or North Korean, it would undoubtedly seem like heaven. But they are lacking certain very basic civil liberties.
Monaco actually declared war years ago on its neighbors. It's just that no one has noticed.
:)
Furthermore, it's a mistake to separate freedom into economic and political varieties.
Freedom of action is a prerequisite for changing a company's strategy or executing a plan, or even for getting to work and back safely. Besides the productivity losses that come from workers jailed for their "subversiveness", you have the fear that comes if the Dear Leader takes a dim view of your company, or invests and takes a loss. Does he measure losses in bullets per share, "paid" to the management team?
Freedom of speech is required for people to have honest assessments, both good and bad. Reviewers, like political dissidents, need the freedom to tell people what sucks and what doesn't, as do financial analysts.
China is trying to walk this tightrope, as is Singapore. I note that Singapore is still partly free; clearly, they err on the side of economic prosperity. China, for its part, appears to be reaping the economic rewards of a slightly more open society; will those rewards stop coming, and will they continue to open up to keep the economy rolling? Time will tell, I suppose, though their current oil shock and failing stock market indicate otherwise.
Only in the broad sense that democracy crumbled and collapsed after Hitler took power.
Comparing Hitler to Clinton or Bush, who both came to power with less than a majority, is still ridiculous; not only did Hitler's party do much less well than either American President did, but neither man threw out the elected legislatures of their nation. Hitler did completely overthrow the Weimar republic and toss its Constitution aside.
Comparisons to other minority governments won't do--those governments had to act in coalition with the other elected members of their national parliaments. They did not simply outlaw the opposition party and jail dissenters--unlike Hitler.
Democracies do sometimes tumble. That's the lesson you can draw from Hitler.