Are benevolent autocrats good for economic development?

[russ_watters]

The OP contains neither a question nor a thesis statement that I can see, so the discussion seems to me to be floundering. BWV, could you please provide them so we know what the point is.

 

[BWV]

The OP contains neither a question nor a thesis statement that I can see, so the discussion seems to me to be floundering. BWV, could you please provide them so we know what the point is.

It contains both

A) question - do benevolent autocrats exist that, despite their flaws, are responsible for periods of high economic growth?

B) thesis - proof of this is lacking due to the reasons listed by Easterly

 

[russ_watters]

It contains both

A) question - do benevolent autocrats exist that, despite their flaws, are responsible for periods of high economic growth?

B) thesis - proof of this is lacking due to the reasons listed by Easterly

No, neither of those appear in the OP and the question is somewhat different from the question in the title of the thread (the OP itself contains no questions) -- and your thesis statement does not answer the question. Though you may have thought you implied it, you didn't. For future reference, please be explicit about what your point is...however, there's still a problem:

For the points themselves:
The question in the title is actually worded as assuming they do exist (though it could imply a theoretical assumption), which is generally not a good way to word a question. The question above is much better as a problem statement.

Your Friedman quote implied to me a thesis that China is an example, answering the question affirmatively (Q: Do benevolent dictatorships exist? A: Yes, and here's an example). The Easterly quote doesn't actually attempt to answer the question or refute the affirmative answer given, but rather is a discussion of an assumed psychosis that is behind an affirmative answer. In other words, it takes as an assumption that the affirmative answer is flawed, then lists hypothetical flaws and biases that may be responsible -- without actually examining any examples or making an effort to prove the case.

The point is, if you want to answer the question "Do benevolent autocrats exist...?" you must actually examine the examples given, not talk about hypothetical flaws that may or may not apply.

 

[BWV]

No, neither of those appear in the OP and the question is somewhat different from the question in the title of the thread (the OP itself contains no questions) -- and your thesis statement does not answer the question. Though you may have thought you implied it, you didn't. For future reference, please be explicit about what your point is...however, there's still a problem:

For the points themselves:
The question in the title is actually worded as assuming they do exist (though it could imply a theoretical assumption), which is generally not a good way to word a question. The question above is much better as a problem statement.

Your Friedman quote implied to me a thesis that China is an example, answering the question affirmatively (Q: Do benevolent dictatorships exist? A: Yes, and here's an example). The Easterly quote doesn't actually attempt to answer the question or refute the affirmative answer given, but rather is a discussion of an assumed psychosis that is behind an affirmative answer. In other words, it takes as an assumption that the affirmative answer is flawed, then lists hypothetical flaws and biases that may be responsible -- without actually examining any examples or making an effort to prove the case.

The point is, if you want to answer the question "Do benevolent autocrats exist...?" you must actually examine the examples given, not talk about hypothetical flaws that may or may not apply.

That is ridiculous, I quoted in the OP the whole abstract of Easterly's paper which clearly stated the problem and the thesis:

Benevolent autocrat” is a perpetually popular concept in development policy discussions. This paper suggests this popularity is not solely explained by academic theory and evidence. The history of the concept shows the role of political motivations for embracing the concept. The literature on cognitive biases shows multiple biases that would lead to beliefs in benevolent autocrats even if they did not exist, especially as these interact with stylized facts about autocracy and growth. Neither political motivations nor cognitive biases imply disproof of the concept, but they do suggest the need for even more rigorous scrutiny. The theory implied by a benevolent autocrat story is naïve relative to modern theories of autocracy, and it presumes an implausible level of knowledge by autocrats. The evidence underlying “benevolent autocrat” interpretations has equally plausible – or more plausible -- alternative explanations. The well-known “leaders matter” results of Jones and Olken (2005, 2009) do not demonstrate that intentions and actions of individual autocrats affect growth. Since democratic rights are an end in themselves, the burden of proof is on autocrats to show that they provide material payoffs that offer a trade-off with such rights. This paper argues they fail to meet that burden of proof.

As Easterly states, the burden of proof rests on those who would allege that there have been benevolent autocrats who are responsible for periods of high economic growth. Just like a skeptic does not have to refute each and every instance of a reported UFO sighting and can state that the overall methodology and evidence offered by UFO proponents is lacking and suggest cognitive errors that may explain the phenomena of UFO sightings, Easterly is perfectly justified in outlining a position that states that current economic methods are insufficient to establish a casual link between strong autocratic leaders and economic growth. If you are familiar with economics, you will know that arguments are couched in the framework of a statistical null hypothesis rather than attempting to ascertain some existential truth.

 

[noobilly]

The way I see it is like this:

When a country is in a pretty undeveloped state economically, the steps to take towards prosperity are quite clear: raise the agricultural productivity by introducing modern agricultural techniques, attract foreign investment and use it to build factories and roads, then export cheap goods to advanced nations. A benevolent dictator will make sure that these steps are taken, while a non-benevolent dictator will (by definition) squeeze the masses for his own benefit. A democratically elected leader may ensure that these steps are taken, but he could also give empty promises while doing nothing beneficial for the nation.

However once a country is more developed, the road to improvement is much less clearly mapped out, so the ingenuity of the people is key in finding roads to increased prosperity. For that ingenuity to flourish, you need democracy.

 

[WhoWee]

The way I see it is like this:

When a country is in a pretty undeveloped state economically, the steps to take towards prosperity are quite clear: raise the agricultural productivity by introducing modern agricultural techniques, attract foreign investment and use it to build factories and roads, then export cheap goods to advanced nations. A benevolent dictator will make sure that these steps are taken, while a non-benevolent dictator will (by definition) squeeze the masses for his own benefit. A democratically elected leader may ensure that these steps are taken, but he could also give empty promises while doing nothing beneficial for the nation.

However once a country is more developed, the road to improvement is much less clearly mapped out, so the ingenuity of the people is key in finding roads to increased prosperity. For that ingenuity to flourish, you need democracy.

Then along comes foreign interference - it should be noted a strong Democracy is needed.