DOES HAVING DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AFFECTS THE GROWTH OF OUR ECONOMY?
Some authors hold that a democratic government and economic development have a reciprocal effect on each other. A classic example is Friedman. He believes that more democratic political rights will reinforce economic rights and therefore will be beneficial to economic development; on the other hand, the assurance of the individual’s economic freedom results in, and is predicated upon, the maintenance of a free-enterprise exchange economy that constitutes an ideal economic arrangement for a free society (Friedman 1962).
Although he also stressed that some activities of the democratic government, such as income redistribution, would tend to retard economic development, these activities are not peculiar to democracies. In Friedman’s opinion, what retards economic development is not democracy, but governmental interference.
Some scholars view the favorable effects between a democratic government and economic development as single-directional; that is, economic development leads to democracy, but democracy retards economic development. Therefore democracy would be directly related with economic level, but inversely related with economic growth, since wealthy countries might have reached high economic level for other reasons, but would slow down after democracy is established, while for poor countries economic development has not create a favorable environment for democracy but thus they would also enjoy economic growth not retarded by democracy. Almost all the advanced economies of the world, including the United States, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, etc., and also almost all the emerging economies in contemporary world, made their initial take-off and fastest growth under non-democracy, or at least not under the kind of democracy we have in mind today.
The Business plan on Development and Growth of Verizon Wireles
Verizon Wireless aspires for manageable development as a wide market leader in wireless services as well as for dominance in major wireless service markets. In both situations, the Verizon Wireless services will have to do critical roles. Verizon Wireless has the capability to establish its dominance in wireless service markets normally through acquisition of other powerful wireless service ...
At lower stages of economic level, democracy would be unfavorable to economic development, while at the higher level, democracy would do a better job than non-democracy in encouraging economic development. Another way to put this curvilinear relationship is to control for level of democracy. As Barro concluded, “the middle level of democracy is most favorable to growth, the lowest level comes second, and the highest level comes third.”
The causal relationships remain largely inconclusive, but from my above analysis, I would rather believe that the relationship between the democratic government and economic development could be metaphor to that of “double ratchets”. That is, they both might have some effects, directly or indirectly, on each other, and either democracy or economy might develop for whatever reason, but as one of them develops, the “teeth” of its ratchet would become more and more “protrusive”, thus more and more effective in preventing the other from reversing. On one hand, economic development is not sufficient to bring about democracy, but as the economy develops to higher stages, it will become more and more effective in preventing democratic government from perishing. On the other hand, democratic government is not sufficient for the economy to grow, but as the polity develops toward a full-fledged democratic government, it will be more and more difficult for the economy to shrink or reverse to an earlier stage.
The Essay on The Role Of Government In Economic Development
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT American government always has been preoccupied with economic activities. During the first century of Americas nationhood, the main concerns of the early administrations were preserving the property of citizens. Although property rights still hold a high place in American values, other economic concernssuch as economic growth, level of employment, ...
In conclusion, in this paper I purport to show that previous studies of the relationship between democratic government and economic development may have over-emphasized the distinction between democracy and non-democracy, and that economic development can and should justify neither democracy nor non-democracy. I also suggest that future studies may focus on other characters of the regime than democracy versus non-democracy. If I may venture to make policy prescriptions, I would support the efforts to ensure economic freedom, to promote the development of competitive capitalism, and to enhance individual freedom and equality. However, I would rather not support such efforts to “export” democracy to developing countries or such passive attitudes as to “wait-and-see” economic development to automatically bring about democratic government.
