Авторитарные лидеры Азии и их слабая экономика

Oct 3, 2018 Jayati Ghosh

НЬЮ-ДЕЛИ – Хотя в новостях чаще говорят о президенте США Дональде Трампе, культ авторитарных лидеров больше всего развит в Азии. На континенте имеется масса правителей, которые считают выгодной централизацию власти, в их числе премьер-министр Индии Нарендра Моди, президент Филиппин Родриго Дутерте, президент Турции Реджеп Тайип Эрдоган и самый могущественный из всех них – председатель КНР Си Цзиньпин.

Конечно, их стиль руководства различается. Однако у всех азиатских авторитарных правителей есть общее главное свойство: они добиваются общественной поддержки за счёт экономического невежества. В частности, им выгодно популярное мнение, будто руководителям, сконцентрировавшим в своих руках политическую власть, легче добиваться роста экономики. В большинстве случаев люди соглашаются с этим утверждением, рассчитывая на финансовую прибыль и «развитие» в качестве награды.

Удивительно, но рынки тоже соглашаются с этим ошибочным суждением. Глобальные инвесторы склонны пренебрегать правами человека и предпочитают стабильность и авторитарную решительность вместо непредсказуемости демократии. Фондовые и валютные рынки регулярно наказывают государства мира даже за малейшие намёки на политические неурядицы. Между тем, руководители, обладающие большей властью и меньше ограничиваемые системой сдержек и противовесов, считаются лучше позиционированными для проведения значимых «реформ».

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 Comments on this article

somsel Oct 19, 2018

I don't see any facts, arguments, or even assertions about bad economic policy in the Philippines. I was just there in September and business seemed to be booming. Last I heard it was still suffering 8% annual economic growth. There remain cultural impediments to Singaporean levels of prosperity but those are for the people to handle as they will.

Also Duterte is a strong leader with broad and massive popular support but he is not a dictator. Of course, temptations will remain but the political and military structure remains pluralistic with diffuse power centers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rohit Singh Oct 18, 2018

The article presented here looks more like a politically motivated blame game sort of a piece rather than a very well researched and data driven article.
There are many points presented/accused in the article, but substantial back up through data or numbers or even any researches have not been presented for the same. I seriously want to believe what she is trying to convey, but i think we need more substance than just blatant blames towards somebody or anybody.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 4, 2018

Jayati Ghosh believes autocratic leaders in Asia are not only „bad“ for democracy, they are also bad for their countries’ economy. With the exception of China, he says India, the Philippines and Turkey are struggling, while far from being a basket case like Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro, who has ruined its economy, despite the immense oil wealth.
The author takes Narendra Modi to task, saying India’s economy is sinking, due to his failed policy. A hard-line Hindu nationalist, Modi is a divisive figure. He was accused of doing little to stop the 2002 religious riots when more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed, while he was chief minister of Gujarat. His years in office since 2014 have stoked rising social tensions and religious intolerance towards Muslims.
Critics say „Modinomics“ has "completely ruined" India's economic indices. The controversial demonitisation, currency ban, and the Goods and Services tax are partly responsible for sluggish growth. The Indian rupee has collapsed to an all-time low against the dollar, triggered by higher oil prices and fleeing foreign investors, who flocked to India, motivated by the easy money in the West following the 2008 global financial crisis. Now with interest rates going up in the US and other parts of the Western world, there has been a dash to take money out of India.
Two years into Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency, economic woes in the Philippines are mounting, due to concerns over weakening rule of law, extrajudicial killings, erratic policies and the effect of new tax measures . The country is seeing an inflationary upsurge, a tumbling currency (weakest in nearly 12 years against the dollar), widening current account deficit ($2.5 billion, highest in 18 years), and a dramatic decline in new foreign investment (down by 51.8% in 2017). Duterte, a maverick autocrat believes he could shake up the economy without taking technocrats on board.
Turkey entered a dangerous period of one-man rule following the June election, with too much power placed in Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s hands, while the system lacks the checks and balances of other executive presidencies like France or the US. Erdogan has polarised opinion, while enjoying mass support. Declaring a state of emergency, he curtails protests, cracks down on opponents, critical journalists and academics, jailing some 160,000 people.
Erdogan maintains great authority that empowers him to address Turkey's economic woes, managing them in defiance of traditional economic thinking and putting the blame on foreign aggression. While the currency suffered he pressed the Central Bank not to raise interest rates, saying high interest rates cause rather than cure inflation
Following the playbook of authoritarian leaders confronting troubled economies, Erdogan accuses a shadowy “interest rate lobby” of seeking to undermine the Turkish economy. He even suggested that he might restrict the independence of its national bank, driving foreign investors away.
Xi Jinping is presiding over a declining economy in China. Thanks to “heterodox policies and significant state intervention” its economy is “far less vulnerable to external shocks.” He has so far “managed to deal with an increasingly complex and hostile external economic environment. However “many serious internal concerns could easily erupt into bigger problems,” because our economy is fully integrated into global trade and finance, creating an interdependence.
In the 1980s, Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina experienced spurts of rapid growth followed by sudden reversals, a common feature of populist or authoritarian governments. Today, the right-wing nationalist regimes in Hungary and Poland may be poised to weather the same violent storm.
Experts say there is no iron link between authoritarianism and poor economic outcomes. Countries like Singapore and China notably prospered under undemocratic governments. The problem is that authoritarianism, bad economic policy and “a bad grasp of the fundamentals, especially when colored by nationalism,” leave leaders like Erdogan “extremely resistant to seeking help from the IMF. As usual civilians have to bear the brunt of their leaders’ hubris.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Melih Erdogmus Oct 4, 2018

The regimes of the Asian countries have seemed to be looking for a long-term success out of their short-term solutions to the problems emerged right after the US had tightened its monetary policy towards these countries affected by the direct impact, except for China.
The trade-war policy combined with several political conflicts with China over the economical matters and some internal issues emerged out the relations with countries such as Russia and Turkey made the world reconsidered where the actual trade should take place in. Increased taxes on products from China had an actual impact on the society's choice of ruling power in the US when the expenditures increased and the society had to pay more.
So-called expenditures to increase the welfare of some certain societies in Asia have actually been a cover to exalt their political power to ensure that the power would be still on for them in the next four-year term. Imagine millions of people gingered up right after when the leaders ensure for the continuity and existence of new projects that have had nothing to do with advancement but yet another burden on tax-payers.
Poorly-executed incentives provided for a certain part of the society have managed to cover the expenditures meant to be spent for advancement of the society which will probably be in the lack of advancements for the next couple of decades but the society will still be looking for the reasons of why it would never have been as advanced as the rest of the world, precisely the West.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kien Choong Oct 4, 2018

It seems odd to look only at short-term outcomes. I suggest evaluating alternative regimes based on their long-term outcomes.

I would agree that authoritarian regimes per se do not deliver good long-term outcomes. But the key issue is not whether a regime is authoritarian or holds regular elections. The key issue is whether the relevant regime is attentive to the needs and voices of its people.

So I would argue that Singapore, Taiwan, S Korea, China and now Vietnam, are examples of regimes which are focussed on fostering inclusive growth in their respective countries.

(Admittedly, growth in China has not been "inclusive", but there is a legitimate debate on whether equal but low growth is better than unequal but high growth. I understand the Chinese government's judgement is that there is a medium-term trade-off between growth and equality, but their long-run goal is inclusive growth.)

On the other hand, while democracies are usually more attentive to the needs and voices of its peoples, this is not universally true. For example, in the past few decades (since the Reagan/Tacherite era), growth in many Western democracies have ceased to be inclusive. The development rights of black Americans have long been neglected by US governments. Democratic India, while admirable in avoiding massive famine since independence, appears to have tolerated chronic deprivations among its poor and illiterate populations. (Literacy in India is far lower than in China.)

Rather than focus on "authoritarian vs democratic" regimes, I would focus on regimes that are "stable vs unstable" and regimes with governments committed to long-term inclusive growth, vs regimes with governments that are committed to the interests of its elites (e.g., high caste Indians, wealthy billionaires, corporate interests, private schools).
- jagjeet sinha Oct 4, 2018
  
  + 1
  Agree that Inclusiveness perhaps a better measurement yardstick.
  Democratic India is no match to Autocratic China.
  Sovereign Economics in India created Islands of relative prosperity.
  The Economic Geography bequeathed by First Families was glaring.
  Yet Modinomics failure in realignment of Economics with Democracy is rarely targeted. While Dynasty was demolished at the ballot box, Dynasty's Economics remains - removal of Economic Inequalities bequeathed should have been priority.
  Populists worldwide seem to stumble in addressing the very rationale for the mandates they secured. Instead the focus on other priorities like Demonetization and GST - suggest that Old Wine is recycled in New Bottles.
  China's success in Sovereign Economics is more Inclusive - of course Inequalities are bound to have manifested. But all broad measures of Inclusiveness suggest that "Autocratic China" is more democratic than "Democratic India".
  - Kien Choong Oct 4, 2018
    
    Thank you for your reply!
    
    I learnt from Amartya Sen to be suspicious about a "one size fits all" formulaic approach to development. We cannot just assume that holding regular democratic elections will deliver good outcomes. We actually have to focus on the desired outcomes, and continually scrutinise existing institutions to ensure that they do in fact deliver the desired outcomes.
    
    That said, democracy is undoubtedly something we all value, but that is not the only thing that we care about. We also care about being gainfully employed, having real opportunities for education, equal access to effective public health, etc.
    
    It's just too simplistic to say "authoritarian governments don't work".
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Oct 3, 2018

A quick check of the IMF WEO database shows strong growth expected for India, China, and the Philippines. Not so much (but still positive) for Turkey. Asia's strongmen aren't doing that badly.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Oct 3, 2018

Nobody believes that an authoritarian regime run by a nutjob will do well economically. Nor does anyone believe that Modi is much different from Manmohan Singh- India is not an authoritarian country because the Army won't shoot people to defend the regime. On the contrary, any Administration can be thrown out by the electorate because of a bad monsoon or, famously, because of a rise in the price of onions.

South Korea and Taiwan were highly authoritarian in the Sixties and Seventies and did do very well. But that was because they pursued sensible economic policies. China has always been authoritarian but experienced remarkable growth when it became somewhat less so. It remains to be seen whether it it can fulfil Xi's ambitious vision under more repressive and opaque political conditions.

States become fragile for all sorts of reasons. Authoritarianism is irrelevant. The same thing can be said about Economies.

There may be 'global investors' who listen to Prof. Jayati Ghosh. They will quickly lose all their money. Neither 'human rights' nor 'autocratic resolve' makes a blind bit of difference. They don't correlate with the efficient allocation of resources in any way. Indeed, ceteris paribus, they should worsen if human rights are not respected or if an autocrat is running things.

What on earth would a Leftist Professor at Delhi's JNU know about the mentality of 'global investors'?

The 2008 crisis was about Western capital markets screwing up. It was known that emerging markets also had some problems- but they weren't the same sorts of problems and it was perfectly feasible for countries like India to fix those problems. They did not do so. Why? They don't really have to fix them. They can simply alternate spells in power with an almost identical opposition coalition of equally corrupt and stupid hacks.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Modi is a 'strong man'. He is a nice Gujerati vegetarian who goes around hugging everyone and doing Yoga and projecting himself as the new Mahatma Gandhi whose mission is to end outdoor defecation in rural India.
- Dark Chocolate Oct 3, 2018
  
  "India is not an authoritarian country because the Army won't shoot people to defend the regime."
  
  That's simply not true. What about Kashmir where the Army regularly shot protesters? What about South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh) where dissents are heavily suppressed? Mind you there is a law in Kashmir and South Tibet that precisely gives the state the power to kill or detain anyone with impunity. The law is called AFSPA (Armed Force Special Power Act) and is imposed on area India deemed 'disturbed'.
  - vivek iyer Oct 3, 2018
    
    The Army is Hindu. There are very few Muslim officers or even jawans. History shows, they will shoot non-Hindus quite happily, if those non-Hindus are shooting at them. They will also slaughter Communists with perfect sangfroid.
    
    What worries North Block & the PMO is a scenario where jawans are called on to shoot Hindus. The consensus is this can only be done where there is a National Security threat- e.g. after Godhra. However, no administration- even that of Mrs. Gandhi- has ever had confidence that the Army could be used against Hindu opposition leaders. Recall, the excuse Mrs Gandhi gave for declaring the Emergency. It was that JP had called on the Army to rebel- i.e. the opposition had first endangered the chain of command. Essentially, the Army sat out the Emergency- but it was brief. Mrs Gandhi realised- as did all other parties- that it would be very difficult to co-opt the Army for one simple reason. Once you rely on the soldiers- as both Pakistan and, later, Mujib, did- you create a Frankenstein monster. The soldiers will take over.
    
    It is easy to talk nonsense about why India is a democracy. The answer is simple- the Army is Hindu- a decentralised Religion in which everybody thinks they are better than everybody else. Democracy acknowledges this aspect of the Hindu psyche- albeit in a hypocritical manner.
    
    Officers know that the jawans will obey orders in the short run, but sooner or later they will go on furlough to their villages and will be affected by the mood there. So long as the Government is safely Hindu and there is sufficient countervailing power for rural stakeholders, they will carry on taking orders. However, there is a limit beyond which they can't be pushed.
    
    BTW 'South Tibet' is hilarious. Hindi is now the lingua franca in Arunachal. The Chinese will get another bloody nose if they cling to delusions in that regard.
    - Dark Chocolate Oct 5, 2018
      
      "The Chinese will get another bloody nose if they cling to delusions in that regard. "
      
      Get another bloody nose? Talk about delusions.
      South Tibet (so called Arunachal Pradesh) will definitely be free one day. The area is restless and the people there are seething with anger and India knows it. This is the reason AFSPA is imposed on South Tibet.
      
      Free South Tibet!
      - vivek iyer Oct 5, 2018
        
        I have reported you to Chairman Xi for owning a Winnie the Pooh doll. You will soon be getting much more than a bloody nose. Who will free you?
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Pension Guardian Oct 3, 2018

What she want Asian leaders who will kowtow to West . All of the leaders are looking after each countries national interest. She wants Asia to look like Middle East. No mention of introduction of universal health care being implemented in India. GST will be beneficial in the long run for the Indian economy. India needs to reform the banking sectors, it needs to addressed immediately .Most of the teaching staff in her Universities - left-wing Fabian Socialist are supporters of incomptent and corrupt Congress Party and Rahul Gandhi.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/kQFRINoru

Авторитарные лидеры Азии и их слабая экономика

Support High-Quality Commentary

India’s Demonetization Disaster

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Авторитарные лидеры Азии и их слабая экономика

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification