Moore on Poverty

Mike Moore writes in the Herald linking democracy, or the lack of it, to poverty. Extracts:

Poor democracies have always outperformed authoritarian societies. Democracies score 20 to 40 per cent better even in poor nations, whether it be life expectancy, infant mortality, or farm production and clean water.

Democracies are less corrupt, more efficient because leaders are held accountable, and an active civil society and free media are the watchdogs, the cleansing air of transparency, and the adaptability of democracy drives up better results.

There has never been a famine in a democracy, no two democracies have even gone to war, and where there are democracies the numbers of civil wars go down. No evidence was produced to back up the claim that dictatorships do better.

While I am in total agreement with what Moore is saying, I think he slightly over-states the case about no democracies having gone to war.  There are a couple of dozen or arguable cases listed here.  However that does not detract that generally fully democratic states don’t tend to go to war against each other.

Democracy is more than having a vote, it’s also about freedoms such as property and human rights. This interests me because I’m a congenital do-gooder and know-all.

I think this point is worth stressing.  A vote every three years is a small part of the equation.  I value my voice more than my vote.  The right to free speech, to advocate, to criticise are crucial parts of a democratic society.

Why is it that countries that should be wealthy, that have resources, have continued to underperform? Poverty is a man-made thing so we can fix it, but how and what works and what fails? What’s the common denominator in success and failure?

Imagine how rich certain states with massive oil resources would be if they were governed democratically?

Open economies always do better. Trade and competition drive up results and help to combat corruption, as well as allocate resources more efficiently. Private ownership, spread through society, works.

Without secure property rights, poverty will endure, corruption remains endemic, and investment withers. People without property rights cannot realise on their assets.

Indeed.  Those who dismiss property rights lightly do not realise how crucial they are to a prosperous economy.  No, they are not an absolute, but they are incredibly important.  Just look at places without them.

When China established de facto securitisation of property and liberalised agriculture, productivity jumped some 42 per cent between 1978 and 1984. Its more open economy has helped to lift hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty.

China is just one example of the empirical evidence backing up the theory.  Look at their perfromance also in more recent times?  Also compare the stark contrast of West vs East Germany and North vs South Korea.  There is no need to keep debating the issue -we’ve had 40 year experiments with conclusive results. The challenge should be how to improve democracy, human rights and property rights throughout the globe.  Because that is the longer term solution to poverty.