Why is Argentina's economy always such a basket case?

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,279
Francis Fukuyama in his book "Origins of Political Order", argued that for a successful modern democracy to arise a state needs to achieve 3 features: rational and efficient bureaucracy, rule of law, and accountability - and most importantly, in that order. Countries which set up democracies before they have functioning states, governed by the rule of law and administered through autonomous, meritocratic bureaucracies, frequently find that the institutions of the state are hijacked by politicians and corrupted as a result. This has been the experience of Argentina, and a number of South American states.
Comrade Fukuyama has been proven wrong on his "end of history" thesis, so I am not enclined to use his thoughts as reliable indicators of anything...
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,861
Florania
Comrade Fukuyama has been proven wrong on his "end of history" thesis, so I am not enclined to use his thoughts as reliable indicators of anything...
21 Lessons for 21st Century has a chapter devoted to this.
 
Jul 2012
784
Australia
I am not quite sure about this theory. For example, India is a democracy, a strong one indeed, the largest democracy, and been so ever since independence in 1947.
There is no suggestion that there are political systems that are not succeptible to corruption. Or that democracies are not possible following a different order of development, But to succeed certain elements must be present, and the order they are acquired is important.

In regard to India, here are Fukuyama's more recent works...
from: Modi is Pretty Impressive, says Francis Fukuyama - Open The Magazine
25 May 2017.

"There are certain democracies that are not doing well for a common reason: the United States, Japan, India and Italy. In all four, the central problem is weak government. Basically, governments reflecting divided societies that cannot make big, important decisions for the common good.

The previous Congress Government in India was exhibit number one. You can see this in things like infrastructure where India, compared to China, is falling way behind because the Government simply could not decide to build the airport or the road or the electrical system. I think the reason that Modi won by such a large majority is that Indians were just sick of it. Their Government was not producing results, and they wanted a strongman that could actually do stuff. Now they’ve got one.

"During his first year, I kept thinking to myself, ‘He’s not delivering, really, on his promise of actually strong leadership.’ But now I would say it’s pretty impressive, both for good and for ill. For the good part, in terms of economic reforms, the GST reform is pretty hard to pull off. You’ve got how many states in India, 29? All of them have to agree to this thing. And demonetisation was mind-boggling, that you’d basically confiscate the cash of 1.1 billion people. That may be not that hard to pull off, but surviving that politically is really impressive, and he seems to have succeeded in doing that.

"The Aadhaar system also took a fair amount of capacity to get running. I guess I’ve come to feel that I have to re-evaluate my view of the Indian Government because it’s been more effective than I would have thought. I think that Modi, like Abe in Japan and Trump, reflects an unhappiness of voters with weak and indecisive democratic governments, and a yearning for somebody who’s going to cut through all the nonsense and get things done.

"Now, the downside. This is based on a massive shift in India’s national identity. I think one of the really good things about Indian democracy since Independence has been that you’ve had basically a liberal concept, what Sunil Khilnani called the ‘idea of India’. I think that’s the only way that you can get such a diverse society to live with one another. The BJP wants to shift that sense of identity to a much more specifically Hindu one. I just think that that’s a formula for endless conflict down the road. I think the good aspects of strong government are coming together with some more disturbing ones.

"I think it would be very good if India returned to being a model of a successful liberal society—in which you have this incredible diversity but nonetheless is a coherent political unit that has a government that can make decisions, and do things for the common good, and set the groundwork for continued economic growth. I guess that would be a very positive vision.

"I think the bad vision is that it succumbs to this populist nationalist trend, and wants a strong government just for the sake of a strong government based on a narrow concept of national identity that excludes really important parts of its own population."
 
  • Like
Reactions: peccavi

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,861
Florania
There is no suggestion that there are political systems that are not succeptible to corruption. Or that democracies are not possible following a different order of development, But to succeed certain elements must be present, and the order they are acquired is important.

In regard to India, here are Fukuyama's more recent works...
from: Modi is Pretty Impressive, says Francis Fukuyama - Open The Magazine
25 May 2017.

"There are certain democracies that are not doing well for a common reason: the United States, Japan, India and Italy. In all four, the central problem is weak government. Basically, governments reflecting divided societies that cannot make big, important decisions for the common good.

The previous Congress Government in India was exhibit number one. You can see this in things like infrastructure where India, compared to China, is falling way behind because the Government simply could not decide to build the airport or the road or the electrical system. I think the reason that Modi won by such a large majority is that Indians were just sick of it. Their Government was not producing results, and they wanted a strongman that could actually do stuff. Now they’ve got one.

"During his first year, I kept thinking to myself, ‘He’s not delivering, really, on his promise of actually strong leadership.’ But now I would say it’s pretty impressive, both for good and for ill. For the good part, in terms of economic reforms, the GST reform is pretty hard to pull off. You’ve got how many states in India, 29? All of them have to agree to this thing. And demonetisation was mind-boggling, that you’d basically confiscate the cash of 1.1 billion people. That may be not that hard to pull off, but surviving that politically is really impressive, and he seems to have succeeded in doing that.

"The Aadhaar system also took a fair amount of capacity to get running. I guess I’ve come to feel that I have to re-evaluate my view of the Indian Government because it’s been more effective than I would have thought. I think that Modi, like Abe in Japan and Trump, reflects an unhappiness of voters with weak and indecisive democratic governments, and a yearning for somebody who’s going to cut through all the nonsense and get things done.

"Now, the downside. This is based on a massive shift in India’s national identity. I think one of the really good things about Indian democracy since Independence has been that you’ve had basically a liberal concept, what Sunil Khilnani called the ‘idea of India’. I think that’s the only way that you can get such a diverse society to live with one another. The BJP wants to shift that sense of identity to a much more specifically Hindu one. I just think that that’s a formula for endless conflict down the road. I think the good aspects of strong government are coming together with some more disturbing ones.

"I think it would be very good if India returned to being a model of a successful liberal society—in which you have this incredible diversity but nonetheless is a coherent political unit that has a government that can make decisions, and do things for the common good, and set the groundwork for continued economic growth. I guess that would be a very positive vision.

"I think the bad vision is that it succumbs to this populist nationalist trend, and wants a strong government just for the sake of a strong government based on a narrow concept of national identity that excludes really important parts of its own population."
In various works, Thomas Sowell repetitively made the point that politicians usually cater to voters' opinions than real issues.
For example, voters are usually ignorant of even basic economics or the complications of the contemporary world; while
they often control the policies indirectly.
Confucius stated "Studies without thoughts mean confusion; thoughts without studies mean danger"; from my observation,
people are more likely to go through "thoughts without studies" because studies usually take some efforts.
How can we improve upon democracy?
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,861
Florania
We currently challenge universities and other post-secondary institutes for focusing on employment perspective.
In Weapons of Math Destruction, students from poorer families were taken advantage by for-profit colleges, and
they often pay for less than practical educations.
Thomas Sowell mentioned universities with numerous graduates in fields of humanities and liberal arts; they
tended to fill the positions of civil servants or became the educated people without employable skills.
Should universities and colleges focus on employable skills?