In post World War II period, have autocracies been better than democracies at generating long runs of growth, especially in developing/under-developed countries?

Pages 85 to 87 in the book (published in 2016), "The Rise and Fall of Nations, Ten rules of change in the post-crisis world" by Ruchir Sharma, Head of Emerging Markets and Chief Global Strategist for Morgan Stanley Investment Management in New York, USA,  (Chapter, The Circle of Life), deal with this question.

It starts by saying, "Following the spectacular three-decade boom in China, there is a strong tendency to believe that autocracies are better than democracies at generating long runs of growth, a myth that may be built not so much on the rise of China as on coverage of the rise of China."

And concludes, "Both democratic and authoritarian systems have advantages and disadvantages in the race to generate strong growth, and neither has a clear lead." .. "So there is no reason to assume autocratic regimes have generally brighter growth prospects - despite widespread admiration for Chinese-style command capitalism."

[I thank Ruchir Sharma and the book publisher and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above very short extracts from their book on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]

Comments

Archive

Show more