My point is that economic growth takes place under a variety of circumstances
Of course.
including having a dictatorship
Again of course, but that doesn't mean having a dictatorship is good for economic growth in most cases.
The policies of the government probably matter more than the political system of the country when your just looking at economic growth, but dictators are more likely to be highly corrupt (after all you can't vote them out of office for being corrupt), and they are more likely to be repressive, and political repression tends to slow economic growth.
or even a government some consider socialist
Again true, but what people consider it to be isn't so important in this context.
It goes beyond consideration, the Chinese government still retains a lot of ownership of industry, so it is still socialist to a fair degree.
But its growth increased as it became less socialist, and the fast growing part of the economy is the private sector not the socialist side.
The simplistic view of too many in the US is that no government or little government always creates economic growth and individual freedom.
Only the anarco-capitalists would believe that no government tends to create better conditions for economic growth, and while I would disagree strongly with their opinion, and call it incorrect, it can't reasonably be called simplistic.
As for less government being a benefit in economic growth, well it certainly does seem to be the case, and China is one of the best examples to back up the idea (with its growth exploding after government/party restrictions on the economy where removed). But the issue of "more or less government" isn't the only factor, and even withing that issue, "less government" can mean different things. Reducing taxes and regulation, and spending together tends to help, at least to a point. Not maintaining publicly owned infrastructure, or refusing to enforce laws and keep the peace wouldn't. |
