Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (94327)	1/8/2005 6:47:15 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793931

Do Institutions Cause Growth? By Bradford Plumer Readers of this site—all three of you!—know that I'm a big fan over the liberalization/democratization debate. The discussion boils down to one question, really: is it better for a developing country to become a democracy first and then work on economic development, or should the economic stuff come first so that people can become rich enough and educated enough to have a democracy? One way this plays out is when the "democracy first!" folks say that you can't have good economic growth without things like transparency in your financial institutions, the rule of law, low corruption, and that these things all require democracy. (More on this here.) But that argument always struck me as odd. After all, Singapore's not really a democracy, but its government doesn't go around seizing people's stuff and monkeying with the law. Same with the East Asian "tigers" during their boom years in the 1950s. Not democracies. At a glance, democracy is probably more likely to lead to good institutions and the rule of law, but so can a benevolent dictatorship. Anyways, I just found this NBER paper (PDF) by Glaeser, Shleifer, La Porta, and Lopez-de-Silanes that goes into this critique in more depth. After doing the analyses, they find that the good democratic stuff everyone loves—constitutional limits on sovereign power, judicial independence, etc.—have no predictive power for the growth of per capita income. "[I]nstitutions," the authors claim, "have only a second order effect on economic performance." So what does have an effect? Human capital—stuff like primary school enrollment, which shapes both institutional and productive capacities of a society." Most importantly, they're all very skeptical of pushing countries with low levels of human capital into democracy. Let me just add that the work of Shleifer, La Porta, and Lopez-de-Silanes on these sorts of subjects has come under heavy fire. Previously, they've argued that a country's economic success depends on good deal on what kind of legal tradition it has—British-style common law or French-style civil law. Nicholas Thompson discussed their work in Legal Affairs, along with some of the criticisms. Still, it's interesting.http://plumer.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_plumer_archive.html#110521666949214592

To: LindyBill who wrote (94327)	1/9/2005 12:54:10 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793931

The LA Times says: It seems that the Bush Adm kept the indictment quiet for a year..... Though Hillary Clinton's former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday, a move that spared the former first couple and the Democratic Party significant embarrassment during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign. "The indictment was handed down more than a year ago," the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. Story Continues Below @ newsmax.com