As a result, not only are doubts about the value and wisdom of democracy getting a much wider hearing than they were a decade or two ago, so too are voices arguing that authoritarian regimes might be more capable and effective. Certainly, these are all serious issues in the United States. Successive U. Administrations have proven woefully unable to focus sustained attention on a raft of major long-term challenges—whether it is infrastructure decay, the role of entitlement spending in the U.
The disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in the U. With respect to political competition producing divisions and conflict, the U. And looking at the state of U. But should we blame democracy itself, or should we blame ourselves for the pathologies of our own politics? In other words, are these problems in fact endemic to democracies? And are authoritarian governments largely able to avoid them, as some enthusiasts of authoritarianism claim?
The comparative empirical research on these questions is complex and does not always yield definite results. But at least some insights are available. Moreover, most authoritarian systems do no better in these areas. Although it is easy to understand why electoral cycles might incline or even condemn democracies to short-termism, in fact the empirical record is mixed with regard to how consistently democracies suffer from it, and how much autocracies escape it.
Climate change starkly demonstrates the challenge of finding the political will to take serious near-term steps to address a long-term problem. Western democracies are obviously struggling to respond adequately. Yet this does not appear to be a shortcoming particular to democracies. A recent systematic study comparing the climate change policies of democracies to those of autocracies found that democracies have done slightly better overall.
It is established democracies, such as Germany and the Nordic countries, that have taken the most significant measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China has of course attracted attention in the past few years for its engagement on climate change, but it has come relatively late to the issue, and is unusual among authoritarian governments in doing so.
The strong resistance of the current U. Administration and many senior Republican senators and representatives to address the issue at the Federal level is not primarily a result of endemic democratic short-termism. It reflects some distinctive features of U.
Where this ideological aversion is not dominant—as in California, for instance—a democratically elected government is able to take at least some serious measures to address climate change at the state level. Comparing how countries provide public goods offers another way to examine the relative balance of short-term versus longer-term considerations. The short-term tack usually entails providing popular but economically inefficient subsidies on essential goods like fuel, while long-term approaches emphasize investments in areas like public education and infrastructure.
Democracies tend to resort less to subsidies than non-democracies and to invest more in public goods overall. In developing countries, democratization tends to lead to greater spending on education , especially primary education, which is a good long-term investment. The idea that most authoritarian governments generally engage in savvy long-term economic planning and policymaking is an illusion. Moreover, many authoritarian regimes are in fact subject to electoral cycles and myopic thinking, even though their elections are uncompetitive or semi-competitive at best.
From Russia and Turkey to Venezuela and Zimbabwe, it has become strikingly common for authoritarian leaders to seek to legitimate their rule via elections. Such dictatorships suffer from many of the symptoms of short-termism and boost government spending by two percent on average during election years.
Remarkably, these results hold even when no opposition is contesting the election, since autocratic leaders frequently feel pressure to demonstrate their popularity to fend off challengers from within the ruling elite. The tendency of U. Quite a few politicians talk a good game about the need for budget austerity, but when push comes to shove reveal themselves to be deficit doves. Of course, the United States is hardly alone among democracies in its chronic inability to inflict short-term pain for long-term gain.
The link between views of the economy and assessments of democratic performance is strong. In 24 of 27 countries surveyed, people who say the national economy is in bad shape are more likely than those who say it is in good shape to be dissatisfied with the way democracy is working. In the other three countries surveyed, so few people say the economy is good that this relationship cannot be analyzed.
Views about economic opportunity also play a role. In 26 of 27 nations, those who believe their country is one in which most people cannot improve their standard of living are more likely to be dissatisfied with the way democracy is working. However, personal income is not a major factor. And multilevel regression analysis suggests that, in general, demographic variables including gender, age and education are not strongly related to democratic dissatisfaction.
While views about economic conditions have a strong relationship with assessments of democratic performance, non-economic factors also play an important role. Opinions about how well democracy is working in a country are related to whether people believe their most fundamental rights are being respected. This pattern is especially apparent in Europe, where in nations such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Hungary those who believe free expression is not protected are significantly more likely to be unhappy with the state of democracy.
Again, the pattern is especially intense in Europe. For instance, dissatisfaction is pervasive among people who see politicians as uncaring and out of touch.
Many also say the politicians in their country are corrupt, and those who hold this view are consistently more dissatisfied with how their democracy is functioning. The study highlights additional factors related to democratic dissatisfaction in Europe, including attitudes toward the EU. As a recent Pew Research Center report highlighted, Europeans still tend to associate the EU with noble aspirations, such as peace, prosperity and democracy.
At the same time, they also say the Brussels-based institution is inefficient, intrusive and out of touch with ordinary citizens. Somin points out that voters have punished incumbents for droughts and shark attacks and rewarded them for recent sports victories. Maybe all it takes is for a politician to worry that she could be the unlucky chump who gets punished for something she actually did. In such a case, he predicts, voters will feel a perennial dissatisfaction, stemming from the tendency of their canniest and most long-lasting politicians to be cavalier about campaign promises.
Sound familiar? When the Founding Fathers designed the federal system, not paying too much attention to voters was a feature, not a bug. Why do we vote, and is there a reason to do it or a duty to do it well? Yet he has previously written that participation can be meaningful even when its practical effect is nil, as when a parent whose spouse willingly handles all child care still feels compelled to help out.
He believes, in other words, that voting is part of a larger market in civic virtue, the way that farming is part of a larger market in food, and he goes so far as to suggest that a businessman who sells food and clothing to Martin Luther King, Jr.
Edgar Hoover is committing civic evil. More than once, Brennan compares uninformed voting to air pollution. Clean air is a commons, an instance of market failure, dependent on government protection for its existence; farming is part of a market. But maybe voting is neither commons nor market. Relatively gentle, of course. The lack of certainty about the future makes a hash of merely prudential calculation.
No voting system is flawless. Only 19 percent of Americans today say they can trust their government to do what is right. Meanwhile, citizens in developing countries see authoritarian leaders as more trustworthy than democratic politicians. Increasingly, it seems that people across the globe are skeptical of the ability of democratic governments to act effectively — including as good custodians of the economy. Indeed, the liberal democratic system is unwittingly undermining the economic growth that is necessary for its continued survival.
By design, Western politicians have relatively short political horizons; they are often in office for terms of less than five years.
One of the most fundamental obstacles to effective governance is the short electoral cycle embedded in many democratic systems. Frequent elections taint policymaking, as politicians, driven by the rational desire to win elections, opt for quick fixes that have a tendency to undermine long-term growth. Navy divers survey damage to the I bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed in killing 13 people.
Navy via Getty Images. Clearly there have been periods in the past when governments have chosen to undertake large infrastructure projects without succumbing to political myopia.
Launched under President Franklin D. Today, when it comes to infrastructure, China and India present a useful study in contrasts. Both countries needed roads to increase productivity.
In the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, India was ranked 68th of countries for overall infrastructure, well behind China, which was ranked 42nd.
A second major obstacle to effective democratic governance is interest group lobbying, a feature in many liberal democracies that tends to interfere with the proper allocation of assets. Congress, roughly double the amount spent in Across sectors, lobbying by special interest groups has a discernible impact on public policy decisions in ways that negatively affect trade, infrastructure, and ultimately economic growth.
For example, environmental groups oppose pipelines and new oil exploration projects, agricultural interests lobby for farm subsidies, and American trucking interest groups oppose additional tolls earmarked for road maintenance. Political cycles too often keep politicians beholden to the individuals and corporate interests that help fund their campaigns and to the vagaries of public opinion polling.
And because democratic politics rests on political contributions, it widens the inequality between rich and poor. It is the use of wealth to influence political outcomes that helps inequality take root.
0コメント