Argument: Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth

In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship. Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term [1] .

Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour.

It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development [2] . If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely.

[1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press, http://books.google.ch/books?id=6REC58gdt2sC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;hl=de&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false

[2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.

Candidate 1: "Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies."
Candidate 2: "Those cases show that the dictatorship helped the economy. Even if it did not trigger the growth, it laid the ground work for it. In Spain’s case it was a dictator who was able to change to the necessary free market policies while in South Korea it was the previous autocrats that launched the country’s miracle. While economic policy is more important than political freedoms, dictatorships are better at implementing such a framework of policies."
Candidate 3: "Dictatorships assure low cost political stability

Due to the lack of rotation in office, a dictatorship allows for a more stable government with more ability to plan for the long term, which is crucial for attracting foreign investment.

Given that a democracy requires regular elections, each election can change the economic environment of a country. A change in government may lead to a switch in policies, partisan appointments to government bodies, and a medium term focus always set on the next election.

Close elections can lead to disorder as votes are recounted and appeals lodged in the courts. After the 2006 Mexican presidential election, tight results lead to popular unrest and mass protests calling for a recount. The president elect had to deal with a large legislative faction that did not recognise him, and his opponent refused to concede defeat. [1] Without a stable framework, the lack of foreign confidence may impede development. The countries that have developed rapidly have tended to be those that have managed to attract this foreign direct investment thus in 2012 China managed to get $243 billion of FDI (18% of the total) against only $175 billion for the United States which is still a much bigger economy. [2]

Additionally the resources needed to operate a democratic society and run elections are a large expense for the state and society as a whole; the US presidential election costs $6bn, [3] money which would be much better spent investing in building infrastructure or businesses.

[1] See for example the case of Mexico’s 2006 elections. ‘Mass protest over Mexico election’, BBC News, 9 July 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5161862.stm ‘Fracas mars Mexico inauguration’, BBC News, 2 December 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6199356.stm

[2] OECD, ‘FDI in Figures’, April 2013, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/FDI%20in%20figures.pdf

[3] Hebblethwaite, Cordelia, ‘US election: How can it cost $6bn?’, BBC News, 2 August 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19052054"
Candidate 4: "Dictatorships are more effective than democracies at mobilizing resources for investment.

Dictatorships are superior to democracies in that they can make decisions and implement policies quicker. They can easily modify institutional and legal frameworks towards development goals, as there is no need for a political consensus behind their actions. This also insulates government from special interests that must be reconciled with in democracies. This allows dictatorships to create a pro-investment legal, economic and institutional framework such as low taxes, exchange rate manipulations and import tariffs, without facing political opposition.

For example, fracking, a technique used to extract hard to obtain gas, has generated widespread opposition in the West, leading to it being banned in France [1] . An autocratic government would find it easier to allow cheap access to this energy, boosting industry, as it could disregard this opposition.

Dictatorships can also control resources to allow for better health and education services, by determining curricula, salaries and supplies. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, with more doctors per capita than much of the Western world [2] , and in 2009 Shanghai came first in the PISA test [3] .

[1] Castelvecchi, Davide, ‘France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking’, Scientific American, 30 June 2011, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/30/france-becomes-first-country-to-ban-extraction-of-natural-gas-by-fracking/

[2] The Economist, ‘Reshoring manufacturing: Coming Home’, 19 January 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21569570-growing-number-american-companies-are-moving-their-manufacturing-back-united

[3] Brouwer, Steve, ‘The Cuban Revolutionary Doctor: The Ultimate Weapon of Solidarity’, Monthly Review, Vol.60 No.8, January 2009, http://www.monthlyreview.org/090112brouwer.php"
Candidate 5: "Economic development is not exclusively bound up with regimes or institutions. Natural factors such as rivers for transport, potential land use and natural resources are key to explaining why some countries are more prosperous than others. Many countries with higher economic growth are authoritarian or unstable democracies [1] . These may have the necessary economic conditions for growth even without these inclusive political institutions.

[1] GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, CIA World Facbook, 2013. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html"
Candidate 6: "Certain economic standards have to be met to genuinely satisfy individual autonomy and freedom. If economic growth is a necessity for democracy, dictatorships are better at gaining the required growth. If dictatorships grow faster while not redistributing wealth then at least there will be more wealth to redistribute when the state does eventually start to do so. It might therefore be considered once again that it is the autocratic state that sets the conditions for democracies to take over and increase development in the non-economic areas."
Candidate 7: "Dictatorships can prevent social unrest

Dictatorships are better at controlling discipline and order within society. They generally promote a state based on hierarchical values, through strict policies based on security. This allows them to prevent financial losses due to strikes and riots, and reduce crime rates, making the country more stable.

Singapore is a de-facto one party state, in which the ruling People’s Action Party, is accused of stopping the operation of opposition parties. A former Foreign Minister of Singapore has asked “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” [1] . This both makes the country more competitive because there are more productive days and more attractive to invest in as expats will want to live in countries with little crime. Moreover when it comes to attracting immigration for sectors of the economy there is none of the opposition that would occur in democracies.

Autocracy may be the only way to stabilize some countries that have never had a democratic government. It has been suggested by Mancur Olson, a leading economist, that “anarchy not only involves loss of life but also increases the incentives to steal and to defend against theft, and thereby reduces the incentive to produce [2] ”. A dictatorship may be the only way to restore order and create a political framework stable enough for trade and investment.

[1] Huff, W.G. (1994). The economic growth of Singapore: trade and development in twentieth century”. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 358

[2] Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books. p. 64"

Economic development is not exclusively bound up with regimes or institutions. Natural factors such as rivers for transport, potential land use and natural resources are key to explaining why some countries are more prosperous than others. Many countries with higher economic growth are authoritarian or unstable democracies [1] . These may have the necessary economic conditions for growth even without these inclusive political institutions.

[1] GDP growth on an annual basis adjusted for inflation and expressed as a percent, CIA World Facbook, 2013. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html
