This very simple table (not even a correlation) has produced apoplexy in some people. It is not part of a paper, it is not a study; it is simply a *difference* on a *difference* table: change in level of autocracy vs change in level of GDPpc.
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1404648631383347201
There may be many problems with it. People started throwing issues as if it were a 100-page paper: perhaps growth rates before the change were high?; perhaps growth is unsustainable? perhaps there is convergence? perhaps counterfactual would have been better? Perhaps....
Because when one believes democracy must be good for growth he will meet every piece of contrary evidence with comments like this.
If this was a list of 10 most improved in democracy countries & all had above-average growth people would not insist on the points insisted here.
If this was a list of 10 most improved in democracy countries & all had above-average growth people would not insist on the points insisted here.
The point of this table is just to highlight what prima facie contradicts the facile claim of more democracy = more growth.
The second point is to stimulate people to be more creative in their research, not just repeat dogmas.
The second point is to stimulate people to be more creative in their research, not just repeat dogmas.
The third is to understand why autocracies may in some cases be popular.
The fourth is to realize that democracy must, before everything else, generate economic growth to remain sustainable.
The fourth is to realize that democracy must, before everything else, generate economic growth to remain sustainable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
