I looked back on this piece to check up any new comments (which where less interesting than I hoped) and to add a tip: Ibn Khaldoun’s classic work The Muqaddimah takes on the cycles of degenrating morals and acocutnability on behalf og governing dynasties, and subsequently how these dynasties raise and fall.

It is very interesting to read advanced theories about these cycles from a contemporary commentator, and I am sure you, or anyone else reading this blog, will find it more than interesting.

Thanks again

That is pretty the most critical criterion be it autocracy or democracy. They do not have to amass wealth because they are pretty much already taken care of. The test will come happen if the country has prospered enough and the leaders fall into the temptation of nepotism and cronyism as is happening in Singapore where the leaders justify their status.

I don’t think it is all up to the time-perspective of autocratic leaders that decides whether they are “good” or “bad”. Dani Rodrik writes interestingly on the topic in his excellent book “One economics, Many recipes”, which I would claim is the best book on development issued to date. his findings suggests that autocratic regimes are risky - they can be good for a while, but then deteriorate sharply in face of any external shocks. this is something that democracies will not do - they will give you stability. It is probably the process of changing policies in order to adapt to changes in environment that is the issue, and autocracies are not very good at this, while democracies are. Again, I suggests that it is the institutional arrangements for accountability, in combination with the degree of overall political debate, that makes democracies superior. Not elections as such. However, in the defence of elections, they certainly stimulate political debate, which again proves to be crucial in order to find creative solutions to novel problems.

Some of the claims in his book is partly based on the findings in this paper: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/democracy.pdf

And for more on the capabilities of our Western media, take a look at this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news.html

Paul collier finds that, when correlating democracy to how resource wealth is managed in poor countries, democracy had a clear positive effect. However, when democracy was split in to parts, 1. Free, responsible, and able press, and 2. a free electoral process, the latter showed to contribute significantly, and largely, to reckless populism and very poor development indicators, while the first, the press, proved to constrain mamagement to a more coherent level.

The lesson he learned from his material is this: If you want to escape the resource curse, a free and able press is important, while elections actually makes matters worse. The combination of an able press and elections still proves to be superior to dictatorships, but it is the press that brings in the improvements, while the elections simply appears to be a nuisance.

I suppose your experiences from India and China, although none of these countries can be regarded as resource-rich, may show a more general validity of this claim. Accountability is more important elections, so ensuring accountability through a different institutional arrangement than elections can be very beneficial.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/paul_collier.html

Consider that (1) Chinese economic growth continues to edge out Indian growth by two percentage points (2) compound interest makes for miraculous changes over long periods of time (3) India continues to have high population growth. If something isn’t done in the next fifty years, India will keep falling farther than farther behind China.

One thing you didn’t mention — One of the most distinctive features of Indian democracy is the bias *against* incumbents. (Incumbents in most other democracies have an advantage over challengers.) The lure of reelection is a powerful spur to politicians to do a good job, or at least a better-than-crappy job. But, if you know you’ve only got one term, why bother?