Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mark Dolan's avatar

Mussolinoids is a brillaint term as it reminds me of something similar that only leads to backside pain and discomfort. Another wonderful post and most of all, unlike a lot of writing, you often stake a claim not commonly asserted and defend it with evidence and observation.

Expand full comment
DxS's avatar

Have you read Dan Slater's "Ordering Power," about Southeast Asian authoritarian governments?

Slater argues that authoritarians delivered economic growth, when they did, because their supporting elites were nervous about revolution and foreign invasion.

That is, authoritarians delivered growth because growth was the best hope of security.

Jobs and land reform kept the masses compliant; foreign exchange and/or heavy industry made the military strong. (Park's Korea, Deng's China.)

Conversely, where elites were less afraid of invasion and/or revolutionaries, authoritarians delivered "security" by the easy routes of stagnation and crony perquisites, not growth. (Philippines, or arguably today's China.)

It's not a perfect theory. Mussolini certainly thought he was there to deliver a strong army and keep the leftists down, but he didn't give Italy an economic miracle. Conversely, Erdogan and Modi started out genuinely delivering economic growth, albeit back when they were less politically invincible and less authoritarian.

But up to a point, I like the idea: authoritarians focus on "security," and "security" only means growth when the alternative is imminent revolution or invasion.

More often, the feeling of security is the reality of stagnation. Which is one reason why authoritarians promise to save the country, and end up stalling it.

Expand full comment
140 more comments...

No posts