tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post115011509906674806..comments2022-04-29T09:14:51.587-07:00Comments on Teeming Multitudes: Democracy and InfrastructureRajeev Ramachandranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-1150261660096991962006-06-13T22:07:00.000-07:002006-06-13T22:07:00.000-07:00Yo Jayan.. why would a politician prefer 5% of a 1...Yo Jayan.. why would a politician prefer 5% of a 10,000 crore project rather than 100%? I think a robust democracy is good at preventing the latter. However, it may be <I>even</I> easier for him to instigate trouble (religious, caste), and then say "sure i am corrupt.but I am corrupt for you- i am robbing <I>them</I> to share the spoils with <I>you</I>". Sound familiar? :-) What Lee Kwan did in Singapore was make such bhavior impossible.Rajeev Ramachandranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-1150197720474158402006-06-13T04:22:00.000-07:002006-06-13T04:22:00.000-07:00Yo Nitin.. thanks for the welcome! I take your poi...Yo Nitin.. thanks for the welcome! I take your point, but then democracies that have good infrastructure are several: the US, the former FDR, Switzerland, France..Indeed, the danger is <I>too much</I> spending on highways: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001090.html<BR/>Almost by definition, wealthy countries are democracies. The question is: what incentives do politicians have to develop infrastructure? Infrastructure projects take years to fructify, and who knows whether I will still be in power then? Easier to instigate ethnic hatred. <BR/>I think Lee Kwan's great achievement was to make it impossible for parties to compete on ethnic/religious lines. That eliminated any chance of a politics of re-distribution. When they could no longer compete along those dimensions, politicos <B>had</B> to compete in terms of growth, and the PAP has a proven track record on that. So, i guess my point is that democracies can invest, but you must make it impossible for politicians to take the easy way out. <BR/>Thats the good thing about blogs- gets you to clarify your thinking.Rajeev Ramachandranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12728707638710715151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27406630.post-1150193914919197482006-06-13T03:18:00.000-07:002006-06-13T03:18:00.000-07:00Rajeev,Actually, my comment was in reference to po...Rajeev,<BR/><BR/>Actually, my comment was in reference to post-Deng China. And I qualified the reference to authoritarian states by saying that 'when they decide to' build infrastructure, they do so quite well. There is little evidence that North Korea and Maoist China ever decided that infrastructure was a priority. <BR/><BR/>Also, the fact that authoritarianism (with or without infrastructure) comes at the cost of freedoms is definitional. The purpose of my post was not so much as to pass value judgements on democracy or authoritarianism as systems of government, but rather, examine why democratic countries appear to suffer from an inability to invest in infrastructure.<BR/><BR/>(Congratulations on starting your blog!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com