January 23, 2004

DUH?:

Does Trade Promote Democracy?: Political scientists have long noted the link between economic openness on one side, and political reform and democracy on the other. To test this compelling thesis, Daniel Griswold compared the political freedom of 123 countries with their overall economic freedom. He found that nations with open economies are far more likely to enjoy full political and civil liberties than those with closed and state-dominated economies. (Daniel T. Griswold, January 23, 2004, The Globalist)

Increased trade and economic integration promote civil and political freedoms directly by opening a society to new technology, communications and democratic ideas.

Economic liberalization provides a counterweight to governmental power — and creates space for civil society.

The most economically open countries are three times more likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are economically closed.

And by promoting faster growth, trade promotes political freedom indirectly by creating an economically independent and political aware middle class. [...]

The connection becomes evident when countries are grouped by quintiles — or fifths — according to their economic openness.

Of the 25 rated countries in the top quintile of economic openness, 21 are rated "Free" by Freedom House — and only one is rated "Not Free."

In contrast, among the quintile of countries that are the least open economically, only seven are rated "Free" and nine are rated "Not Free."

In other words, the most economically open countries are three times more likely to enjoy full political and civil freedoms as those that are economically closed. Those that are closed are nine times more likely to completely suppress civil and political freedoms as those that are open.


One factoid that leaps out of the accompanying graphics: China's crack-up is coming sooner rather than later.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 23, 2004 3:05 PM
Comments

Coorelation does not imply causation; I suspect here it runs the other way. Would not the most economical (no pun intended) explaination be that trade is safer, easier, and thus more profitable where we can depend on the rule of law?

Posted by: Mike Earl at January 23, 2004 3:30 PM

Mike's comment supports Orrin's comment As Friedman pointed out in one of his more lucid moments, the lack of the rule of law is one of the major factors that could undermine China's economic success.

Posted by: Jeff at January 23, 2004 3:37 PM

Hmmm, politicians who don't control everything don't control everything.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 23, 2004 4:25 PM
« THE LARRY ANDERSEN PRESIDENCY (via Timothy): | Main | GUMBYLIKE: »