Order in the jungle: Economics and the rule of law

The Economist: Order in the jungle: Economics and the rule of law

Cbb8980 The rule of law has become a big idea in economics. But it has had its difficulties.

“AM I the only economist guilty of using the term [rule of law] without having a good fix on what it really means?” asks Dani Rodrik of Harvard University. “Well, maybe the first one to confess to it.”

The rule of law is usually thought of as a political or legal matter. The world's newest country, Kosovo, says its priority is to improve the rule of law in order to reduce corruption and build up the state. But in the past ten years the rule of law has become important in economics too. Indeed, it has become the motherhood and apple pie of development economics—which makes Mr Rodrik's confession the more striking. The rule of law is held to be not only good in itself, because it embodies and encourages a just society, but also a cause of other good things, notably growth. “No other single political ideal has ever achieved global endorsement,” says Brian Tamanaha, a legal scholar at St John's University, New York.

But as an economic concept the rule of law has had a turbulent history. …

…But as a generalisation, the efforts of the past few years have thrown up mixed messages. They suggest the rule of law can be improved sharply; that rule-of-law reform is at root a political not a technical undertaking; and that it is linked to growth, if weakly in the short term. But they do not really bear out the assertion that the rule of law is an underlying prerequisite for growth. Rather, the more economists find out about the rule of law, the more desirable it seems—and the more problematic as a universal economic guide.


Comments

2 responses to “Order in the jungle: Economics and the rule of law”

  1. Michael:
    This is a great post and, I think, very significant in view of the “Must Everything Change” series. I would encourage everyone to read the full article.
    The article points out that there is a relationship between rule-of-law and economic growth, but that it is much more complicated than a 1:1 correlation. There are different aspects of “rule-of-law”: it’s good to have a working system of law that provides stability, it’s best to have a working and just system that provides both stability and long term opportunity for prosperity. The comparison of common-law vs. civil-law countries, in my opinion, shows that there are also degrees of justice provided in legal systems.
    This is the challenge for China right now, and has been for the last 2000 years. Chinese society is not based on “rule-of-law” as are western societies but on the “rule-of-the-emperor” pyramid of Confucian philosophy. This has provided some stability, but the stability is cyclic. Even now, though there is a constitution and legal system, it does not provide a true system of checks and balances on government, especially as one gets higher on the pyramid. Thus, the system is highly dependant on the wisdom and integrity of the top people.
    Unfortunately, many well meaning outsiders don’t recognize the degree to which the western notion of “rule-of-law” is a totally foreign concept in many cultures. Thus, reforms are made, but they are made in name only because hearts and minds have not been changed. Hernando de Soto’s work on “rule-of-law” has been revolutionary, but I think this is his biggest weakness.
    The end of the article states “that rule-of-law reform is at root a political not a technical undertaking.” I think history has shown that rule-of-law, in the long run, is a spiritual and moral undertaking. This view is, of course, mostly out of fashion in western academia, but is surprisingly recognized outside Europe and North America (though some scholars like Fogel and Landes are more willing to look at the evidence). There are a number of Chinese academics today who are looking to the values of the Reformation to get a better understanding how to make a society work.

  2. Wonderful observations, Rob. I’m in total agreement with you here.
    This is also why I’m leery of the techno “big solution” mentality ranging from George Bush, to Bill Gates, to Jeffery Sachs. The “spiritual capital” (or human capital) is where I believe the crux of the matter is. Addressing it alone will not solve global problems but ignoring it is to engage in futility.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading