A roundtable "Democracy and Economic Growth"
held within the framework of the second Russian Economic Congress
in Suzdal discussed how the type of a political system may
affect economic growth.
Grigory Yavlinsky, Professor at the Higher School of Economics
and founder of the YABLOKO party, set the tone of the discussion.
He noted that economic growth has been considered a key indicator
of economic development. However, he stressed that there has
been no direct correlation between the economic growth and
the type of the political system. Economics can not yet answer
the question why the most developed democratic countries do
not show sustainable economic growth while some authoritarian
states may demonstrate impressive economic growth rates.
"It is believed that sustainable economic growth is
not possible without democracy, said Yavlinsky. But there
are, for example, Asian countries that show a very steady
growth in the absence of democracy. Moreover, there is such
a stance that democratisation negatively affects the economic
growth. And a quick and decisive change of a political system
towards democratisation may lead to reduction of the economic
growth".
According to Yavlinsky, the economic crisis of 2008 2009
has refuted the stereotype that democracy promotes economic
growth. "In the recent years we have seen the economic
crisis in the countries that were assessing the rest of the
world as of promotion of democracy. And this crisis has not
ended yet, it has turned into a recession, said Yavlinsky.
The national debt of the most democratic country in the world
- the United States - has reached 15 trillion dollars, all
the US manufacturing has been transferred abroad, and now
the US President is trying to return manufacturing back to
the country".
Also it is unclear how the economic growth in Russia and the
problem of the qualitative economic growth, as well as rise
of the quantitative indicators of the macroeconomic growth
in the absence of economic development can be explained, Yavlinsky
said. "There are such conditions when economic growth,
especially growth of real per capita incomes, is counterproductive
in terms of development prospects, he explained. In Russia,
for the past ten years real incomes grew by 2.5 - 4 times,
but what about the qualitative indicators of the economic
growth?"
Despite positive macroeconomic indicators, the structure of
the Russian economy has not changed over the years. Most of
the federal budget revenues come from the raw material companies.
The success of the innovative business seems important on
paper only: there seem to be some projects in this field,
however, there are virtually no Russian high-tech products,
he concluded.
See also:
Publication
in Russian
Understanding Russia
|
