NEW STUDY SHREDS THE MYTH OF THE MARKET ECONOMY BRINGING DEMOCRACY

It's a finger in the eye for the likes of the Times' Tom Friedman and other prophets of the beneficial effects of globalization: a new study  of 150 countries, to appear in the September-October issue of the archi-establishment journal Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations), demonstrating how the conventional wisdom which says that free market economies inevitably bring democracy in their wake is a myth.

Today's International Herald-Tribune has a preview of the Foreign Affairs inquest in an article, "An Open Economy, a Closed Society," by the authors of the study: Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (chair of the Department of Politics at New York University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution) and George W. Downs (professor of politics and dean of social sciences at New York University).

Bueno de Mesquita and Downs shred the prevailing notion in U.S. political discourse from both wings of the bi-partisan duopoly: namely, "that market liberalization is the most reliable path to democracy. Economic openness, it was reasoned, leads to the emergence of an educated and entrepreneurial middle class that over time, will start to demand more and more control over its own fate. But something went wrong in China, Russia and other states where authoritarian regimes loosened the economic reins. Economic growth arrived but liberal democracy is still nowhere is sight. The reason is simple but disturbing: A new and more sophisticated breed of autocrat has discovered a strategy that permits them to enjoy the benefits of economic growth while postponing - often for decades - the emergence of authentic competitive democracy.

"To understand how this strategy works, it helps first to understand how political competition emerges in the first place. To effectively pursue political power, citizens have to engage in "strategic coordination": activities such as disseminating information, recruiting and organizing party members, selecting leaders, raising funds and holding meetings and demonstrations. Economic growth has traditionally been thought to promote democratization by making strategic coordination easier, as communications technology improves, news media become more diverse and the citizenry more educated.

"But in recent years some savvy regimes have learned how to cut the cord between growth and strategic coordination, allowing the former without having to worry about the latter. Their trick is to ration carefully the subset of public goods that facilitate political coordination, while investing in others that are essential to economic growth. The "coordination goods" that they need to worry about consist of things such as political and civil rights, press freedom and access to higher education. "Standard public goods" include public transportation, primary and secondary education, and public health; all of which contribute to economic growth and pose relatively little threat to the regime.

"Examples abound of how autocrats limit coordination goods. Consider China's long history of restricting access to the Internet and other media. Or Russia, where President Vladimir Putin has placed all national television networks under strict state control and eliminated elections for regional leaders. Or Venezuela, where last year President Hugo Chávez pushed through a law allowing him to ban news reports of violent protests and to suspend the broadcasting licenses of media outlets that violate any of a long list of broadly phrased regulations.

"How well does this coordination suppression strategy work? We recently examined the provision of both coordination goods and standard public goods in about 150 countries from 1970 to 1999. Several findings are particularly noteworthy. First, the suppression of coordination goods keeps autocrats in power. An autocrat who both permits freedom of the press and civil liberties reduces the chances that he will survive for another year by about 15 to 20 percent. Second, today's autocrats tend to suppress coordination goods much more consistently than they do other public goods. Some old-fashioned tyrants, especially in Africa, still suppress all public goods. But a growing proportion of the world's authoritarian regimes have adopted a more sophisticated brand of oppression. Third, the greater the suppression of coordination goods in a given country, the greater the lag between the onset of economic growth and the emergence of liberal democracy...."

You can read the entire article by clicking here.  The notion that the free market brings democracy with it is dear not only to George Bush and the Republicans, it is a staple of Democratic politicians' rhetoric as well -- it is the U.S. version of the pensée unique, and holds that the only possible economic model compatible with human freedom is the American one. To have this arrogant and falacious proposition left in tatters by such a prestigious publication as Foreign Affairs provides new ammunition for a radical, systemic critique of both U.S. foreign policy and Washington's attempt to dictate global economic hegemony on behalf of the multinationals. The appetizer of this new study in today's Herald-Trib leaves me eager for F.A.'s September issue.

WHY IS NOBODY ASKING BUSH ABOUT THE PLAME AFFAIR? That's what Judd Legum and Faiz Shakir are demanding in a sharp new piece out today in Salon, "The President Always Knows," They assemble a lovely pile of evidence suggesting Dubya was wise to what was going on all the time. Read it by clicking here.