Developing countries are often advised (or instructed) to undertake reforms recommended by "experts" who are called "technocrats" and are often backed by the IMF. Opposition to the reforms they propose is usually dismissed as "populist." Countries that fail to undertake these reforms are dismissed as craven or lacking political will, and soon suffer the consequences: higher interest rates when borrowing abroad.
But look closely at some of these "technocratic" proposals: many are more often based on ideology than economic science. Technocrats can of course reliably make an electricity plant work better. The goal is simple: to produce electricity at as low a price as possible. This is mostly a matter of engineering, not politics. Economic policies are usually not technocratic in this sense. They involve tradeoffs: some may lead to higher inflation but lower unemployment; some help investors, others workers.
Economists call policies where no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off Pareto efficient. If a single policy is better than all others for everyone, ie, has no Pareto-efficient alternatives, it is said to be Pareto dominant. If choices among policies were purely Paretian, ie, if no one was made worse off by choosing one policy, as against another, the choices involved would indeed be purely "technical."
But in reality, few policy choices are Paretian. Instead, some policies are better for some groups, but worse for others. Different policies benefit and hurt different groups.
In East Asia, for example, IMF bailouts helped international lenders, but hit workers and domestic firms hard. Different policies might have imposed more risk on international lenders, and less on workers and domestic firms. Deciding which policy to choose involves choices among values, not just technical questions about which policy is in some morally uncontroversial sense "better." These value choices are political choices, which cannot be left to technocrats.
Of course, there is scope for technical analysis even when political choices are at the crux of the decision. Technocrats can sometimes help avoid Pareto-inferior policies, that is, policies that make everyone worse off. Sometimes there are policies that can promote both growth and equality, and the job of good economists is to search for them. The problem is that many policies advanced by technocrats as if they were Pareto efficient are in fact flawed and make many people -- sometimes entire countries -- worse off.
Look at the litany of technocratically inspired examples of privatization and deregulation in the 1990s. Banking "reform," for example, frequently soon required government bailouts, leaving a few people much richer, but the country much poorer. These failures suggest that we should have less confidence in the supposed professional skills of technocrats -- or at least less confidence than they have in themselves.
But there is also a more fundamental point here. Democratic processes are likely to be more sensitive to the real consequences of policies, to the real tradeoffs involved.
Of course, some criticisms of technocratic remedies may be populist posturing, but sometimes they contain insights that ivory-towered (and usually US-trained) technocrats miss. Consider the case of Mexico, where a proposal to raise revenue by taxing food and medicines consumed by the poor was, unsurprisingly, rejected by a democratically accountable legislature.
Rejecting this proposal was not a matter of unbridled populism. The problem was with the proposal. Its advocates argued that efficiency required adopting a comprehensive value-added tax (VAT). Advanced industrial countries in Europe use such a tax. Developing countries, the technocrats said, should do likewise.
But there is a fundamental difference between developed European countries and emerging markets: the size of the informal sector, from which VAT is not collected. This vast "black economy" makes VAT inefficient in most developing countries. Indeed, because VAT is a tax on the formal sector -- the new factories, banks and so forth that pay regular salaries and whose incomes and expenditures can easily be traced (as distinct from those of the cash-based street vendors, village enterprises and poor farmers) -- VAT impedes development.
The logic is simple. Developing countries that impose a VAT perversely encourage production to remain in the informal sector, which often produces the goods that are consumed domestically or used as inputs in the developed world. But it is the formal sector that produces higher value-added manufactured goods that compete with developed countries.
There are other sources of tax revenue in many developing countries that are both more equitable and distort economic incentives far less than VAT. Many developing countries lack a corporate income tax: the huge profits of the telecom, cement and other monopoly sectors escape taxation. (If one worried about double taxation, one could allow a credit for corporate taxes on individual tax returns.) It may also be possible to impose taxes on luxury goods (many of which are imported), thereby promoting equity without stifling growth.
Economic theory supports a VAT only if one does not care about distribution and if one can impose a tax on all commodities. You don't need an economics doctorate to recognize that, in developing countries, you can't impose a tax on all commodities. Moreover, you should care about equity.
So the next time you hear rumblings in the legislature of an emerging democratic country against this or that "technocratic" proposal, think twice before dismissing the deputies' doubts as populist rants. Perhaps the populists are popular because they know something that the technocrats don't.
Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics and finance at Columbia University and was the 2001 Nobel laureate in economics. Previously, he was chairman of former US president Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, and chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.