Two decades ago, many people thought that the lesson of the 1980s was that Japan’s variant of capitalism was the best model, and that other countries should and would follow it. The Japanese model quickly lost its luster in the 1990s.
A decade ago, many thought that the lesson of the 1990s was that the US’ variant of capitalism was the best model, and that other countries should and would follow. The US model lost its attractiveness in the 2000s.
So, where should countries look now, in 2010, for models of economic success to emulate?
Perhaps they should look to the periphery of the world economy. Many small countries there have experimented with policies and institutions that could usefully be adopted by others.
Costa Rica and Mauritius each pulled ahead of its regional peers some time ago. Among many other decisions that have worked out well for them, both countries have forgone a standing army. The results in both cases have been a political history devoid of coups, and financial savings that can be used for education, investment and other good things.
A panoply of innovations has helped Chile to outperform its South American neighbors. Chile’s fiscal institutions insure a countercyclical budget. Many governments increase spending excessively in booms, and then are forced to cut back in downturns, thereby exacerbating the cyclical swings.
There are two key elements to Chile’s fiscal institutions:
A structural budget balance rule allows deficits only to the extent that the current price of copper is below its 10-year equilibrium or output is below its long-term trend.
Two panels of technical experts are the ones to judge trends in copper prices and output, respectively, insulated from the political processes that can otherwise succumb to wishful thinking.
These institutions are particularly worthy of imitation by other commodity-exporting countries in order to defeat the so-called “natural-resource curse.” Even advanced countries such as the US and UK could learn something from Chile, given that in the last expansion they evidently forgot how to run countercyclical fiscal policy.
Singapore achieved rich-country status with a unique development strategy. Among its many innovations were a paternalistic approach to saving and use of the price mechanism to defeat urban traffic congestion (an approach later adopted by London).
Other small advanced countries also have lessons to offer. New Zealand led the way for much of the world’s central banks with inflation targeting, along with many liberalizing reforms in the late 1980s. Perhaps its Labor Party should be given credit for pioneering the principle that center-left governments can sometimes achieve economic liberalization better than their center-right opponents.
Ireland showed the importance of foreign direct investment. Estonia led the way in simplifying its tax system by means of a successful flat tax in 1994, followed by Slovakia and other small countries in central and eastern Europe and elsewhere, including Mauritius again.
Mexico pioneered the idea of “conditional cash transfers” (the Oportunidades program — originally PROGRESA — which was launched in 1998). The conditional cash transfer programs have subsequently been emulated by many countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Mexico’s innovation was really two revolutions in one. First, there was the specific policy idea of making poverty benefits contingent on children’s school attendance (an idea which has been embraced even in New York City). Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Mexicans implemented the methodological idea of conducting controlled experiments to find out which policies work and which don’t work in developing countries (which has fed into the exciting Randomized Control Trials movement in the field of development economics).
Also in the 1990s, largely thanks to the leadership of then-president Ernesto Zedillo, Mexico adopted non-partisan federal electoral institutions that in 2006 proved able to resolve successfully a disputed election. (By contrast, it turned out in November 2000 that the US had no such mechanism in place, other than the preferences of political appointees.) More recently, Mexican President Felipe Calderon shut down the entrenched electric utility and pursued much-needed tax, pension and other reforms.
In highlighting some very specific institutions that could be usefully adopted elsewhere, I do not mean to suggest that they can be effortlessly translated from one national context to another. Nor do I mean to suggest that these examples are entirely responsible for the economic success of the countries where they are found. Indeed, a few of these countries have recently been wrestling with severe problems. But a country does not have to be large to serve as a model for others.
Small countries tend to be open to trade. Often, they are open to new ideas — and freer than large countries to experiment. The results of such experiments — even those that fail — include useful lessons for all of us.
Jeffrey Frankel is a professor of government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath