Поддержать
Smart 
Бизнес 
Культурная среда 
Общество 
Политика 
"Законы XII таблиц" 
Досье и мифы 
Асар в Украине 
Life and property rights
Elena Dudka
Fourth International Сonference on risk management was held on April 17-18, in c. Almaty. The conference was participated by the president of “Economic Analysis Institute” Fund, senior officer of Katon Institute, Andrei Illarionov, and the director of Institute of Economy in Transition Period, Egor Gaidar. In the lobbies of the conference we have asked the famous Russian economists to express their opinions on several issues discussed on the last meeting of “Exclusive” club.
Egor Gaidar: “Without the property guarantees, you would have serious problems with long-term perspectives of economic growth”
— In the process of discussion during the last meeting of “Exclusive” club the opinion has been expressed that none of the post-soviet states had undertaken economic reforms. There were implemented some structural reorganizations, which poured into the limits of property. But sterling economic reforms never happened. Yet, whereas the economic growth is one of the main conditions for the existence of authoritarian regimes, the possibility of existence of the classical authoritarian regime on the territory of the post-soviet states had been argued. Do you agree with this?
— I would strongly object this opinion, because none of the definitions of authoritarianism, known to me, include the requirement of carrying out market reforms. Authoritarian regime – is only a non-free political system, not obligatory a totalitarian one. Such regimes seldom, moreover, in rare instances are combined with economical reforms. Yes, of course, we could cite examples of authoritarian regimes, which implemented effective economic reforms. Chile during the Pinochet’s rule is a classical example of this. But we could also present a number of examples of authoritarian regimes, which had never performed such reforms. Authoritarianism – is a regime, which allows everything, except politics, or rather active involvement in politics. Economy in authoritarian regimes could be more or less free. Authoritarian regimes pursue more or less wise economic politics.
— In Kazakhstan, “more” or “less”?
— In Kazakhstan, “more”. Of course, you have a number of your own problems. But if we look at a general picture, then you have more reasonable economic politics.
— What would you say; did we carry out economical reforms?
— Of course, Kazakhstan without any doubts had carried out important economical reforms, without which your economy would not grow at such rates even with your abundant oil reserves. But, certainly, there are a lot of problems which were not resolved. Including the fundamental one – without the feasibly functioning democratic system of checks and balances, the property guarantees are not achievable. Without the property guarantees you would have serious problems with long-term perspective of economic growth.
Andrei Illarionov: “We have to take into the consideration all of the members of society, not only those who were able to live till the better times”
— On the conference you presented a lecture on that the economical prosperity of states is in the direct relation to their level of political freedom. Meanwhile, some of the experts adhere to an opinion that at the specific stage of development authoritarian regimes could be a benefit to them.
— I know some authors who justify the existence of authoritarian regimes with proviso that at the specific stage of development of society and upon the achievement of specific level of welfare it is recommended to change to democracy. But these authors do not ask those who became victims of authoritarian regimes.
I adhere to statistics including to the statistics of economic growth, indicators of GDP per capita, and etc. Notably to such, which economists, including myself, are fond of using. These figures play an important role in life, to the wellbeing of those, who are with us. But they do not reflect the wellbeing of those who are not with use, those, who became victims of authoritarian regimes.
If we look at mortality rate in authoritarian regimes, many people die both from private violence (because of absence of law order) and, to the greater extend, from the state violence, sponsored by state and pro-military organizations. And such violence has a nature of both direct repressions of opposition, and of indiscriminate violence, simply because of capability to use power resource. High mortality is also related to the absence of feedback between the population and authorities.
There is an interesting phenomenon which draws attention of many economists. India a large country had been under the control of British Empire, not the worst colonial power known to history. Yet, until the gaining of independence, practically every year thousands of people have died from starvation, while the authorities were in the hands of British administration. When India announced its independence and became imperfect political democracy, then in the period of short time, mass starvations have ended, even though the country in the period of long time was considered to be reasonably poor. The main difference between the authoritarian regimes and political democracies, including from imperfect political democracies, lay not only in the long-term economic growth and in level of prosperity of whose, who continue to live, but also in how the authorities treat the lives of their citizens. And those things are incomparable. That is why for the accurate economic, political and human analysis we shall consider all of the members of society, and not only those, who was capable of living up to the better times.
Комментариев пока нет