But this seems a bit glib: economic growth is not the only thing that effects well-being, by any means, and so simply being unsure about how democracy effects it is not a strong case on its own for being unsure whether democracy increases or decreases human well-being. Growth might be the most important thing of course, but if you really are neutral on the effect of democracy on growth, other factors will still determine whether you should think democracy is net beneficial for humans in expectation.
Holding real gross domestic product (real GDP) per capita constant, there is significant cross-country variation respecting whether more democracy and human rights are associated with a smaller/​larger population size, life expectancy at birth, share of people who are satisfied with their life, and life satisfaction. Moreover, I would still wonder about causality even if there was a robust positive association between more democracy and human rights and positive social outcomes holding real GDP per capita constant.
I am pessimistic about finding robust causal relationships between democracy and social outcomes. My sense is that the relationship between democracy and growth is among the ones which have been studied the most, and it looks like there is still lots of uncertainty. I think focussing on more fine-grained elements of democracy would be good for this reason. One may have little idea about whether democracy increases or decreases growth in general, but still have a good sense of how concrete policies more often proposed by Democrats or Republicans affect growth.
Also, in the particular case of the US to evaluate whether democracy continuing is a good thing for human well-being, what primarily matters is how democracy shapes up versus the realistic alternatives in the US, not whether democracy is the best possible system in principle, or even the best feasible system in most times and places.
Great point. It is not as if there is a lever one can pull to change the overall level of democracy. I think it is more productive to ask about how concrete policies would change human, animal or non-biological welfare relative to the counterfactual policies.
Maybe you also think that might be good, because Republican policies might be better for growth and that dominates all other factors, but even then, it’s worth being clear about what you are advocating agnosticism about and its not the merits of democracy in the abstract, but the current situation in the US.
I am not familiar with the situation in the US, so I am staying close to my libertarian prior. I think my views are close to Bryan Caplan’s with respect to the policies that increase human welfare. However, I am much more uncertain/​agnostic overall because I care about animal welfare too.
Fair enough, I actually think it is very hard to discover causal relationship in any social scientific domain. I still strongly suspect that dictatorial governments are bad however. (It’s almost impossible to get data on the effects of highly developed countries by modern standards ceasing to be democracy, because this has almost never happened.)
Unclear what (economic) libertarianism implies about the Trump admin. They will cut taxes, but also they might put up tarifs.
Thanks, David!
Holding real gross domestic product (real GDP) per capita constant, there is significant cross-country variation respecting whether more democracy and human rights are associated with a smaller/​larger population size, life expectancy at birth, share of people who are satisfied with their life, and life satisfaction. Moreover, I would still wonder about causality even if there was a robust positive association between more democracy and human rights and positive social outcomes holding real GDP per capita constant.
I am pessimistic about finding robust causal relationships between democracy and social outcomes. My sense is that the relationship between democracy and growth is among the ones which have been studied the most, and it looks like there is still lots of uncertainty. I think focussing on more fine-grained elements of democracy would be good for this reason. One may have little idea about whether democracy increases or decreases growth in general, but still have a good sense of how concrete policies more often proposed by Democrats or Republicans affect growth.
Great point. It is not as if there is a lever one can pull to change the overall level of democracy. I think it is more productive to ask about how concrete policies would change human, animal or non-biological welfare relative to the counterfactual policies.
I am not familiar with the situation in the US, so I am staying close to my libertarian prior. I think my views are close to Bryan Caplan’s with respect to the policies that increase human welfare. However, I am much more uncertain/​agnostic overall because I care about animal welfare too.
Fair enough, I actually think it is very hard to discover causal relationship in any social scientific domain. I still strongly suspect that dictatorial governments are bad however. (It’s almost impossible to get data on the effects of highly developed countries by modern standards ceasing to be democracy, because this has almost never happened.)
Unclear what (economic) libertarianism implies about the Trump admin. They will cut taxes, but also they might put up tarifs.