More primitive societies don’t have centralized government, so they don’t have the risk of government going bad on a grand scale.
The canonical example here is, I think, China. Going from the impressive Renaissance-like period of 100 Schools of Thought during the Warring States period, to Zheng He, then to stultification.
Is bad government a sort of disaster which should be considered in this discussion?
Possibly. I wasn’t considering it because I took ‘modern economies’ to imply (more or less) liberal democracies with (more ore less) free markets. I interpreted the original comment to be in reference to the theory that the increasing interconnectedness, globalization and specialization we observe within such economies is making them more vulnerable to catastrophic collapse. Bad government is certainly a problem but I hadn’t seen it as a major component of this line of thinking.
More primitive societies don’t have centralized government, so they don’t have the risk of government going bad on a grand scale.
It is an interesting question whether more complex economies (in the sense I describe above) must necessarily go hand in hand with more centralized government. I don’t think that is the case and I certainly hope it is not the case (because it implies that complex economies must inevitably self-destruct) but it is a disturbing possibility.
The Soviet Union or the Third Reich were more like a “modern economy” than they’re like hunter-gatherers or primitive agriculturalists, and (though it doesn’t seem likely so far), a modern economy is more likely to have a government that goes bad than it is to turn into h-g or p.a.
When I was talking about centralized government, I didn’t mean central economic planning. (Did you?) I just meant that modern governments have well-defined centralized control over (usually) a good-sized region and population.
When I was talking about centralized government, I didn’t mean central economic planning. (Did you?) I just meant that modern governments have well-defined centralized control over (usually) a good-sized region and population.
I see centralized government as implying more central economic planning as well as more pervasive state intervention in all areas of life. I contrast it to a more federalized or devolved allocation of political power. I believe a complex economy is compatible with government that is more federal and less centralized than the modern United States and even less centralized than the European Union. I don’t believe that the stability, security and free movement of trade and labour that are foundations of a complex modern economy require ever more centralized political power, although historically both have tended to increase alongside one another more often than not.
Is bad government a sort of disaster which should be considered in this discussion?
West Germany bounced back a lot more than East Germany.
More primitive societies don’t have centralized government, so they don’t have the risk of government going bad on a grand scale.
The canonical example here is, I think, China. Going from the impressive Renaissance-like period of 100 Schools of Thought during the Warring States period, to Zheng He, then to stultification.
Possibly. I wasn’t considering it because I took ‘modern economies’ to imply (more or less) liberal democracies with (more ore less) free markets. I interpreted the original comment to be in reference to the theory that the increasing interconnectedness, globalization and specialization we observe within such economies is making them more vulnerable to catastrophic collapse. Bad government is certainly a problem but I hadn’t seen it as a major component of this line of thinking.
It is an interesting question whether more complex economies (in the sense I describe above) must necessarily go hand in hand with more centralized government. I don’t think that is the case and I certainly hope it is not the case (because it implies that complex economies must inevitably self-destruct) but it is a disturbing possibility.
The Soviet Union or the Third Reich were more like a “modern economy” than they’re like hunter-gatherers or primitive agriculturalists, and (though it doesn’t seem likely so far), a modern economy is more likely to have a government that goes bad than it is to turn into h-g or p.a.
When I was talking about centralized government, I didn’t mean central economic planning. (Did you?) I just meant that modern governments have well-defined centralized control over (usually) a good-sized region and population.
I see centralized government as implying more central economic planning as well as more pervasive state intervention in all areas of life. I contrast it to a more federalized or devolved allocation of political power. I believe a complex economy is compatible with government that is more federal and less centralized than the modern United States and even less centralized than the European Union. I don’t believe that the stability, security and free movement of trade and labour that are foundations of a complex modern economy require ever more centralized political power, although historically both have tended to increase alongside one another more often than not.