Parliamentary systems do better economically than presidential ones
https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-systems-do-better-economically-than-presidential-ones-111468#:~:text=It%20has%20long%20been%20argued,has%20been%20a%20democracy%20for.
Posted by guhitlarawan
4 Comments
Here’s another site that I would like to share.
Does the article mean that the US will be richer and more powerful than they already are if they are a Parliamentary system? While South Africa and Britain will be poorer if they were Presidential systems?
I’ve been doing some research on the internet. And it seems that most Parliamentary systems are okay, but most Presidential systems are in bad shape.
I was just saying the other day that, despite being a republican, I’m glad our head of state doesn’t actually do anything or have any real power. If we could just replace the monarch with a token figurehead, I’d be happy.
Countries like Singapore, China, Rwanda, El Salvador had economic booms under authoritarian systems.
Fast decision-making and long term planning can result in high growths and huge collapses depending on the talent of the leaders.
Proper checks and balances help to prevent catastrophic decisions, but it also can delay necessary adjustments.
Therefore I think these kind of researches can result in any way I want depending who I use as a sample at what specific time period thus it’s better to be ignored and look at the specific cases with the appropriate nuances.
I think this is mostly correlation and not causation. In europe it is almost random if a country has a president or parliament as their head of state. What matters more is how democratic a country is and how the power is balanced between the branches of the government.
France or Finland manages fine with their presidantal systems and are still highly functional democracies.