Neil A. Abrams and M. Steven Fish write,
Scholars often treat the rule of law as a prerequisite for market-oriented economic policies such as liberalizing prices and trade and eradicating wasteful subsidies. They’re getting it backward. Instead, first eliminate the subsidies and purge the compromised bureaucrats who stand in the rule of law’s way. This is hard to do. It will provoke tremendous resistance from those who profit from the status quo. But it’s far more realistic and effective than simply encouraging countries to adopt the rule of law.
Read the whole thing. To me, one implication is that massive foreign aid is likely to hinder the appearance of the rule of law. To me, the poster child for that is the West Bank and Gaza. The once-entrepreneurial Palestinian society was replaced by criminal gangs, because there was more profit to be found in getting control over the distribution of aid than in business.
“This is hard to do. It will provoke tremendous resistance from those who profit from the status quo.”
This is why there has to be a Trump. We could wish voters were offered a better Trump, but we could also have gotten an even worse Turmp.
LAW as distinguished from Rules of Policy (legislation and its excrescences of regulations, etc.), describes and defines but does not delineate observed, existing order.
Order generates Law; Law does not generate order; and, Rules of Policy only attempt to do so.
What the article doesn’t quite say, and probably can’t (due to non-PC), is that market capitalism has to be established while the gov’t subsidies to the (rich-) chosen orgs is eliminated.
Compare S. Korea after 1952: many years of authoritarian and semi-corrupt rule, but slowly increasing market capitalism. It was successful capitalism that led to reasonably successful rule of law, and democracy.
Aid has it doubly backwards. a) too much gov’t subsidies >> to the friends of those who corruptly control gov’t, and
b) trying to elevate the poorest of the poor above those who are a step ahead without the help — causing resentment and anti-support.
Aid needs to be more like bankers. When given a choice among 10 possible borrowers, the limited credit should most often go to the lower risk investment — most often one of the richest of the 10 possible borrowers. So that there is a successful investment, generating positive returns. Development aid is NOT Christian charity to “most needy” — because the most needy will only increase their barely living 50 or 60% of minimal consumption up to some 80-110% of minimal consumption, with essentially no further investments. Mostly only those “least needy” among the poor will be able to invest the aid for a positive rate to make themselves and those around them better at generating wealth/ profit, and allowing a higher sustainable consumption.
Over course how much did the people of Palestine economically benefit from the sale of land and settlements. Are the Palestian people allowed freely to open businesses? Are they treated equally under the law?
Sure at this point aid to Palestine is a waste.
Should Israel allow Gaza strip to use Saudia investments to build a port?