THE strong man is apparently back – beards are all the rage and so is authoritarian leadership with all its whim and caprice. Many of the institutions and norms deliberately built up over the last two hundred years to shackle such alpha males are now being sacrificed on the altar of populism. Should we care? What’s wrong with strong leadership anyway?
New studies of the performance of the world economy over the last millennium further burnish the role of institutions, both formal (parliaments, judiciaries, central banks, social safety nets and schools) and less formal (guilds, trade unions and charities), in its success. It has long been accepted that economic growth and rising living standards are a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the 18th century, the world economy flatlined; from generation to generation, living standards barely budged. Then from around 1750, output per head suddenly took off and has kept on rising ever since, growing at around 1.5% per year.
What changed in the middle of the 18th century? Previous answers have centred on a change in the nature of innovation. It was originally thought that humanity escaped stagnation through an intense period of advancement known as the Industrial Revolution.
However, a new study of the entire millennium suggests a broader explanation. Using higher frequency measures, it was found that while growth up until the mid 18th century did indeed flatline on average, there were significant swings within it. The reason that average growth was far lower during this period was not so much an absence of growth, but because expanding periods were almost exactly offset by contracting periods. In fact, the average rate of growth in expansion periods after the Industrial Revolution was lower than the average rate preceding it. Essentially, the revolution in living standards after 1750 may not be solely down to a surge in ideas and technologies, but from societies finding increasing means of avoiding recessions. While recessions occurred c.50% of the time prior to 1700, they have occurred 30% of the time since 1700 and only 17% of the time since 1900.
To better understand the foundations of long-term growth, we need to explain why economies have become less prone to recessions. The most plausible explanation seems to be twofold: the emergence of institutions that cushioned the damaging effects of recessions (welfare systems, central banks), and those that improved political stability.
More importantly it paints a more sustainable picture of long run growth. Productivity is not something people discovered in the last few centuries, likely to stall as suddenly and unpredictably as it started. It is likely a much longer, more durable truth of the world economy. What has changed is simply that we now have the institutional framework to better harness and protect the gains.
This new understanding of economic history puts the thoughts of techno-pessimists, who argue that we’ve reached our productive peak, on even shakier ground. In terms of a practical application, it again argues for putting as much of your hard-earned money to work for the long term in capital markets, particularly stocks, as your risk appetite and financial plans will allow. The pronounced de-rating of stocks so far this year would suggest an inexpensive long-term entry point.
There is of course a ‘however’. Whilst our hunch is that the current populist spasms will pass, being in large part a function of world views that younger parts of western electorates do not share – if this were not to be the case, and the institutions and norms that enabled our prosperity were eroded, then this lesson from the long sweep of history will be a salutary one – recessions could again become more frequent and severe, growth not so much the norm. Investors could quickly find that Turkey is not just a Thanksgiving feast, but a vision of the future.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here