Hello Chaps.
One thing that Boix's model fails to factor in is the draw of power. Whilst the wealth of those in charge may be very mobile, their power is not. Sure you can run away to live in a tropical island doing nothing for the rest of your life (and I know that sounds like heaven to many of us plebs) but once you are on your Island you are nothing. You are a rich beach bum.
In your home country you have tremendous power with your ever command obeyed by people who fear you. Should you make a decision you can expect it to be followed to the letter and people fear crossing you. You like being in charge in your country as you feel that you are doing a great job and that the money you skim from the govt is only fair compensation for your efforts. You are important. No one will cross you. Now should there be a rebellion, how keen would you be to say, you know what, I want to just pack it in and run away. I don't mind the idea of living in Switzerland, where I will never have citizenship and whilst I may be rich, I will be nobody. No one will look twice in fear at me in the street and no one will really care about what you want. They will obey you because you pay them, but not because you fear them.
Now, hopefully this helped. In essence I can't imagine people like Mugabe, or Saddam Hussein saying 'You know what, they don't actually want me, well, fair cop, I will take my money and live in a country where I have no chance of being extradited.'
There is a point where power becomes so addictive that you loose rationality to the extent that you would rather stay in charge and risk everything when you are almost certain to loose then you would flee.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Overused, I know, but its a sexy quote ok. *edit* And this is a quote from Baron Action, not Pitt the Elder. Just so you know.
This may be true of the leader, but remember the leader needs supporters - and the supporters may not share the same taste for power; e.g., they might support the leader only insofar as their economic welfare is protected.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, couldn't you add an extra payoff to the leader in a model of this sort, to represent the fact that the leader wants power? (Consider the more complicated model we used in the class simulation, not so much Boix's models, which does not divide the rich into leaders, members of the selectorate, and members of the winning coalition).
By the way, wasn't it Lord Acton? I'm not up on my titles of nobility, so I may be wrong here.
It was Lord Acton; still Lord Action sounds like a cool guy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would think that the leader would care about his own survival, and if facing an imminent death, would prefer to be 'a rich beach bum.'
ReplyDeleteDid Saddam Hussein actually face a credible revolutionary threat from the people he ruled over? The United States 'dealt' with him, but what's to say that he wouldn't have fled the country if a credible revolution was undertaken against him?
Consider Mugabe: if the opposition mounted a successful revolution, perhaps he would leave the country. I imagine that Mugabe would prefer to be a rich beach bum than dead. What's the point in accumulating wealth if you cannot enjoy it in retirement?
Hehe apologies! Gosh. I promise never to write on here that late again.
ReplyDeleteI believe, he was Baron Acton when he made the quote, and died Lord Acton. Although Lord Action could make a cool action figure. Again my sincere apologies.
Regarding the 'Beach Bum vs. Power theory' (BBVPT or BVT for short). Regarding my power theory, I just typed 3 paragraphs regarding the draw of power and then realized that in effect, I was arguing that power can be considered an immobile piece of capital for the leader and his minions (supporters). So my early post has evolved out of a criticism of the model overall to merely a reminder that one needs to remember that power is an important piece of immobile capital.
This is not a cop out though. Consider, a situation where the leader has not accumulated enough wealth, or places more value on power then wealth. In this situation she is far more likely to hang around and risk a lot more then someone with lots of mobile capital.
Hehe and I do take your point on board that Mugabe may have a teensy weensy preference of being a rich beach bum over being dead, I'm not arguing that he will choose death. I do believe that he will push his odds a bit. If he was a rational man he would have left with his money when Tsvangerai (Thank you firefox spell checker, I did not mean evangelist) gave him the chance. Instead he has chosen to remain in a country where there is no real chance of his wealth increasing dramatically, whilst the chance of assassination and revolution rises day by day. Why, do you ask, does he stay? Because of power *insert evil laugh here*
Gosh thats a bit long. Apologies. Don't read it if you don't want to, just write 'I agree' and everyone will believe you read what I said.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Mugabe is pushing the odds a bit, but perhaps he still feels his position in power is secure?
ReplyDeleteBasically, I agree with you, it's just that it is difficult to define when exactly a leader (who has over-stayed his welcome) should leave.
I think you made some smashing points there Ben. I personally would chuck in another caveat to the whole 'pushing your luck for power' business by considering the role of self-deception in the game. Like Amir said, it is difficult to define when exactly a leader should leave and this is made harder when all the facts aren't on the table.
ReplyDeleteTake Saddam for example, assuming he actually had the option of overseas refuge, perhaps he actually did believe his fighting forces would prove somewhat effective against the invaders. Perhaps he truly was blindsided by the mass defections in his army. Perhaps he thought that his core supporters were so loyal and American intelligence so impotent that he would be able to live among his supporters indefinitely (and of course, he did, though not for as long as I'm sure he had hoped and I doubt with the luxury he probably felt he deserved after his years of caring patronage for his people).
Also to note, I have a feeling if Mugabe or other high profile leaders left, other states may have different laws. If he was recognized in some countries, he could be arrested. When a person crosses state borders, they are under a different set of laws. Maybe the leaders sometimes stay in their countries because it is the safest place for them?
ReplyDeleteThat's another good point; although a dictator may be resented by the masses in his country, he also has his supporters to protect him.
ReplyDelete