We need your help to continue reporting
Collaborate with Newtribuna
Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinsonawarded with the Nobel Prize in Economics 2024have dedicated a good part of their research work to establishing a direct relationship between institutions, economic progress and social well-being, concluding that the greater or lesser economic progress of countries corresponds to the greater or lesser democratic quality of their institutions.
In the first pages of his best-known work, “The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. Why countries fail” (Deusto Editions, Barcelona 2012), The conclusions of his hypothesis can already be seen with the mere confrontation of the different colonization models that the Spanish and English put into practice in the conquest of South America and North America.
The Spanish with a network of institutions; encomienda, mita, repartimiento and trajín that subjected the indigenous people “to have a subsistence standard of living” and “Although these institutions generated much wealth for the Spanish Crown and made the conquistadors and their descendants rich, they also turned Latin America into one of the most unequal continents in the world and undermined much of its economic potential.”
The greater or lesser economic progress of countries corresponds to the greater or lesser democratic quality of their institutions.
Against this model, the authors contrast the colonization that the English carried out in North America, which although they were initially tempted to imitate the Spanish model, they soon understood that their success would lie in contemplating the colonists as future inhabitants of the conquered lands and they established ownership mechanisms that ended up providing participation institutions; communal assemblies, temporary elections, etc., etc., despite all the attempts of the elites to stop these reforms.
The truth is that starting in 1720, thirteen colonies of what would later become the United States had been provided with governors and assemblies with the right to vote for the owners, excluding women and slaves.
More than 500 years have passed since those outrages and the shadow of those institutions has been lengthened.
The achievements of “Spanish miracle”1959-1973, allowed the Spanish economy to emerge from autarky, develop an incipient middle class and inaugurate a period of accelerated economic growth that would end in 1973 with the oil crisis, a period that cannot be separated from a context of war. cold where the geostrategic situation of Spain played a determining role.
No one denies the economic benefits of this period, but everyone agrees that this accelerated and unequal industrialization meant the abandonment of many regions with consequences that still persist.
A “miracle” could have occurred but Spain was still very far from becoming a country of progress
This period led to the emergence of a series of state corporations, economic institutions, which monopolized the different sectors; Telefónica, Repsol, Iberdrola, Hunosa, Altos Hornos, Seat, Renfe, Iberia, Tabacalera, etc., which guaranteed “growth” but in no case progress in terms of social well-being.
That is to say, according to the theory of Robison and Acemoglu, a “miracle” could have occurred but Spain was still very far from becoming a country of progress, because in order to progress, along with economic institutions, a network of political institutions is necessary; educational system, health system, labor market, pension system, judicial power, that give them stability and security.
It is not understood, or is understood too well, how INSTITUTIONALITY in capital letters has been so absent in the transition analysis. Looked at closely is its collective dimension, always masked in favor of individual protagonisms when not intentionally ignored.
To be the successful country in which, despite all the difficulties, we can recognize ourselves today, it has been necessary over the last 50 years to social mobilization unprecedented, which had been brewing before the end of the Dictatorship that has built a very robust institutional framework and of a more than acceptable democratic quality. It doesn’t matter where you look; parliaments, political parties, unions, employers. Social movements, professional associations, neighborhood, student, cultural, livestock, agricultural, scientific, educational, sports associations and so on, a very long etcetera still to be completed.
To be the successful country in which we can recognize ourselves today, unprecedented social mobilization has been necessary over the last 50 years.
Without this mobilization, the achievement of an advanced democracy like the one we have today would not have been possible.
This adulteration of the collective character of the transition through its institutions has consequences. The most important, the difficulties in feeling them as one’s own and consequently the growing indifference before their development, but for those of us who do feel them as our own, there have been reasons for concern for a long time.
The institutional construction of a country is not just about erecting a building with resistant materials; inclement weather can end up seriously affecting it if work is not done on its permanent rehabilitation.
It is urgent to address some pillars of the Spanish institutional building; stopping the wear and tear of materials in the Health System, attacking the aluminosis that affects the judiciary before it affects the entire building and distances Parliament from the practices of some benches, more typical of the “gunmen” who end up making the reform more expensive.
#Institutional #power #economic #progress #Spain
