These elements interfere with convergence

Are economies inherently liberal I will answer in dealing with the issue in terms of convergence, which is more widely on a faster growth possible poorest economies, closer and more rich. Economic growth theory distinguished two forces of convergence between rich countries and poor countries. On the one hand, the rates of return on investment tend to decrease as and as savings accumulate more physical and human capital, due to a drop in yields. With little capital per capita, poor countries have high rates of performance and therefore tend to grow rapidly. On the other hand, the less developed economies can improve their technologies by imitation and thus to develop faster, as was the case for the Japan then the Asian "Tigers".

However, the data show no convergence since half a century. Based on per capita GDP, there is that poor countries grow no faster than the rich. This result was explained by the so-called "conditional" convergence, which combines the effect of Accelerator related to a low GDP per capita to other growth factors. Traditional theories cite the rate of population growth and the education and health systems. A rise in income leads to a decrease in the growth of the population, lowering fertility rates (as opposed to what was Thomas Malthus), quantitative and qualitative improvement of education and health and a probable increase in the savings rate. These elements interfere with convergence. Many theories of growth specialists today interested in the institutions that govern the legislative systems, property rights and corruption. Insofar as the quality of the institutions has a strong influence on the growth, it is fundamental to follow their evolution. According to the theory of modernization (advanced by Karl Marx, but before him, by Aristotle), economic development systematically change institutions. Aristotle (then S.M. Lipset in the 1950s) says that a higher level of income and education tends to increase democracy (electoral rights) and civil liberties. This assumption appears correct, but its implications for growth are not clear. A strengthening of democracy promotes the growth limiting trends of dictators to plunder the resources. However, it seems that a stronger democracy delayed term growth, with an emphasis on social programs and the redistribution revenues.

The fact that economic development tends to improve justice and bureaucracy on the other hand is most significant for economic growth. Development can also reduce the powers of authorization and red tape and improve the rights of property in land, growth factors highlighted by Hernando de Soto.

What pro-marché policies, such as the liberalisation of the labour market, the moderation of social insurance programs, harmful regulatory relief, the lowering of marginal tax rate and the privatization of enterprises We can say that they promote growth, but we lack of evidence on how economic outcomes affect their implementation. Indeed can be amount of different experiences.

In the United Kingdom, socialism adopted after the second world war led to bad economic results. It was followed in 1979 by the pro-marché reforms implemented by Margaret Thatcher. The victory of the Government during the strike in 1984-1985 marked a turning point. The reforms were then applied to other areas and labour market. This event recalls the efforts of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to reduce the US administration. Here again, a victory over a Union strike, air traffic controllers in 1981, helped accelerate the relaxation of the labour market and the implementation of other reforms, including the decline in the rate of taxation.

In France and Germany, it is any different. Despite a high long unemployment and low growth, no reform of the labour market has been firm. Mr. Chirac's Government has retreated before the manifestations of trade unions and students and waived a slight reform of a rigid labour market. In Germany, the reactions of opposition and the imminence of elections, Ms Merkel has removed several proposals of economic liberalization. In both cases, poor economic results have failed to gather political support for liberalizing measures promoting growth. Neither Mr Chirac nor Ms Merkel seem able to mark as Mrs Thatcher or Mr. Reagan's history.

The Franco-German example is found in Latin America, where the liberalisation of the market appeared to be fully committed 20 years ago. Initiated in some cases after disappointments, as in Bolivia, the process however reversed to give way to populism and nationalization. Only the Chile, and possibly the Mexico, are now truly among market economies, although the Brazil currently exceeds the forecasts in this matter.

On the other hand, the Ireland, Scandinavia and the Netherlands responded to the economic problems caused by excessive application of the measures of welfare State in agreeing on the way to the market. The post-Communist Eastern Europe departed from its unfortunate socialist heritage in going to the market economy. China has responded to disastrous Communist policies, such as the cultural revolution, since 1979 the pro-marché reforms. The India, after years of socialism and corruption, turns to the liberalism since the reforms of 1991. However, the paralysis of the political system currently prevent it from further liberalisation, such as labour and business market.

To return to my starting point, world history shows that the establishment of liberal measures is not inevitable. An annex, but nonetheless important, issue is that if Governments respond to the economic difficulties in adopting corrective measures taking the form of liberalisation. A response in this sense would support the theory of convergence of the economies, but it is not certain that the world applies this rule.