The Third Pillar

by Raghuram Rajan

  More generally, all these developments meant that the high-cost short-term borrowing or bills that the government issued to fund emergencies like wars could be converted to lower-cost long-term borrowing once the war was over. Repayment would then be stretched out to smooth the burden on the taxpayer. The government’s increased capacity to borrow during those emergencies meant there was little likelihood it would invoke the specter of national emergency to expropriate money from the wealthy through extortionate taxes or forced loans. For wealthy landowners and businessmen, healthy government finances meant greater predictability about continued moderate taxation. This gave them the confidence to make larger fixed investments in canals, roads, and eventually railroads that paved England’s path to wealth, and indeed the Industrial Revolution.

  Sounder government finances also meant the government no longer had to do special deals with a few favored individuals or companies to raise money. It could set itself more at arm’s length, more bureaucratic in the sense of working according to a set of transparent rules, and thus create a level playing field for all its citizens. This also meant the possibility of a less-constrained, freer, and more arm’s-length market. And the drumbeat for that, as we will see in the next chapter, started increasing.

  WHAT DID THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION DO?

  As economic historians Douglass North and Barry Weingast argue, the Glorious Revolution tethered the monarchy more effectively through Parliamentary and judicial oversight so that its freedom to go in inappropriate directions was more limited.36 What was not spelled out in any detail is what would happen if the tether was cut—for example, if some monarch turned his standing army against Parliament in violation of the unwritten constitution. This is where the previous history was relevant. Parliament had demonstrated through the Civil War, and by deposing James II in the Glorious Revolution, its ability to come together to defend its rights. Its power to have its way when provoked is what gave teeth to the Declaration of Rights and subsequent reforms.37

  This point sometimes gets lost in the debate about the role of institutions in development. There is a strong correlation between the existence of “good” institutions in a country and its economic growth and prosperity, so much so that one of the more influential recent papers on the subject is titled triumphantly, “Institutions Rule.”38 While institutions matter, they rest on a bedrock of an underlying distribution of power among the constituencies in a country, which may have its sources largely elsewhere. For instance, the independent power of the gentry came from their commercial aptitude, their wealth, and their closeness to their tenants, who looked to them for sound management and good livelihoods. Unlike the landed magnates, no member of the gentry was extremely powerful on their own, hence they needed transparent rules and law to protect them, as well as a body like the House of Commons to help them coordinate their actions. At the same time, their numbers meant they could not be expropriated with the stroke of a pen or collectively accused of treason. The mistake when institutions function well is to believe that they would function similarly well elsewhere, ignoring the possibly different underlying distribution of power. The United States Constitution, when adopted by Liberia, turned out to be just a piece of paper, with none of the effective checks and balances that fill the Federalist Papers and characterize how the United States works.39

  While we know a fair amount about the kinds of institutions that exist in advanced states, there has been far less study of how to create the right distribution of power. Simply distributing property does not help, because what is given can be taken back. As we will see again and again in this book, the existence of vibrant competitive markets that allow productive and independent owners to emerge is a large part of the answer—markets help constrain the state and protect property as part of the balance. As our discussion of England’s emergence as a constitutionally limited state suggests, getting the right distribution of power also involves much luck. Perhaps this is why nation-building exercises in Libya and Afghanistan have largely proved failures so far.

  OTHER COUNTRIES

  The transformation from feudal vassal to commercial tenant, and the resulting shift in power from the landed magnate to the more numerous and dispersed gentry, did not take place everywhere, and rarely in the same way. Nevertheless, while every modern liberal democracy had its own idiosyncratic path toward constitutionally limited government, there were generalizable elements from England’s experience. The key development, as argued in this chapter, was the transfer of large unproductive land holdings from the monasteries and aristocrats into the hands of the more commercially minded gentry. In the process of dispersing economic and political power away from the church and the aristocracy, a new independent constituency arose that benefited from a more open rule-based system.

  In the United States in the early nineteenth century, settlers poured into the newly surveyed and auctioned lands in the West. Land was widely owned, and those who could not make a go of it sold quickly to those who could, so it was also productively held. The exception was the South, where both corruption and climate conspired to create large, concentrated plantations run on the backs of slave labor.40 Studies show wider distribution of land, especially when also efficient, helped improve local governance. Rodney Ramcharan of the University of Southern California finds that US counties where there were large farms and concentrated land holdings (because of the kind of crops favored by rainfall patterns) tended to have less spending on education, a key measure of the democratic responsiveness of the government to public need.41 In a joint study with him, we found that such counties had far fewer banks per capita in the early twentieth century, a measure of broad-based economic opportunity.42 We traced such differences to the nature of governance in those areas. Therefore, even within a developed large country not so long ago, land distribution affected local governance, and thence economic opportunities.

  As economic historians Stanley Engerman and Kenneth Sokoloff have argued, there is a more general pattern here. For example, countries in Latin America that started out with more plantation-based agriculture, and thus large concentrated land holdings, tend to have less broad-based political and social institutions today.43 The lesson is not simply that land holdings concentrated among the few are bad for democracy—a point made forcibly by political sociologist Barrington Moore—but that substantial wealth held by a few with close ties to government reduces the possibility of the state working for the many. Such lessons apply even today. It is one reason we should be concerned about the rise of megacorporations dependent on intellectual property, as I will argue later in the book.

  Market forces also do not always work to weaken the politically powerful, especially if they have alternative outs. The precise circumstances matter. As Barrington Moore argues, the boom in prices as well as the expanding market for grain exports in the sixteenth century in northeast Germany had the effect of strengthening, not weakening, the power of the landed nobility.44 With labor scarce, the landed nobility could have moved to paying peasants market wages, and commuting feudal obligations. Instead, by common arrangement, they increased the labor obligations of the peasants, eliminated their ability to sell or bequeath property, and reduced their ability to marry, or even move, off the manorial estate.

  What was different in northeast Germany (and Eastern Europe more generally) from England was that the peasant did not have much market choice himself. Central authority was weak and there were no royal courts that might have protected his rights against the nobility. Moreover, even though it was a common feudal practice that a serf who escaped the manor and lived in a town for a year and one day became free, towns had declined in size and prosperity in northeast Germany, and there were not enough of them to hide him or give him a livelihood, unlike in more urbanized England. In Poland, the land market was suppressed because of laws that prevented ownership from passing outside nobility.45 As a result, rich businessmen, lawyers, and merchants could not buy land, p
ut it to more efficient use, and put pressure on feudal arrangements. With few checks on the power of the landed nobility, market pressures increased peasant oppression and feudal obligations rather than diminishing them. Even today, perhaps because it stayed feudal much longer, much of northeast Germany is less prosperous than southern Germany.

  CONCLUSION

  The absolute monarchy symbolized by the Tudors and attempted by the Stuarts gave way to a state that obtained more capabilities after giving up its power to be arbitrary. Such a state enjoyed broader legitimacy among the propertied because of the widespread belief that it would continue to adhere to a social contract with its wealthier citizens and investors. This also assured it of access to finance from the wealthy. With the confidence that it had few domestic challenges to its legitimacy, and that it could borrow the money to meet external challenges when that necessity arose, the state did not need to favor a select few. It could operate at greater arm’s length from the market. Cronyism steadily gave way to a more open business environment, which in turn created many more competitive independent entities that could check state power.

  As England became militarily powerful on the basis of its strong state finances, and economically powerful based on its competitive markets (which positioned it well for the Industrial Revolution), other European countries took note. They did not want to lose out in the great European quest for supremacy. It would be too much to claim there was only one way to a constitutionally limited state. The United States, despite inheriting a very English governance ethos and becoming an independent republic, went through a civil war to suppress its own Southern landed interests.46 France went through a bloody revolution, followed by war and empire before it eventually became a constitutional republic (barring a few short relapses). Germany went through unification, empire, war, democracy, fascism, and war again before it too became a constitutional republic. As we will see, the United States played an enormous role in post–Second World War Western Europe in ensuring that countries continued to see value in both a democratic limited state and in markets. Nevertheless, many Western European countries needed only a nudge postwar, because the underlying distribution of political power and the existence of structures promoting competitive markets made them fertile ground for creating a constitutionally limited state.

  The recognition of private property in land, and the emergence of a market for produce and land, also hurt many as the feudal community was destroyed. While independent private property owners could coordinate through Parliament or Congress to influence the state, the peasant and increasingly the worker in manufacturing establishments, dislodged from their traditional communities, had no explicit rights and no say in their own governance. In the next chapter, we will track the final steps toward liberal democracy as industrialization picked up. The demand for a voice came especially from workers in the growing cities, whose squalid filthy communities needed public services. Having obtained democracy, as we will see in the next chapter, communities organized to get the political establishment to pay attention to their demands, especially that unbridled crony capitalism be controlled. The third pillar grew in strength once again.

  3

  FREEING THE MARKET . . . THEN DEFENDING IT

  As the state eliminated military challenges within its territory, and as parliamentary bodies came to be dominated by propertied individuals, the wealthy no longer felt their lives or property were under constant threat. Parliament would limit the government to legitimate activities. With the state constitutionally limited, trade- or community-based organizations that would provide members physical security and protect their business were no longer required. Nor were restraints on competition that made these organizations possible. Economic philosophers could now preach the virtue of free and unfettered markets, while political philosophers could extoll the benefits of individual liberty and minimal government, even while both sets of thinkers took the safety of life and wealth for granted. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, markets were on the ascendance.

  Laissez-faire, first propounded by French philosophers known as the Physiocrats, sought to take the emerging relationship between the state and markets to its logical conclusion: The state should leave business alone to do what it must, letting the full forces of market competition play out. The philosophers did not explain what they would advocate if market participants tried to subvert market competition with the aid of the state—a development that Adam Smith worried about—or shut it down themselves by cartelizing the market. Nevertheless, as a blunt theoretical argument with which to bludgeon the remaining anticompetitive vestiges of both feudalism and mercantilism, laissez-faire was successful.

  Yet, even as the votaries of the market celebrated, opposition was building. Not everyone benefited from the commercialization of agriculture, even in England. There were losers other than the high aristocracy, most importantly those who benefited from the old manor community. The worst affected were older peasants, whose tenancy was terminated as their fields were given over to more productive uses or users, but who could not migrate to the towns unlike the young. Peasants also saw their customary right to graze animals, hunt for game, or pick firewood in the commons disappear without compensation, as the common grounds were legally enclosed and appropriated by the politically powerful landed. As a popular ditty went:

  The law locks up the man or woman

  Who steals the goose from off the common

  But leaves the greater villain loose

  Who steals the common from the goose.1

  The commercialization of agriculture broke up many a traditional English village community, resulting in masses of unemployed peasants who migrated to the towns in search of work. This was Marx’s “reserve army” of the unemployed, which fed the Industrial Revolution.

  The jobs in the hellish factories that mushroomed in the growing towns were hard and dangerous. They did put food on the table but too many children worked long hours, simply because they were more nimble than adults, and parents did not know where to leave them while they worked. Families had few alternatives since work back in the village had disappeared. Worse than the factory jobs were the appalling, polluted, overcrowded, and unsanitary urban ghettos where the workers lived. Few employers were enlightened enough to do anything about these living conditions. With everyone subsisting at the margin, there was little sense of community, let alone community support in these anonymous, unfamiliar industrial towns. Every worker feared the job losses from the emerging business cycles and financial booms and busts, which could quickly convert a barely tolerable existence into utter destitution.

  Parliaments, as we have seen, arose to protect the wealth of the propertied against the state. To ensure the right members were elected, legislatures also instituted a property qualification for voting. Constituencies were small and easily influenced while the middle class, labor class, and the poor were disenfranchised. With no political representation, and limited competitive pressure on employers to treat workers better (given that so many were looking for work), workers had little hope from the system for either an improvement in the workplace or in living conditions.

  The workers, and urban dwellers more generally, needed representation if matters were to change. Their push for democratic voice had varying degrees of success over the course of the nineteenth century, but male workers obtained the vote in most countries in North America and Western Europe by the beginning of the twentieth century, for reasons we will detail. The expansion of the vote typically resulted in the authorities putting greater emphasis on public goods like sanitation, schooling, and safety nets. It did not lead to the newly enfranchised expropriating the wealth of the rich, as was much feared. The broader realization was that the democratically empowered community was not against markets or private property, it was perfectly happy to respect them when there was a sense that respecting these rights broadly benefited the community. Indeed, to the extent tha
t the earlier balance between the constitutionally limited state and markets was based on the efficient holding of property, it was a distribution that the democratically empowered community could also respect.

  With the expansion of the vote, the broader electorate’s views on the state, the markets, and the relationship between them had the potential to matter. As we will see, democratic community-based movements like Populism and Progressivism in the United States toward the turn of the nineteenth century helped avert the cartelization of markets and the closing of opportunities for the small businessperson. With the democratic community’s prodding, the state’s role expanded, with new functions like antitrust and product safety regulation keeping the markets competitive and orderly, and friendlier to small entrepreneurs as well as consumers. Democracy became the mechanism through which the organized and vigilant community could influence the state and shape markets—parliaments started their transformation from solely protecting the property of the few to creating and preserving opportunity for the many. Let us now elaborate.

  FREEING THE MARKETS

  In his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Adam Smith argued that by producing for the market and maximizing his own profits, the manufacturer maximized the size of the public pie, and thus the wealth of the nation. Smith thus made the case for allowing the invisible hand of the competitive market, working through self-interest, to drive economic prosperity. The real damage was not caused by avarice or even the self-indulgence of the rich, it emanated from restraints on competition and the resulting distorted prices and quantities.