Back in January I got wind of a new
study that was being put together on
monarchic vs. republican governance.
When I contacted the author I was
informed that the study was about to
undergo peer review and would be
available around the end of April. The
author was thoughtful enough to
remember my inquiry and send along
a PDF of the now peer reviewed study.
...And I promptly got swamped with political stuff and haven't
been able to take a look at the study till now.
study that was being put together on
monarchic vs. republican governance.
When I contacted the author I was
informed that the study was about to
undergo peer review and would be
available around the end of April. The
author was thoughtful enough to
remember my inquiry and send along
a PDF of the now peer reviewed study.
...And I promptly got swamped with political stuff and haven't
been able to take a look at the study till now.
Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and
Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and
the Economy is the study put together by Mauro Guillén of
the University of Pennsylvania and comes to four conclusions:
1. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of internal conflict on property rights.
2. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of executive tenure on property rights.
3. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of the discretion of the executive branch on property
rights.
All of which rely on the common economic argument that:
4. A greater degree of protection of property rights results in
better economic outcomes.
The first point should be familiar to any monarchist that has
argued having a non-partisan head of state is a good thing.
This is essentially what was tested. This study is exciting in
how it connects the dots with other studies. For instance the
study "Economic Growth & Institutional Reform in
Monarchies & Republics" came to the conclusion that
monarchies seemed to perform better at times of great
institutional change but couldn't narrow down why. This
paper provides a plausible answer as to why this might be.
Now, this paper mainly helps constitutional monarchies.
While absolute monarchies did well on point one they were
shown to have the same problems as republics with points
two and three (I'm actually not sure whether absolutists or
republicans would be more upset with that comparison).
The study did provide some good news for republicans;
"The evidence that the effects hold relative to parliamentary
republics and democratic republics separately is consistent
with Weber’s theorizing as well, except that parliamentary
republics seem to be able to handle executive tenure as well
as monarchies, and democratic republics to address
executive discretion as effectively as monarchies."
So while republics can compete with constitutional
monarchies on certain points they can't on all points. This
study provides more backing for the argument that no good
can come from Canada becoming a republic.
As always, the new studies have been added to Useful Links.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour
Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and
the Economy is the study put together by Mauro Guillén of
the University of Pennsylvania and comes to four conclusions:
1. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of internal conflict on property rights.
2. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of executive tenure on property rights.
3. Compared to republics, monarchies reduce the negative
effect of the discretion of the executive branch on property
rights.
All of which rely on the common economic argument that:
4. A greater degree of protection of property rights results in
better economic outcomes.
The first point should be familiar to any monarchist that has
argued having a non-partisan head of state is a good thing.
This is essentially what was tested. This study is exciting in
how it connects the dots with other studies. For instance the
study "Economic Growth & Institutional Reform in
Monarchies & Republics" came to the conclusion that
monarchies seemed to perform better at times of great
institutional change but couldn't narrow down why. This
paper provides a plausible answer as to why this might be.
Now, this paper mainly helps constitutional monarchies.
While absolute monarchies did well on point one they were
shown to have the same problems as republics with points
two and three (I'm actually not sure whether absolutists or
republicans would be more upset with that comparison).
The study did provide some good news for republicans;
"The evidence that the effects hold relative to parliamentary
republics and democratic republics separately is consistent
with Weber’s theorizing as well, except that parliamentary
republics seem to be able to handle executive tenure as well
as monarchies, and democratic republics to address
executive discretion as effectively as monarchies."
So while republics can compete with constitutional
monarchies on certain points they can't on all points. This
study provides more backing for the argument that no good
can come from Canada becoming a republic.
As always, the new studies have been added to Useful Links.
Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour
RSS Feed
