What is the path to economic prosperity? The standard answers tend to come in the form of models, policies and plans of action. Economists have spent decades refining them. Yet to conclude that the right policies and models will, by themselves, produce prosperity “is like believing that eggs, sugar, and flour will turn into cake if left overnight in a mixing bowl”, as Yuen Yuen Ang, a Singaporean political scientist and the author of How China Escaped the Poverty Trap, puts it. Prosperity has to be willed into existence. It has to be created, organised and sustained. That raises a more fundamental question: who does the willing, and why?
Curiously, development economics has never placed leadership at the centre of its explanation of prosperity. This is an odd omission. The quality of leadership determines whether a country takes the right economic and social decisions at the right time, learns from its mistakes and changes course when circumstances demand it. Policies do not implement themselves. Institutions do not reform themselves. Economies do not spontaneously become more productive. Someone has to make choices, overcome resistance and persist when the results are neither immediate nor convenient. In a country, as in any other organisation, that someone is its leadership.
Thinkers have long tried to explain why some nations become rich while others remain poor. David Hume, Adam Smith and David Ricardo regarded economic growth as central to political economy, but modern growth theory emerged only in the 1940s, with the Harrod-Domar model and later the Solow-Swan framework. Solow established that long-term growth depends on capital accumulation, labour and technological progress. From the 1980s, Paul Romer and Robert Lucas brought technology and knowledge creation into the model, emphasising innovation, research and development, human capital and learning-by-doing as sources of sustained growth.
Institutional economists such as Douglass North, and later Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, shifted attention to deeper determinants of growth: property rights, governance, the rule of law and political institutions. Running alongside these theories was the structuralist school, associated with Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, which argued that markets alone could not overcome coordination failures, economies of scale and structural rigidities in poor countries. It advocated an active developmental state using industrial policy and public investment to accelerate industrialisation.
The disappointing results of state intervention in much of the developing world, the debt crises of the 1980s and the collapse of socialist economies then shifted the intellectual consensus towards markets. The Washington Consensus embodied this faith in the invisible hand: liberalise, privatise, deregulate and maintain macroeconomic discipline.
What is striking about this intellectual history is what is missing from almost all of it. Leadership barely appears. This is particularly surprising because many poor countries have historically suffered not from a shortage of development theories but from governments dominated by kleptocrats, predatory political classes and protected elites. A country can have excellent policies on paper and still be incapable of implementing them. It can have abundant natural resources and remain poor, or foreign capital and squander it. It can have technically competent bureaucrats and political leaders determined to undermine them.
Leadership, after all, is a decisive variable in almost every form of organisation, whether social, political or corporate. Why should a country be the exception? Nobody seriously believes that Jamshedji Tata played no central role in creating the Tata industrial empire, or that Tesla and SpaceX would necessarily have achieved the same trajectory under a different leader from Elon Musk. Nor would it make much sense to explain China’s extraordinary economic transformation without considering Deng Xiaoping and the political system that subsequently evolved to select and empower its leaders. The idea that leadership matters enormously to companies but little to countries is difficult to defend.
The more interesting question is whether this proposition can be demonstrated rather than merely illustrated. There is evidence that it can. Economists Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olken examined the economic consequences of the random, exogenous deaths of national leaders in office. By comparing economic performance before and after such deaths, they could examine whether the identity of the executive actually mattered.
It did. Their research found that changes in national leadership can produce substantial changes in economic growth rates. The person at the top can alter the trajectory of an economy.
There is another curious asymmetry. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of books about leadership lessons from outstanding companies. Business schools devote entire courses to successful chief executives. Yet there are remarkably few systematic attempts to ask what the leadership of successful countries—Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan or China—can teach us about economic development.
A 2010 World Bank paper, Leadership and Growth, offers some useful clues. It examined Singapore’s remarkable economic performance over the four decades following independence and drew on the insights of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who served as Singapore’s prime minister from 1990 to 2004. Goh’s framework identified three broad determinants of economic performance: resources, including natural endowment and inherited institutions; the growth paradigm, such as wealth distribution versus wealth generation; and the formulation and effective execution of the right policies.
The distinction is important because empirical experience suggests that effective implementation of the right policies can compensate for weaknesses in the first two, such as an absence of natural resources. Far from being a mere backdrop to growth, executive leadership has been a primary driver of development in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China.
Even if a country is endowed with no natural resources, like Singapore, smart leaders can learn by doing, make course corrections and transform their countries. Goh emphasises that sustained growth is often the result of persistent fine-tuning of policies. Honest self-reflection against clearly defined benchmarks provides accountability. What determines policy, implementation and review? Goh identifies three factors—robust institutions, leadership and social consensus. Poor leadership, however, cannot create the other two.
The same logic can be seen, in different forms, in South Korea, Taiwan and China. None began with the institutions, incomes or technological capabilities they possess today. Their leaders learned, experimented, adjusted and changed direction when existing policies stopped working. Development was not a straight line from the adoption of a correct model to prosperity. It was a process of continual trial, error and correction. But the leadership was serious about development.
This brings us to the more difficult question: what makes a good economic leader? Goh’s answer is stark. Leaders should be visionary and diligent, but also selflessly devoted to national rather than party or personal interests. Credibility requires integrity. Leaders must be incorruptible—or operate within a system that gives them strong incentives to remain so—and be honest about what is and is not working.
Transforming a poor economy into a prosperous one requires decisions that are rarely easy and almost never painless. A country must build human capital, integrate with global markets, absorb foreign technology and eventually generate its own, continually raise productivity, invest in infrastructure while keeping costs competitive, allow inefficient firms to disappear while creating space for innovative ones, and reform institutions without destroying the stability that makes investment possible.
The invisible hand therefore has a visible partner. The experience of the fastest-growing economies suggests that development is a political and institutional process, driven by people who make choices under uncertainty. Some choices are wrong. Successful leaders distinguish themselves not by never making mistakes but by recognising them early enough to correct them.
This may explain why countries with apparently similar resources, institutions and access to markets can follow radically different trajectories. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China followed different development paths and have different political systems, but each contains a powerful common element: leaders who identified opportunities, mobilised institutions, experimented with policy and changed course when circumstances required it. This does not mean that charismatic leaders should be confused with good governance. A country cannot build prosperity around personality.
It is honest, wise and visionary leadership, committed to course correction, that makes it happen. The invisible hand of the market may be indispensable. But history suggests that, in countries that successfully transformed themselves, it was accompanied by another hand: visible, fallible and distinctly human. Empirical evidence says so. It is time for growth theories to catch up—and for educated, intelligent people in developing countries to ask themselves: are our leaders serious, visionary, incorruptible and selfless people, devoted to national rather than party or personal interests?
Democracy plays a very crucial role in shaping a country's growth paradigm. Though countries like Singapore has a working democracy, but, I think the system of governance is different than what prevails in India. Compulsion to go for election every five years in federal as well as provincial government is a serious challenge to any leadership.
Your analysis is perfect. The leader, rather than the leadership, must be an Intelligent, which is different than Educated, person who will understand how the country is performing and where the changes are necessary and should be courageous to implement those changes. In democracy he needs the additional quality of being capable of convincing and carrying the Elected Representatives with him. In a way for prosperity of the country, dictatorship with a good and knowlegeable dictator appears to be an easy option, and in a large country with immature Democracy, it is comparatively more difficult.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
