Professor Tabellini’s article Democracy Comes

Second is full of contradiction and non-sense; its title

together with its purported subject-matter is a

showcase of what I call muddled and befuddled

thinking.

The factors influencing economic development are

many: soft factors such as culture, education level,

technologies, institutions, etc.; hard factors such as

resources, capital, and population, etc.; external factors

such as international trade competitive situation, and

many others; natural factors such as weather,

geography, to name just two. All these and many more

will condition how the economic activity of a society or

nation will take its shape and direction such as its

robustness and what its main thrust will be. Which of

these factors will take the driver's seat, which one will

play second fiddle, which is only a sufficient factor, and

which one will exert a negative impact are all depending

on the internal status of that society or nation, the

international going-on, and the historical stage it is at.

To borrow a terminology from Physics, economics is a

“many-body” problem. Or to use more technical jargons,

it is a dynamic, non-linear problem whose solution may

call for the application of chaos theory and the

methodology of fuzzy logic.

Conversely, the factors influencing how a democratic

society operate are also many, although admittedly

not as many as those on economics. There certainly

is no need for me to elaborate on them here.

To put the economics and democracy on a one-to-one

contrast or bi-polar opposition is what I called at the

beginning of my comment a “muddled and befuddled”

thinking if not over-over-simplification. I have never

read a political scientist worthy of the name of a

scholar would treat democracy and economics in that

fashion. Of course, people engaging in disseminating

this or that sort of ideology and/or hegemonic

discourses for this or that regime love to use this kind

of style. After all, how are you going to swindle people

with common sense if not by a forked tongue?

To his credit, Professor Tabellini in his article did

present a fine analysis of the intricate relationship

between economics and democracy, politics to be

exact. And it coincides with the dynamic, non-linear

nature of a many-body” type problem I have just

described.

To address the issue of which comes first and which

one second between economics and democracy, or

between economics and culture, weather,

international situation, etc. for that matter, is pure non-

sense and a futile maneuver.