Is authoritarianism an effective route to good social policy?

Question

In terms of social policy, I'm struck that modern research seems to suggest that the traditional authoritarian (and often perceived as right-wing) approach is almost always wrong. For example: - Harsh penalties for crimes (including corporal punishment, the death penalty and poor prison conditions) do not deter criminals. Soft treatment with a focus on rehabilitation however, does at least reduce re-offending rates. - Restricting access to sex education, birth control and safe abortions does nothing to reduce teen pregnancy rates. Providing these things, however, does. - Teaching children by rote in a highly controlled environment does a poor job of instilling wider research skills or a desire to learn. Allowing them lots of freedom to teach themselves in a guided and supportive environment appears to be a much better way of equipping them for the varied demands of modern life and work. My question is very simple: is this assumption correct? Or is there a sizable body of competing research and evidence to show that authoritarian measures can be an effective means of social policy?

Answer 1

Many individuals have argued that authoritarianism is an effective method for social policy. Theoretically, the centralization of ownership and planning allows for better management of a society. The government is given more power to allocate socioeconomic resources where they are most needed. However, as we have seen these policies implemented in the world it has become clear that authoritarianism regularly conflicts with the interests of citizens of authoritarian nations.

The difficulty with authoritarianism is that it sacrifices the individual in favor of the whole society. This means that the individual is punished when they act in accordance with their own needs. Additionally, government mismanagement of vital resources is a common experience in authoritarian societies. For example, in Maoist China the mismanagement of resources during the Great Leap Forward resulted in widespread famine and political corruption. Government officials exaggerated the amount of food produced in the rural communes under their supervision in order to meet extraordinary demands that were placed upon them by government- enforced quotas. As a result, the rural populations in China were left in starvation as all of their food was shipped off to feed the urban populations.

In conclusion, the theoretical view that the government can better manage the resources of a country under authoritarianism does not hold true when put into practice.