Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America

James W. McGuire, Ph.D. - Professor of Government at Wesleyan University
Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? In his award-winning book, Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America, Professor McGuire shows that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. His conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.
This program was made possible by the generosity of Ms. Eloise Briskin.
Jim McGuire earned his B.A. from Swarthmore and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of Peronism Without Peron (Stanford, 1997) and of articles and chapters on Argentine politics and labor unions; Latin American social policies; transitions from authoritarianism; and economic growth, income inequality, and mortality decline. Wealth, Health and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America (Cambridge, 2010) was named a Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2010 and won the Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research in 2011. At Wesleyan, Professor McGuire is also a member of the Latin American Studies Program and a recipient of the Binswanger Prize for Excellence in Teaching.

[@animeweng]

I disagree that all democracies can lower infant mortality rate.
Taiwan and South Korea as Prof. McGuire mention are high literacy societies with Confucianist background. They have a strong education programs. Taiwan under Authoritarian leader General Chiang Kai-Shek and South Korea under General Park Chung Hee were not Democratic at the time of rapid economic growth. They had investment in social services programs that brought down infant mortality rates to low levels.
Brazil and Argentina are tried to be democratic and they had slower decline of infant mortality rates. They had a poor education and poor communication. Healthcare effectiveness is based on society being able to implement and follow what the government says and also how effective the government is.
For some countries, democracy may work and for some it doesn't. Look at Haiti in the Caribbean and Liberia in Africa. They tried to be Democratic. Why did they fail? They had incompetent leaders and ineffective bureaucracies and political instability.
I think moralful educated elites in charge of strong Bureaucracies, leadership competence, education, access to wealth, and communication are far more important than saying democracies helps in doing this and that. There are too many factors to say democracy itself can help solve infant mortality rate decline. He even said 36:13 "short term demographic practice had no association with infant mortality rate." He makes a vague statement 36:16 "long term democractic experience had a strong association in the expected direction." Then, he makes a reference to dictator Pinochet who implemented those policies. He implemented good healthcare policies for his people especially women and children. To negate his long term democratic experience comment, good long term authoritarian regimes also have a good experience in lowering infant mortality.
I don't know Prof. McGuire can draw such erroneous conclusions. He should read the works of Prof You-tien Hsing expert in Political Economy of Development in East Asia. Authoritarian competent leadership was tied with lowering infant mortality rates effectively for Taiwan and South Korea before they democratized. Seems like McGuire has a sense of pro democracy bias due to his experiences in America. His specialty is Latin America not East Asia. I recommend that he do stronger research in East Asia and look into failed cases of democracy tied to high emphasis in social services. For example, Venezuela. I am shocked that such a socialistic country such as Venezuela is not mentioned in his case study. He made no mention of Singapore. Singapore as you know was a developing country that achieved a high Human Development Score and rapid development under an authoritarian state under the disguise of democracy. Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore for over 30 years with strong fisted rule. McGuire doesn't pick Singapore. Why? Because it weakens his shitty argument of 36:50 "Evil Dictators." Not all dictators are evil. If you look at the East Asian Tigers (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore), it would show competent leaders and bureaucracy, and political stability are more important than Democratic incompetent leaders and weak bureaucracies.
P.S. My background is in Geography. I graduated from Sac State but took several geography classes in Berkeley under Prof You-Tien Hsing.