72 Books & arts The EconomistFebruary 15th 2020
21more or a bit less democratic. No modern
country, not even Switzerland, is as insane-
ly democratic as ancient Athens, where
citizens voted to recall their military lead-
ers from Sparta. All democracies limit pop-
ular participation in collective decision-
making, be it by handing over responsibil-
ity to elected representatives to make big
decisions, or by appointing judges and oth-
er public servants. Mr Jones believes that,
because people do not always vote for what
is good for them, those countries that have
made it to the top quartile of the democracy
scale should set slightly tighter limits.
A study by Alberto Alesina and Law-
rence Summers in 1993, for instance,
showed that inflation was lower in coun-
tries with independent central banks.
There was no cost in terms of growth or em-
ployment; it was a free lunch. The trick was
simply to hand over responsibility for the
money supply to an official who had no in-
terest in using it to boost growth in the
run-up to elections. (In the best—or only—
joke about central bankers, a student visits
his former professor, who has become one.
The phone rings. “No...no...no...no...yes
...no...no,” says the central banker. Hanging
up, he explains that the caller was the fi-
nance minister. “What did you answer ‘yes’
to?” wonders the student. “He asked if I
could hear him.”)
Likewise, regulators’ backbones are
stiffened by independence. A study in Eu-
rope showed that the less dependent on
politicians they are, the more likely they
are to stand up to government-owned util-
ities. Free trade, too, benefits when farther
from democracy. The closer politicians are
to an election year, the less likely they are to
vote for measures to liberalise trade.
In America, which has historically been
devoted to democracy, all sorts of officials
are elected. State-by-state variations allow
comparison of their performance with the
appointed type. It turns out that elected
judges make worse judgments and elected
city treasurers cost their taxpayers more
(though not many are as improvident as
the man who consulted a psychic to help
him manage the voters’ money—and even-
tually bankrupted Orange County).A price worth paying
Mr Jones musters plenty of convincing evi-
dence that fewer elections and more dis-
tance between voters and decisions make
for better governance. But he stretches the
argument for limiting democracy far be-
yond that observation. He is attracted by
the idea of “epistocracy”, or rule by clever
people; he advocates giving an official role
in decision-making to bondholders, who
already constrain governments’ freedom
by raising the costs of lending to badly
managed countries.
These arguments expose the flaw at the
centre of this interesting and enjoyablebook. Mr Jones looks at democracy as an
economic system. But for most people, de-
mocracy’s moral component is also essen-
tial. It is an expression of the belief that
everybody is equal in the sight of God or the
presence of the ballot box, and that a coun-
try’s people should have power over their
government. Less democracy may mean
more sensible outcomes, but it also means
less legitimacy.
Recent events illustrate that point.
Hong Kong is in many ways a splendidly
governed place, with reliable social order
and a thriving economy—and very limiteddemocracy. The result of last year’s elec-
tion, in which voters supported pro-de-
mocracy protesters, was a clear message to
the territory’s Chinese overlords that its
people wanted more of a say, even at the
cost of less stability.
For its part, the European Union is a
model of co-operation and rational deci-
sion-making. Yet it has just lost one of its
larger members, in part because British
voters felt no connection with its gover-
nance structures. Technocrats may make
sensible decisions, but democracy without
legitimacy is a ship without a sail. 7H
alfway through“Parasite”, the Kims
(pictured), a family of grifters who live
in a dank Seoul basement, have by hook
and (mostly) crook wangled their way into
jobs in the ultrachic mansion of the Parks.
Twisty as the plot has already been, viewers
know more surprises must be in store—but
can scarcely imagine what they will be. The
screwball shifts in tone somehow cohere
into a biting parable of haves and have-
nots. On February 9th this South Korean
farce became the first foreign-language
film to be crowned Best Picture at the Acad-
emy Awards. It also took Best Screenplay,
Best International Feature Film and Best
Director, for Bong Joon-ho.
“Once you overcome the one-inch tall
barrier of subtitles,” Mr Bong has observed,
“you will be introduced to many more
amazing films.” The success of “Parasite”
has been seen as a harbinger of the rise of
global cinema in the Anglophone world,and of South Korea’s rich film industry in
particular. Perhaps—but, even more than
usual, it is a triumph for Mr Bong, who has
completed a high-speed journey from sub-
versive extremist to national hero. During
the administration of Park Geun-hye, from
2013 to 2017, officials kept tabs on him be-
cause of his politics; state funding was un-
available for his work. Being blacklisted in
this way, Mr Bong said just three years ago,
was a “nightmare”. On February 10th he re-
ceived a warm congratulatory message
from Moon Jae-in, the president today.
His rehabilitation chimes with political
changes in South Korea. Ms Park’s lieuten-
ants considered Mr Bong’s films—which
include “Memories of Murder”, “Mother”
and “Okja”—unacceptably disrespectful of
the state; more than 9,000 other artists and
writers, many less able to support them-
selves, got the same treatment. (Mr Bong’s
English-language sci-fi flick, “Snowpierc-SEOUL
An Oscar-winning South Korean film is a triumph for its directorThe Academy AwardsCreepy crawlies