|
|
CULTURE CLASH: A Talk with Hernando De Soto
Filmed on April 22, 2002
In the West, capitalism reigns triumphant. Living standards, wealth, and technological development in the capitalist Western countries surpass anything seen before in human history. But why has capitalism so obviously failed in most developing countries? Why are some saying that capitalism is in a state of crisis today in the Third World? Does the success of capitalism depend on Western cultural values that simply don't translate to the Third World? Or can economic and political reforms, especially reform of property rights, enable developing countries to share the same fruits of capitalism and free enterprise that we enjoy in the West?
Guests:
Streaming video:
Transcript:
Peter Robinson: Today on Uncommon Knowledge, the United States is rich.
Mexico, Peru, Columbia, Bolivia, Ecuador are not. How come?
Announcer: Funding for this program is provided by the John M. Olin
Foundation and the Starr Foundation.
[Music]
Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson. Our
show today, capitalism and the Third World: a conversation with
renowned Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto. In the West,
capitalism reigns. Living standards and technological progress
surpass anything ever before seen in all of human history. But in
the Third World, capitalism seems obviously to have failed. One
developing country after another, just isn't developing. Why? Is
it because capitalism requires cultural values that exist in the
West, but not in the Third World? Or, can economic and political
reforms, especially reforms of property rights, finally enable the
Third World to enjoy some of the fruits of capitalism? Hernando
De Soto is founder and President of the Institute for Liberty and
Democracy in Lima, Peru. He is also the author of The Mystery of
Capital: Why Capitalism triumphs in the West and Fails
Everywhere Else.
Title: The Wealth of Notions
Peter Robinson: Robert Samuelson: "Capitalism is a peculiar creation of Western
culture." Does that mean that everywhere outside the West, the
Third World, is doomed to fail at becoming capitalists?
Hernando De Soto: If culture is separate from law, he's wrong. I think that capitalism
is particular to the West, because of the legal system the West has.
Peter Robinson: Now, in your work there are two concepts that I take it to be
absolutely central to your work. The first is capital itself. What
do you mean by that term?
Hernando De Soto: I mean by capital, the value that things have that can be
transported to start off new ventures. Pretty much what I think the
economist defines it as, stuff that begets stuff. That is to say,
value. It's value that can be monetized or not. It can be expressed
in monetary form or it can be expressed in other forms, but that
you can move around. Let me give you an example, the Peruvian
Telephone Company, had a value back home in the Lima Stock
Exchange in 1990 of fifty-three million dollars. Badly titled,
within a bad legal system. We decided, the Peruvians, to privatize
it. So basically, over three years, it was re-titled because nobody
would buy it. And we titled and represented it on paper. And once
it was properly titled, put within the right legal context, it got sold
for two billion dollars, thirty-seven times its value; which means,
that without painting the telephone company, without mowing the
lawn, repairing the windows, or whatever, just by representing it
in paper, in a structure and format that the law allowed to travel
internationally, we raised its value thirty-seven times. That's
capital.
Peter Robinson: Who bought it?
Hernando De Soto: It was bought by Telefonica of Spain. But what I'm trying to say
is that…
Peter Robinson: Right.
Hernando De Soto: …when things are represented correctly, then people understand
them better, and the system of representation in the West is law.
Peter Robinson: So that brings us to the second concept that is essential to you
work and that is property, because capital, as you've described it,
inheres in clear title, clear property ownership, so what is
property? It's not just a mug, something that I can hold. It's not
just a physical object.
Hernando De Soto: Of course not. This, for example, I understand, if you are a
generous organization, that this is my mug. This is my tea, right?
Now, if we look at this cup, there is nothing in this cup that says
this is Hernando's mug. This is Hernando's tea, because
essentially, property is an understanding between you and me and
anybody else in this room, that this is mine. So property is a
concept. It is something that makes this cup meaningful,
meaningful to us. Therefore, property is essentially, when it
comes to the West, a legal device, a property title that is backed
up by statutes, that is backed up by custom, that determines that
this is not a stolen mug, but it's my mug. So property depends
very much on consensuses and some consensuses are picked up
by law, and therefore easy to transfer, and some aren't picked up
by law. This mug and everything you've got in this country, is
described within a property system. And that allows things to
therefore travel in an identity form. In other words, when you
come into the United States, there's two realities: there's the
reality of the mug, physical things; and there's the reality of what
we think about physical things, which are passports and property
titles. But what travels in your markets, are not mugs, what
travels in your markets are this. When you go to the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange, nobody drives in ten thousand head of
cattle, they come in with a document that says I own ten thousand
head of cattle. And it makes a lot of sense because if you look at
that property document, you'll know more about the cattle than
you will by looking at each pair of brown eyes.
Peter Robinson: Let me ask Hernando for an example of how inefficient property
systems inhibit capital in the developing world.
Title: A Baker's Doozy
Peter Robinson: Suppose I'm a baker. I want to open a business, and I want in
some sense to own it. And in Peru in the old days, what did I
have to do?
Hernando De Soto: Well in Peru, you'd first of all, have to prove that you own the
shop, and you'd have to get an authorization, like any part of the
world, to operate any business legally, you need a license…
Peter Robinson: Right, a license.
Hernando De Soto: …about whatever it is. Okay, in the case of Peru, for example,
regarding, not bakeries, but sewing machines, we found out, what
happens if you have a sewing machine, and you want to have a
shop that is recognized by the law, so that you can sell, legally
sell, the shirts you make, or whatever it is you sew. And that
takes you roughly three hundred days, working eight hours a day,
to open the shop, to get the authorization to open the shop.
Peter Robinson: Because the bureaucratic overhang is that heavy.
Hernando De Soto: Because of the legal overhang. The reason I use legal, rather than
bureaucratic, is because we tend to blame bureaucrats for laws
that are produced by politicians. So I think that if we really want
to get to it, we shouldn't look at the bureaucrats, we should look at
the politicians that are behind this.
Peter Robinson: Alright. But this is distinct now. Forgive me if what I'm about to
say is in any way offensive, I don't mean it to be so. But, for a
North American to look from Mexico south, the first word that
comes to mind is "corruption." You're talking about something
different, you're not talking about having to go around to various
offices in Lima and pay people off, you're talking about the
simple amount of time it takes for the legal system to process
documents to produce a clear title.
Hernando De Soto: When we talk about the three hundred days, that doesn't include
the cost of corruption, but corruption comes into the process
because if you're faced with three hundred days, what most
people do, is bring it down to fifty. Let me tell you about
corruption, something that's important, so as to…
Peter Robinson: Right.
Hernando De Soto: …classify. To get a view of what the law means to most of the
population, we interview the population, wherever we work. And
in a recent interview in the Middle East, as I was talking to one of
the--my people were talking to one of the black market
entrepreneurs, which were part of our work, I talked about
corruption, graft, and which is called there "baksheesh."
Peter Robinson: Baksheesh.
Hernando De Soto: And I said, "Tell me now that we have sufficient confidence, and
you won't be offended, what do you think of baksheesh?" And
the reply was, "Baksheesh, I love baksheesh." I said, "How
interesting, why do you love baksheesh?" He said, "Because, you
see, baksheesh gives me predictability." In average governments
like ours, for example, the Peruvian government, produces about
twenty-eight to thirty thousand rules a year. That means to over a
hundred per working day. In that atmosphere, where there are
politicians writing off regulations and technocrats in some case, at
a speed that you can't control, corruption or buying off a
policeman or buying off a judge, gives you predictability. So he
said, also it allows me to distribute money among poor policeman
and other people. But I know what I have to expect in the future.
So the…
Peter Robinson: And so if you have a judge on the take, you can get a predictable
result from that.
Hernando De Soto: You can get a predictable result. So what happens in your
country, the United States, and what happens in Western
countries, is that your legal system is much more predictable than
the Mafia. What happens in our countries, because of legal
underdevelopment, is that the Mafia's much more effective than
the law. And the challenge we face in the Third World, and the
former Soviet Union, is producing a legal system, that once and
for all becomes much more predictable than the Mafia. And then
we will win over corruption in the same way that you, two
hundred and a hundred years ago, beat your own corruption,
because all Western Countries, at a certain point in history, were
very corrupt. Look at the British, which today, are the epitome of
good behavior. Well, Oliver Goldsmith, the British historian,
wrote about them two hundred and fifty years ago, or so, and he
used to say, "A British judge is a living creature that will be
willing to sell one dozen laws against half a dozen chickens." My
God, they used to knight Sir Francis Drake. They knighted him,
and all he did was steal Peruvian gold and silver, or Spanish gold
and silver, whatever you want. I mean it was as if Al Capone got
the Bronze Medal of Honor. So what I'm trying to say is we were
all corrupt at a certain point, until the rule of law came into place,
and that's the challenge in my part of the world.
Peter Robinson: I want to tackle this question of the relationship between culture
and capitalism one more time.
Title: Property Rites
Peter Robinson: Why did legal rights, clear property title, arise in the West instead
of in the Third World? Now perhaps you can give me a--let's
say, it wasn't all that long ago, eighteenth century, Lima was a
bigger, more prosperous city than New York. Flash-forward a
couple of centuries, and of course it's much the reverse. How
come? Why? What happened there?
Hernando De Soto: Well, there's a variety of explanations. I think one of them has to
do with migrations after a while. The other has to do with the
Common Law. As the Common Law was a much more flexible
system, and so the Industrial Revolution that is to say a law that
was adapted to business was better hammered out under a
Common Law system, because it was a judge-made law…
Peter Robinson: Okay.
Hernando De Soto: …So the British got a head start, for example, in Europe before
countries that had Roman Law, like the Germans, like the Swiss,
like the French…
Peter Robinson: French, right.
Hernando De Soto: …Then what happens, seeing the advantage of the Anglo-Saxon
countries, is that all the other countries, the Roman Law countries,
like mine, had to re-engineer their law, and in effect Germany
followed, and France followed, and Switzerland followed in that
re-engineer. But the idea was that you--the situation rather was
that in Europe, you had the Common Law begin, and then the
neighbors are reacting, because they were falling behind…
Peter Robinson: So…
Hernando De Soto: …In our part of the world, like in the rest of the Third World
countries, our large migrations, our coming to the Industrial
Revolution has only begun in the last years. You know what
happened to you a hundred and fifty years ago, is beginning to
happen to us now. So that could be one explanation for your head
start.
Peter Robinson: Let me give you a good chance then to hit Max Weber smack in
the nose. Weber, of course is the one who famously linked
culture to capitalism in his work The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. So, was he on to a little something, that there
is a particular culture, informed as Weber believed, by
Protestantism, where thriftiness, savings were encouraged. A
certain industrious attitude was encouraged. Sobriety was
encouraged, and that there is some link between this particular
cultural flavor, or brand that arose in northern Europe and the
emergence of capitalism. Do you buy that? Do you say, I buy it
for a couple of hundred years ago, it's of no relevance now? Do
you reject it entirely?
Hernando De Soto: Could be that it gave Protestants and maybe Anglo-Saxons or
Calvinists a head start, maybe. But it's really not relevant today.
Let me give you an example of the European Union. The
European Union is put together by Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman,
and the likes of Konrad Adenauer and de Gasperi. And instead of
going and saying, you know, these--our countries, France and
Germany will never get along because it's a wine-drinking
country, you know, one of these broad-brush things, the way
Weber writes. And the other one is a beer-drinking country. And
they're never compatible, and instead of doing that, they put it
under the microscope instead of in the telescope, and they start
saying, let's stop talking wine and stop talking beer. Let's start
talking coal. Let's make an agreement on coal, let's make an
agreement on steel. Let's make an agreement on company law,
let's make an agreement on property rights. Let's make an
agreement on education equivalences, and under the microscope
then, all of a sudden different cultures began getting together, in
spite of the fact that they'd been at war for hundreds if not
thousands of years…
Peter Robinson: Okay.
Hernando De Soto: …When the European Union decides that now they want Portugal
and Spain, Catholics, Latins, Third World, siesta time, to come
inside the system, they don't start saying, now how do we get a
Spaniard to stop fighting bulls? No. What they start doing is,
again, getting into the nitty little details of forming a larger
Common Market, and all of a sudden, Spain, that twenty years
ago, was receiving foreign aid, is today, a country that's
developed…
Peter Robinson: Right.
Hernando De Soto: …So I really think that all of this Protestant mumbo jumbo is
really irrelevant today.
Peter Robinson: We've explored culture and capitalism, on to democracy and
capitalism.
Title: The Rules of the Game
Peter Robinson: I'm quoting you now, "It should be no surprise that all the
countries that have good politics, and democratic politics, are all
the countries that are wealthy." So, what is the connection then
between democracy and capitalism and property?
Hernando De Soto: The connection is the following one: that democracy allows
governments to bring out rules that people understand, and that
have less transaction cost, because they continually get feedback.
For example, how is a rule made in the United States? You've got
comment and notice periods, you pre-publish your drafts. The
Office of Management and Budget does cost-benefit analysis on
the law. All your Congresspersons or men, get elected on a
district basis, which means that the politicians are not just
accountable to the nation in general, they're accountable to
specific audiences that are continually following their track-records; as opposed to Latin America: no comment and notice
periods, no cost-benefit analysis, and all our Congressmen are not
elected on a district basis, they're elected under one political list…
Peter Robinson: So they're responsible to the party or…
Hernando De Soto: …I could give you a hundred measures that the Westerners have
on how they produce law, that we don't have in developing
countries, and that makes the difference. The advantage of a
democracy, understood not only as elections, but also as the
accountability and transparency under which you produce rules
means that in your countries, the rules are relatively easy to follow
compared to other--or let's say that even if they're complicated,
they're structured in such a way that they don't tilt the…
Peter Robinson: So…
Hernando De Soto: …rule of law in favor of somebody's position.
Peter Robinson: So for your purposes, you're not exalting democracy because of
the inherent nobility of it, you're exalting democracy because of
its practical genius.
Hernando De Soto: Absolutely…
Peter Robinson: I see.
Hernando De Soto: …I do think that there is, by the way, other values to it…
Peter Robinson: Of course.
Hernando De Soto: But aside from it, democracy is like a constant marketing
program, it allows you to get the feedback and knowing that you
take out a product that is useful to everybody.
Peter Robinson: Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we've seen two great big
experiments taking place. Russia has put into place a democracy,
of sorts, but a democracy, and seen its economy collapse,
recovering some now, but for the first decade it was just a free
fall. China has no interest in democracy, it remains very much
centrally controlled. But it has permitted markets to flourish, I'm
assuming, perhaps you can fill me in, that there has to be some
underlying understanding about property rights for the markets to
flourish. Which is the better model for a Peru, for an India, for an
Egypt?
Hernando De Soto: One must not confuse elections with democracy. You see, we
Latin Americans have been having elections for hundreds of
years, not a hundred years, a hundred and eighty years…
Peter Robinson: Right.
Hernando De Soto: …and we continue to elect dictators. Because you see, if the
government in my country, in average per year, produces twenty-eight thousand rules, norms, regulations, laws, that means a
hundred and six a day. And there is no way to hold it accountable
except that the next general elections, which are five years hence.
We actually elect dictatorships. So to me, elections is just one
part of the game. Much more interesting to find out is, once the
government is in place, hopefully through elections, because
that's one first stage of transparency, from then on, how are rules
made? And obviously in China, somebody's been doing the right
thing. You get places like Singapore, which may not have had
elections, but before they put a rule into craft, a rule into place,
there's a lot of consultations going on at another level. So we
have to stop thinking of democracy just only in the traditional
Western terms, we have to get into the nitty gritty details of
finding out if people are accountable and especially how are rules
made?
Peter Robinson: Next topic: putting Hernando's theories into practice.
Title: Cuanto Caliente el Sol?
Peter Robinson: How much have you been able to accomplish? Give me what
you've done in Peru, and what the practical result has been in
Peru. And then I'd like to talk about where else you're active in
the world.
Hernando De Soto: Of course. In the case of Peru, we set up a new property system…
Peter Robinson: When you say, "we," you'd better go ahead and name your
organization.
Hernando De Soto: …Yes, of course, I have an organization, which is a foundation
called the Institute of Liberty and Democracy of Peru…
Peter Robinson: And it's how old, Hernando?
Hernando De Soto: …And it is now about seventeen years old.
Peter Robinson: All right, fine.
Hernando De Soto: …Fine. And it started out by being a think tank. We thought
about these problems, and then we became an act tank because if
we didn't implement them, we saw that these things wouldn't
happen, so we drafted legislation, and then we actually ran the
government offices, which implemented the legislation. In what
fields? Well, first of all we helped set up the ombudsman in Peru.
The ombudsman is, you know, a defender of the people. One of
the purposes was of course, to make sure that government could
listen to people the way it does in the United States, and the
Western countries. We also created a property system where the
poor could participate in the awarding of titles. So we made sure
that the property law, was always connected to how the poor
perceived them. And so far, that has allowed us to title in Peru
about one million six hundred thousand urban properties. We also
set up a system called…
Peter Robinson: Is this almost entirely in Lima?
Hernando De Soto: …Oh, no, all over Peru.
Peter Robinson: All over.
Hernando De Soto: All over Peru.
Peter Robinson: And what sort of years has this taken place?
Hernando De Soto: This started--the design of this was done under the Garcia
government from 1988 till the year 2000. And implementation
began in the year 2000, practically with President Fujimori. We
created another system called the Registro Unificado with the
purpose of which was to bring in black market firms, mainly small
and medium-sized into the legal market, and over four hundred
thousand firms came in. And during the time when most of the
surge occurred, Peru grew at a rate of about thirteen per cent,
which was the highest growth rate in the world. We set up the
political framework for the substitution of the coca plant, from
which cocaine is derived. Peru used to be responsible for sixty to
seventy per cent of the production of the world's coca. We're now
down to twenty-five per cent…
Peter Robinson: And this is all property, you're not doing anything to affect the tax
structure? Or what about the currency? Who runs the central
bank?
Hernando De Soto: …No, we didn't touch the tax...
Peter Robinson: You didn't touch any of that?
Hernando De Soto: …But the reason we were successful is because of all the costs of
being legal, the tax was only a small part, in our case.
Peter Robinson: I see.
Hernando De Soto: In other words, for example, what you paid in bribes, if you were
in the extra-legal sector, was nearly as high as the tax, so we
didn't have to touch the tax, we just touched the cost of doing
things. We just talked about it. For example a sewing machine,
to become legal and operate…
Peter Robinson: Three hundred days.
Hernando De Soto: …three hundred days.
Peter Robinson: But nobody wants to repeal your work?
Hernando De Soto: No.
Peter Robinson: In other words, it's formed a base on which other people are now
building. Where else are you active in the world?
Hernando De Soto We're not really happy what's going on in Peru, but it's a lot
better than if we hadn't been there. In other words, it could be
operating much better.
Peter Robinson: Okay.
Hernando De Soto: We're now--we've been working in the Philippines. We are now
working in the Philippines, in Mexico with President Vicente Fox,
in Haiti, with President Aristide, in Egypt. We had our first
conversations in Russia with President Putin.
Peter Robinson: Last question: what can we in the West do to help?
Title: Don't String Me Along
Peter Robinson: Lorne Gunter of the Canadian National Post: " The world's
wealthiest nations could all double their foreign aid contributions;
they could triple or even quadruple them; they could forgive the
debt of the forty or fifty poorest nations, and poor countries would
still be poor." In other words, the argument there is that foreign
aid, sheer transfers of wealth from the First World to the Third
World, will make no lasting difference. Now President Bush said
recently in Monterey, Mexico, that the United States would
expand its foreign aid budget by fifty per cent. Will we just be
wasting our money if we do that?
Hernando De Soto: It depends what you do with the money…
Peter Robinson: Okay, what should we do? You're now advising George W.
Bush. What strings should he attach to that money?
Hernando De Soto: Well, I think I would tell President Bush, that you know, foreign
aid has alleviated poverty. In some cases, it's actually helped our
projects, I mean, we get funding from USAID and that's been
very helpful. But if you really want to help development, and not
just alleviate poverty, I would put much more emphasis on
supporting the transformation of legal and institutional structures.
And the fact is that there are proofs that this works. When you
occupied Japan, between 1945 and about 1950, basically what
MacArthur did is set the basis for massive legal transformation of
the property rights structure of Japan. And what was used there
before, a feudal system became a property market system. The
Europeans today, when they're dealing with Romania, Bulgaria,
when they're dealing with the accession of Portugal to the
European Union, you don't just throw tons of money at them, you
sit down and work out the nitty gritty of the legal system, so that a
Frenchman can invest in this bond, or can invest in Madrid in the
same way that he can do it in Paris. And that's what's created
wealth. I would say, go back to your successes, and you will see
now that most of foreign aid is not dedicated to the change of
institutional legal system, but it's essentially, your institutional
legal systems that work. Latin Americans, who back home, and
for example, in Peru, don't obey the laws, don't necess--are not
very necessarily productive, when they get to the United States,
they stop at the red lights, they obey the law and they're sending
the money back home. The same with Mexicans. What has
changed? Their culture? No. What's changed is the legal
system.
Peter Robinson: Okay. Hernando, it's television, alas, so let me just ask you two
final questions: in Peru today, forty-nine per cent of the
population, alas, still lives below the poverty line. In twenty years,
what will that percentage be? This is a question about how
optimistic are you?
Hernando De Soto: Oh, I'm very optimistic. Let me give you some statistics that are
much more meaningful than the ones that you've just tossed at
me…
Peter Robinson: Please. All right, please.
Hernando De Soto: All right. How much do poor Peruvian's own today? We've
calculated it, how much do they own, in terms of building and
machinery? They own ninety billion dollars worth of assets. At
not even market value, just replacement value. In market value, it
would be much bigger. How much is ninety billion dollars worth
of assets? Well, it's about forty times all the foreign aid you've
given us, including World Bank loans. It is about ten times the
size of the Lima Stock Exchange and it is about twenty-nine times
the size of all foreign direct investment. So I'm optimistic that
Peruvians will get out of poverty, the day that they receive a legal
infrastructure similar to yours, which allows their
entrepreneurship to thrive.
Peter Robinson: Last question: Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three Islamic
countries, much on our minds today. The proportion of the
population now living below the national poverty line, Egypt,
about a quarter, Pakistan, about a third, Afghanistan, about half.
Are you optimistic about the Islamic world, about those three
countries?
Hernando De Soto: We've worked with the Egyptian government. We've been
privileged to work with the Mubarak government and we have
found out that about ninety per cent of Egyptians own their assets
and trade their assets outside the legal system. In other words, the
informal sector of Egypt is ninety per cent of the population. And
that ninety per cent of the population that is generally poor,
actually owns assets for a value of two hundred and forty-five
billion dollars, the poor of Egypt own two hundred and forty-five
billion dollars outside the law. Therefore, am I optimistic about
the future of Egypt? Definitely. The Egyptian people have
proven that they are full of entrepreneurship. What they're
missing and what the government of Egypt is intent upon doing
now is and we're helping them as much as we can, is creating a
legal system, whereby all of these assets can be leverage and they
can finally be globalized…
Peter Robinson: How long? How long? How long will it take?
Hernando De Soto: Oh, it's a long process. It'll take ten to fifteen years, if we're
lucky. That's how long it took Japan. It took you in the United
States, two hundred years. It's a long process. You have to
overhaul the legal system.
Peter Robinson: But within our lifetimes, yours and mine, we'll see change?
Hernando De Soto: Oh, we can see a change, absolutely, if I get to live another fifteen
years.
Peter Robinson: Hernando De Soto, muchisimas gracias.
Hernando De Soto: Encantado, senor.
Peter Robinson: For Uncommon Knowledge, I'm Peter Robinson. Thanks for
joining us.
|
QUICK LINKS:
CONTACT US DIRECTIONS
TOOLS:




|