Sample Solution
Why Hoover fail to address the Great Depression according to historian Anthony Badger
The crash, The Great Depression, which took place less than a year after Hoover was inaugurated, was the most extreme sign of the economy`s weakness. Multiple factors contributed to the crash, which in turn caused a consumer panic that drove the economy even further downhill, in ways that neither Hoover nor the financial industry was able to restrain. Hoover, like many others at the time, thought and hoped that the country would right itself with limited government intervention. This was not the case, however, and many millions of Americans sank into grinding poverty. Hoover`s moderate policies, based upon a strongly held belief in the spirit of American individualism, were not enough to stem the ever-growing-problems, and the economy slipped further and further into the Great Depression.
coalition”[21]; the size of which is in an inverse relationship with the likelihood of successful challenge, since fewer people must be ‘bought-off’. In fact, “the Selectorate Theory (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2005) theorises that it is the size difference between the selectorate and the winning coalition […] that is most important”[22] in influencing the survival of non-democratic regimes.
This theory has, however, received much criticism. Largely, the extent to which it is true, that having a small winning coalition is the most significant factor affecting the survival of non-democratic regimes, is dependent on how stable the regime appears to be, since “high political instability should reduce the effect of corruption, because actors have less incentive to bribe a government when it is unlikely to survive”[23], meaning the loyalty of the ruler’s winning coalition may become less effective. Thus, in reality, if a challenge to power did arise, the ruler may not be able to rely on his winning coalition if they were, in fact, more confident in the challenger overthrowing the incumbent, as in this circumstance it is highly likely that they would switch allegiances. Furthermore, Clark and Stone argue that Bueno de Mesquita et al.’s analysis “suffers from omitted variable analysis [which] can make the results appear stronger than they are. Once this error is corrected, the results are no longer interesting.”[24] This empirically undermines the foundations of the theory which Bueno de Mesquita et al. try to argue.
To conclude, I would, however, argue that the economic factors are the most influential in determining why some non-democratic regimes survive longer than others. While there is one major anomaly, China, which accounts for “4 out of 5 people in the world that live in an autocracy”[27]
