In Romania, the robber elites preferred a society based on the extractive model of society and the state model of the “paper Leviathan” (see explanation and context in the text – ed. note). Three components of Romanian society are to blame for this, explained the chief economist of the National Bank of Romania, Valentin Lazea, at the Governance Course gala on Tuesday evening.

First of all, the fault lies with the left-wing parties, which, although they advocated a strong state, sought to weaken civil society by any means, Lazea said.

The second fault, according to the chief economist of the Central Bank, lies with the right-wing or center-right parties, which “supported civil society, but did not understand and do not understand today the importance of a strong state. Watch ‘The Fat State’ talk about cutting costs but don’t put it on paper and see what can and can’t be cut”

And thirdly, civil society in Romania has two main cultural deficiencies, says Valentin Lazea. Although Romanian and foreign sociologists classify Romanians as a group of collectivists, few notice that this is a collectivism devoid of solidarity.

“We see it very clearly: the old do not care about the young and vice versa, Moldovans do not care about the mountains and vice versa, the rich do not care about the poor, the educated do not care about the uneducated, etc. “, the Romanian economist also stated.

In fact, Lazea believes, Romanian collectivism is rural collectivism, where only your family is close and everyone else is irrelevant.

On the other hand, he adds, those who consider Romanians rather individualists are not mistaken either. I give you dozens of examples of individualism, starting with individual sports where we succeed but not in team sports, then through politics and so on

“It’s simply uninitiative individualism. Until we solve these problems: left-wing parties against civil society, right-wing parties against the state, a civil society characterized by collectivism, without solidarity and individualism without initiative, Romania cannot aspire to be like Denmark or any other developed country,” – sums up the chief economist of the BNR.

He cited two books written by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, one in 2012 and the other in 2019, that talk about the different types of societies that exist.

In the first book, Why Nations Fail, the authors refer to the extractive model versus the inclusive model of society.

“They say this: that there are societies organized according to the extractive model, such as in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, just as there are societies organized according to the inclusive model, such as in Western Europe, the United States. States, Australia, UK, etc. In societies organized according to the extractive model, predatory elites use the slopes of power for their own enrichment, paying too little attention to general development. But for this they need a submissive justice system that is easy to manipulate.

This subjugation of fairness, in turn, leads to inhibition of innovation, since no one will want to put effort into the innovation field for a result that risks being confiscated by others.

So, as a result, societies with an extractive model always lag behind technological progress, content to copy what inclusive societies do,” explains Lazea.

At the opposite pole, inclusive societies rely on a strong legal system and the rule of law, whereby elites cannot afford to rise to power to unjustly enrich themselves because they know justice will be sanctioned. And there, innovations take place on the assembly line, because intellectual property rights are protected.

“The lesson for Romania is that we are an extractive society, the consequences of which are the constant lagging behind and maintaining the gap with the developed countries. On the one hand, it is the result of history and geography and the influence of the three empires that surrounded us and that also practiced extractive models.

However, it is fair to say that the extractive model enables and even encourages economic growth, because if there was no economic growth, the predatory elites would have nothing to eat.

The second book cited by the chief economist of the BNR is “The Narrow Corridor”, published in 2019, and it analyzes the power of states, starting with the concept invented by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who at one time advocated a very strong state, even terribly strong , therefore – the so-called Leviathan state, which would protect citizens from the “lonely, poor, unpleasant, cruel and short” life – defining for that period.

Acemoglu and Robinson identify four possible types of states.

• The first guy “Despotic Leviathan” in which the state is all-powerful, tends towards totalitarianism and dictatorship, and civil society is weak. Order and citizen safety are guaranteed, but in such states there is no trust, and the common denominator is fear. To see China, Russia, Turkey…

• The second type identified by the two authors is “Missing Leviathan”. It is answered by a weak or non-existent state and an equally weak civil society. Essentially, it’s a constant battle between clans and factions, none of which is strong enough to win. Dominant features are mistrust and fear. The case of Afghanistan, Libya and other failed states.

• The third type is “Chained Leviathan”. At best, when both the state and civil society are strong, they are not only not in an antagonistic relationship, but actually support each other in increasing each other’s power. These are the developed societies of Western Europe, which in the historical process realized that the state must be strong enough to protect and promote the development of individuals, but civil society must also be strong enough to prevent abuses by the state.

For example, for many Romanians, it is not clear how it happened that in Denmark people are happy to give more than 50% of their income to the state. Because, I answer, these people understood that there should be a symbiosis between the state, which gives the citizen what he asks for, and civil society, which stands guard.

Countries like Denmark have found a so-called narrow corridor where trust reigns and fear is not the basis of social relations. This applies to Scandinavian countries, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.

• Finally, the fourth type “Paper Leviathan” when the state is both despotic and ineffective. We have the worst possible combination and I think that Romania would be in such a situation, Argentina is another example. The Paper Leviathan is a combination of the Despotic Leviathan and the Absent Leviathan, a combination born of the elites’ desire to maintain client relationships where clients can be easily controlled.