Prediction: How to See and Shape the Future with Game Theory

by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

KING LEOPOLD II, remembered today as Belgium’s Builder King, reigned from 1865 to 1909.1 A constitutional monarch who, like many of his contemporaries, longed for the bygone days of absolute power, he was nonetheless an unusually influential and activist king who helped make Belgians free, prosperous, and secure.

He was way ahead of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama in recognizing how to stimulate employment and economic prosperity by building up infrastructure.

Unlike in Belgium, there was no chef de cabinet (roughly, prime minister), and no voters among the Congo’s approximately 30 million people to limit what he could do.

Leopold’s “police” received low salaries but could earn big commissions by meeting or exceeding their rubber quotas.

In contrast to Leopold’s progressive policies in Belgium, virtually nothing was invested in improving conditions in the Congo.

How could King Leopold II have ruled two places at the same time in such dramatically different manners?

It’s my claim, and it may seem controversial, that kleptocratic leaders are not inherently evil—at least not necessarily so—and that those who do a great job for their people in hopes of reelection are hardly fit for sainthood.

Leopold, despicable as he was, did what worked best for him in the politically unconstrained environment of the Congo, and he did what worked best for him in the constitutionally limiting environment of Belgium.

The difference between doing a good job and doing a lousy job is driven by how many people a leader has to keep happy.

Jared Rubin's propagating agents "The difference between doing a good job and doing a lousy job is driven by how many people a leader has to keep happy”