Stephen Davies argues that history doesn't move only one way. In fact, it never has.
Some things matter more than economic growth, says Stephen Davies.
Rok Spruk says don't believe the hype about constitutional monarchy bringing prosperity. The apparent correlation today does not mean that monarchies foster better institutions; it means that the wealthier countries--which likely had better institutions otherwise--could better afford to keep them. Their monarchies came along for the ride, but the real driver of prosperity was that they didn't suffer an institution-shattering shattering revolution or military defeat during the modern era.
Stephen Davies argues that monarchy fulfills one of the key functions of government, which moderns are apt to overlook.
Countries that keep a ceremonial monarch may gain certain advantages, writes Prof. Vincent Geloso.
Does a constitutional monarchy help or harm a country's fortunes? In what ways? And how?