Original sentence: Halperin et al.Poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.The argument went —as presented in the writings of Samuel Huntington and Seymour Martin Lipset— that if a poor country became democratic, because of the pressures in a democracy to respond to the interests of the people, they would borrow too much, they would spend the money in ways that did not advance development.The study argues that this is wrong.Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator — it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development, which produces a middle class, and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will have a democratic government.These poor decisions would mean that development would not occur; and because people would then be disappointed, they would return to a dictatorship.writes that there is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they develop