I enjoy some of the articles in the Economist, but this is advocacy writing at its worst.
Your clue that this submitted article here comes from the "leader" section of editorials by the Economist editors comes from the "(see article)" link in the submission here. You're reading an editorial, and it is written like an editorial, with a point of view. The actual underlying article
Also, The Economist doesn't provide credit for individual writers since, in their estimation, there aren't any.
Individuals prepare the pieces, of course, but the publication's editorial approach marks up the results quite heavily in a process specifically designed to reflect both a house style and a set of long-held positions that maintain a single and fairly coherent perspective.
For instance, they've provided long-standing opposition to the War on Drugs, and rarely miss the opportunity to reiterate this position whenever the subject comes up. Likewise, they had a massive problem with Silvio Berlusconi. As a human being, they held him in the deepest possible contempt. They were entirely open about this, and dedicated much effort to detailing the causes of their overtly intense dislike.
Some disregard what they have to say as "mere opinion" to which they'd say "No, this is informed opinion." In any case, if you're writing for The Economist, you're producing raw material that will get edited and rewritten until it reflects the very distinct views and voice that the publication has painstakingly developed for itself over the course of 17 decades.
Your clue that this submitted article here comes from the "leader" section of editorials by the Economist editors comes from the "(see article)" link in the submission here. You're reading an editorial, and it is written like an editorial, with a point of view. The actual underlying article
http://www.economist.com/node/21558591
to be found by following that link is longer, more detailed, more in the style of objective journalistic reporting, and full of food for thought.