I discuss and analyze the vast variation in development outcomes among autocracies, focusing on economic growth. I highlight plausible explanations of this variation pertaining to features of the leader, institutions, or the regime’s support coalition. Next, by analyzing data from more than 180 polities and with time series extending back to 1789, I present descriptive patterns and tests corroborating that variation in growth - in the shorter and longer term, across and within countries - is higher among autocracies than democracies. Finally, I assess the explanations for why some autocracies have higher growth than others. This exercise suggests that single-party autocracies have higher growth than personalist regimes and monarchies. Higher degrees of party institutionalization also correlate positively with growth. I find several (surprising) negative and null results. Notably, neither stronger legislative constraints on the autocrat nor the size of an autocratic regime’s support coalition correlate positively with growth.
Browse by title
Camila Saraiva, Guillermo Jajamovich and Gabriel Silvestre
The circulation of ideas and practices is intrinsic to the development of urban policies and cities. The mobilization of knowledge from elsewhere has been an important tool for the resolution of technical issues as well as to build political legitimacy. In this sense, Latin American cities provide a privileged viewpoint to observe these processes. Many of those cities were historically shaped by the adoption and adaptation of Euro-centric modernity ideals. However, this relationship cannot be understood as passive subordination but historically negotiated by local elites and policy actors. From the last decades of the twentieth century, Latin American cities also became important centres of political innovation. A relational comprehension of the long-standing power relations, actors, processes and networks involved in urban policy circulation is necessary to understand Latin American cities.
David Dumoulin Kervran
The notion of Global governance is well embedded by the rise of UN mega-conferences, and more generally « Mega-events ». These kinds of very large and complex summits, with their archipelago of meetings, and the number and diversity of actors involved, can be considered very important spots for the global economy of policy transfer. This chapter will present the challenges and pitfalls of a new methodology called Collaborative Ethnography, specifically developed for tackling this complexity. First, we describe the methodological challenges in studying mega-events as a place for policy diffusion. Second, we offer an overview of the roots of this approach in the literature referring to political sociology of global agency. Then, we describe and evaluate the different research protocols already experimented. The last part of the chapter looks more directly at the diffusion process within these events, global governance in the making and the manufacture of transnational social hierarchies and configurations.
Does consociational democracy exacerbate or alleviate divisions in deeply divided societies? This chapter assesses the mixed performance record of consociational democracy in delivering peace, political stability, and democracy. It explains that consociationalism is characterized by two sets of countervailing incentives, one that encourages cooperation and compromise amongst political elites and one that emboldens brinkmanship, ethnic outbidding and collapse. Drawing examples from a range of deeply divided societies, including Burundi, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon and Northern Ireland, the chapter outlines four criteria for predicting which set of incentives will be activated: the conditions under which consociational rules are adopted, the fit between institutions and the context in which they are applied, the inclusivity of consociational rules, especially for communities beyond the ethnopolitical divide ,and the flexibility of such rules in responding to societal and political change.
Ina Kubbe and Liljana Cvetanoska
The European Union (EU) has made serious attempts to tackle corruption in its Member States (MS), candidates and potential candidates for EU accession, as well as in third countries. Through its conditionality mechanism, the EU has specifically attempted to influence domestic corruption control in Central and Eastern European (CEE) candidates. Moreover, the revised European Neighbourhood Policy is particularly focusing on good governance, democracy, and the rule of law to foster stabilization, security, and prosperity in the region. Nevertheless, many CEE MS suffer from high levels of corruption. In our analysis we focus in particular on Bulgaria and Hungary - two countries that show both an increase in the level of corruption and a decline in their democratic consolidation over the last few years. Based on a documentary analysis our study aims to answer what is the impact (or lack thereof) of the EU on corruption control and the effects on the development of democracy in Bulgaria and Hungary. Our study provides deeper insights into issues with the misuse of EU funds in these countries to examine the efforts that the EU made to protect its budget. We contribute both to the Europeanization literature and the corruption literature by illustrating that the EU has some mechanisms to protect its budget from corruption but that they are not used to their fullest potential. In regard to the corruption literature, this study acknowledges but also criticises the role of the EU as an international actor in the fight against corruption.
Leslie A. Pal and Jennifer Spence
Policy transfer studies tend to take the context of non-coercive transfer for granted, a context that can be summarized as the world polity or neo-liberal global order. That polity and that order have clearly been challenged and destabilized in the last decade, posing an existential threat to conventional mechanisms of policy transfer. The chapter focuses on how the regime is being defended and re-imagined by knowledge networks dedicated to supporting the global order. Two tranches of evidence are presented. The first is a content analysis of key reports and recommendations from two new networks, the T20 (and engagement group of the G20), and the Council on Global Problem-Solving (related to the T20, but distinct). The second is a network analysis of the T20 network of think tanks and related networks engaged in global governance: Council of Councils, World Economic Forum, World Government Summit, and several OECD events that have a broad global policy focus. The content analysis shows a distinctive emphasis on reframing the global order, and a new phase of integration among global think tanks and at least this subset of knowledge networks.
Augustin Kwasi Fosu
The present chapter examines the importance of democracy for development in Africa during the post-independence period. The measures of democracy considered are: indexes of executive and legislative electoral competitiveness, political rights and civil liberties, constraint on the executive branch of government, and polity2. The chapter finds, based primarily on the extant literature, that improvements in the measures of economic and political institutions beginning in the late 1980s or early 1990s may be credited with the observed improvements in several measures of development since about the mid-1990s, such as: per capita income, poverty reduction, and the human development index (HDI). A major explanation for this positive association appears to be the ability of ‘advanced-level democracy’ to attenuate the incidence of ‘policy syndromes’ that had plagued the continent, resulting in greater prevalence of political stability with reasonably market-friendly policies. The chapter concludes by highlighting the need to attenuate the potential risk of backtracking by African countries from achieving the democratic consolidation required to sustain the gains in growth and development.
Aurel Croissant and Lars Pelke
This chapter examines the development-democracy nexus in Asia-Pacific. The notion that democracy is a function of socio-economic modernization has been one of the most dominant theoretical frameworks in democratization studies. Using a data panel for 20 Asian countries, instrumenting for economic development and using two-stage least squares regressions to account for endogeneity between democracy and income, we find only a weak effect of economic development on the level of electoral democracy in the region. Furthermore, electoral democracy is not statistically associated with the level of economic development in Asia. Contrary to this, state capacity is a main driver of economic development, when controlling for country and year effects and the level of democracy as well as the interaction between democracy and state capacity. Finally, we find a positive link between rule of law and economic development in Asia, which is consistent with the existing empirical evidence derived from global samples.
Luis F. Angosto-Ferrández
This chapter analyses how “democratization” and “development” have been reconceptualized in Latin America since the late 1990s, when a post-neoliberal movement started to gain institutional power in the continent. It examines five dimensions of the interrelationships between processes of democratisation and socio-economic development that facilitate the identification of current tendencies and frictions in Latin America. Those topics are: the question of populism in the analysis of the post-neoliberal shift; the definition of state/civil society relations in the configuration of development models; geopolitics, regionalism and sovereignty; neo-extractivism and alternative developments; and the role of production and access to information in debates on democratization. The post-neoliberal shift clearly brought ‘the state back’ into continental politics, but the extent to which state-centrism may consolidate as a lasting paradigm for social development is unclear, given the antagonistic forces that currently traverse the region.
Countries in the MENA region have experienced a peculiar pattern of development along a persistent resistance to democratization. Left and right views advanced interpretations that hold post-colonial national arrangements and oil relations as among the curses responsible for the detachment of democracy from development. This chapter calls for reconsidering the left and right’s assumptions on political economy. It highlights features of Middle Eastern communitarianism that entangle the individual, social class, and the nation within the realm of communitarian rationalism. It concludes that in a chronically divided and turbulent MENA region, the wedge between development and democracy is destined to widen. Thus, and under such a regional context, development is primarily driven by communitarian interests and determined by corresponding political bargains.