POLI2105 Presentation PDF

Preview

Summary

Tutorial 5 Presentation Authoritarianism (20% of course grade)...

Description

POLI2105 Introduction to Comparative Politics Tutorial 5 Democratization Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi. (1997) “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics, 49/2, 155-183. Topic: relationship between democracy & economic development Responses to Lipset’s theories 1. democracies may be more likely to emerge as countries develop economically (endogenous: results from development under authoritarianism.) ➢ "modernization" theory

Arguments

Lipset

Authors: disagree

economic development ⇣ democracies emerge + dictatorships die

1) Democracy: not a byproduct of economic development Democracy can be initiated at any level of development. A. per capita income of dictatorships ⇡: transitions are increasingly likely; but > $6,000: dictatorships become more stable B. Very poor countries (under $1,000): Dictatorships survive almost invariably

poor authoritarian countries reach a "threshold" ⇣ become democratic

Reasons ---------------Statistics

Development ⇣ autonomy + private information ⇣ civil society’s challenge ⇣ no longer be effectively run by command

Correlation ≠ Causation ----------------------------------------------Some dictatorships survived even though the probability that the regime is democratic predicted by the level of development was above 0.50 (per capita income of $4,115). Eg. Singapore

2. democracies are more likely to survive in developed countries (exogenous) X modernization theory Lipset Arguments

"The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances it will sustain democracy"

Authors: agree Democracy ➔ Poor countries: fragile ➔ Rich countries: impregnable

Reasons N/A --------------------------Statistics

1) ∵Diminishing marginal returns in capital stock ● Value of becoming a dictator Poor countries > Rich countries ● Cost of destroying capital stock Poor countries < Rich countries ➔ struggle for dictatorship is more attractive in poorer countries. -----------------------------------------------------------------[Income] ● Rich countries (per capita income higher than $6,055): ○ no democracy ever fell ○ expect to last forever ● Poorer countries: ○ 39 out of 69 democracies did fall [⇡/⇣ in income] ● Democracies face a decline in incomes: ○ Probability of dying: 0.0523 ○ Expected life: 19 years ● Democracies face a growth in incomes: ○ Probability of dying: 0.0160 ○ Expected life:64 years

3. Democracies are more likely to be destabilized when countries grow rapidly. Lipset Arguments

Reasons --------------------------Statistics

Rapid economic growth ⇣ Destabilise democracies

Industrialization ⇣ sharp discontinuities between the preindustrial and industrial situation ⇣

Authors: disagree 1) Rapid growth destabilizes neither democracy nor dictatorship 2) What destabilizes regimes are economic crises, not economic growth A. Poor democracies are more fragile than rich democracies in the face of economic crises B. Political effects of economic crises are immediate: occur 1 year later Argument 1 ● democracies that grow slowly (< 5% per annum): die at the rate of 0.0173 ● democracies that grow quickly (> 5%): die at the rate of 0.0132 Argument 2A

extremist workingclass movements

[Decline of incomes] ● Poor democracies (per capita income under $2,000): ○ 12 fell the following year ○ Expected life: 9 years ● Middle level (incomes between $2,001 and $6,000): ○ 6 fell in 120 years ○ Expected life: 20 years ● Rich countries (>$6,055): ○ None ever fell in 252 years ○ Expected life: forever

Conclusion 1) Actions rather than deterministic conditions ⇢ democratization 2) Only once it is established do economic constraints play a role: the chances for the survival of democracy are greater when the country is richer. 3) Dictatorship is the inevitable price of development Democratic ⇣ Interests of voters matter ⇣ The government gives a higher priority to consumption than investment ⇣ Hinders economic development 4) The best way to democracy: circuitous A. dictatorships -> development B. development -> democracy Critiques 1. No causal mechanisms linking development to democracy Lacks mechanisms to explain the influence of development on democratic survival 2. No empirical evidence explaining the relationship at the individual level 3. Over-reductive and narrow measurement of economic development: GNP per capita 4. No statistical significance between frequencies and probit values 5. No investigation into extra variables that influence development levels...