Advertisement

Studies in Comparative International Development

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 87–106 | Cite as

Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

  • Axel Hadenius
  • Jan Teorell
Research Note

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.”

Keywords

Economic Development Comparative International Development Political Culture American Political Science Review World Value Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba. 1963.The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, David and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. 2002. “Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness, and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries.”Democratization 9: 85–100.Google Scholar
  3. Banks, Kenneth. 1979.Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive user’s Manual. Binghamton: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, Benjamin. 1984.Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, Brian. 1970.Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, Nathaniel and Jonathan Katz. 1995. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section data.”American Political Science Review 89, 3: 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. —. 1996. “Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series Cross-Section Models.”Political Analysis 6: 1–36.Google Scholar
  8. Boix, Carles and Susan Stokes. 2003. “Endogenous Democratization,”World Politics 55 (July): 815–849.Google Scholar
  9. Bollen, Kenneth. 1990. “Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps.”Studies in Comparative International Development 25, 1: 7–24.Google Scholar
  10. —. 1993. “Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures.”American Journal of Political Science 37, 4: 1207–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollen, Kenneth and Robert Jackman. 1989. “Democracy, Stability, and Dichotomies.”American Sociological Review 54: 612–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bollen, Kenneth and Pamela Paxton. 2000. “Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy.”Comparative Political Studies 33, 1: 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bratton, Michael and Robert Mattes. 2001. “Support for Democracy in Africa: Instrinsic or Instrumental?”British Journal of Political Science 31: 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burkhart, Ross and Michael Lewis-Beck. 1994. “Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis.”American Political Science Review 88, 4: 903–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carothers, Thomas. 2002. “The End of the Transition Paradigm.”Journal of Democracy, 13, 1: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chee, Soon Juan. 2001. “Pressing for Openness in Singapore.”Journal of Democracy 12: 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier, David and Robert Adcock. 1999. “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts.”Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 537–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coppedge, Michael. 2003. “Book Review: Przeworski et al. 2000,”Studies in Comparative International Development 38, 1: 123–126Google Scholar
  19. Dahl, Robert. 1971.Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. De Boef, Suzanna and Jim Granato. 1997. “Near-Integrated Data and the Analysis of Political Relationships.”American Journal of Political Science 41, 2: 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. —. 1999. “Testing for Cointegrating Relationships with Near-Integrated Data.”Political Analysis 8 (1): 99–117.Google Scholar
  22. Diamond, Larry. 1992. “Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered,”Reexamining Democracy: Essays in Honor of Seymour Martin Lipset. Eds. Marks, Gary and Larry Diamond. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. —. 1999.Developing Democracy. Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. —. 2002. “Thinking about Hybrid Regimes.”Journal of Democracy, 13, 2: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elkins, Zachary. 2000. “Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations,”American Journal of Political Science 44: 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elster, Jon. 1998.Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Finkel, Steven. 1995.Causal Analysis with Panel Data. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Gasiorowski, Mark. 1995. “Economic Crisis and Political Regime Change: An Event History Analysis.”American Political Science Review 89, 4: 882–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gleditsch, Kristian and Michael Ward. 1997. “Double Take: A Reexamination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Politics.”The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 4: 361–383.Google Scholar
  30. Goldsworthy, Jeffry. 2001. “Legislative Sovereignty and the Rule of Law,” inSkeptical Essays on Human Rights, Eds. Compbell, T., K.D. Ewing, and A. Tomkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Griliches, Zvi. 1967. “Distributed Lags: A Survey.”Econometrica 35, 1: 16–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hadenius, Axel. 1992.Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Helliwell, John. 1994. “Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth.”British Journal of Political Science 24: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill, Kim Quaile. 1994.Democracy in the Fifty States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  35. Holden, Barry. 1974.The Nature of Democracy. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
  36. Inglehart, Ronald. 1988. “The Renaissance of Political Culture,”American Political Science Review 82: 1203–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Inglehart, Ronald. 1997.Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. —. 2003. “How Solid is Mass Support for Democracy—And How Can We Measure It?”PS: Political Science and Politics, 36: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Inglehart, Ronald et al. 2000.World Value Surveys and European Value Surveys, 1981–1984, 1990–1993, 1995–1997. ICPSR Study 2790. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
  40. Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel. 2003. “Political Culture and Democracy: Analyzing Cross-Level Linkages.”Comparative Politics 36, 1: 61–79.Google Scholar
  41. Karl, Terry Lynn. 1990. “Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America,”Comparative Politics 23: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Legitimacy.”American Political Science Review 53: 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muller, Edward and Mitchell Seligson 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships,”American Political Science Review 88, 3: 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Munck, Gerardo L. and Jay Verkuilen. 2002. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices,”Comparative Political Studies 35: 5–34.Google Scholar
  45. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.”Journal of Democracy 5: 55–69.Google Scholar
  46. —. 2001. “Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics.”Studies in Comparative International Development 36: 7–36.Google Scholar
  47. O’Donnell, Guillermo and Phillippe Schmitter. 1986. “Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies,” inTransitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy. Eds. O’Donnell, G., P. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pennock, Roland. 1979.Democratic Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi. 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.”World Politics 49: 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub and Fernando Limongi. 2000.Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Putnam, Robert. 1993.Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rose, Richard and William Mishler. 2001. “Comparing Regime Support in Non-Democratic and Democratic Countries.”Democratization 9, 2: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rustow, Danckwart. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.”Comparative Politics 2: 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schedler, Andreas. 2001. “Measuring Democratic Consolidation.”Studies in Comparative International Development 36: 66–92.Google Scholar
  55. Sussman; Leonard. 1982. “The Continuing Struggle for Freedom of Information.” inFreedom in the World, 1982. Ed. Gastil, Raymond. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  56. Welzel, Chris, Ronald Inglehart, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2003. “Human Development as a Theory of Social Change: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.”European Journal of Political Science 42, 3: 341–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitehead, Laurence (2001). “Bolivia and the Viability of Democracy,”Journal of Democracy 12: 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel Hadenius
  • Jan Teorell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations