Egalitarianism and the democratic deconsolidation: Is democracy compatible with socialism?

Abstract

The unprecedented reduction in popular support for democracy represents a risk of democratic deconsolidation. The new situation echoes old debates on the compatibility of democracy with capitalism and socialism. This article provides empirical support for the incompatibility of socialism with democracy by providing evidence suggesting that when citizens adopt egalitarianism as a supreme value, they are ready to sacrifice democracy for the sake of equality. Using individual data, we observe that the decline in support for democracy over generations and over time is accompanied by rising support for egalitarian values in US and European democracies. Moreover, democracies with stronger preferences for egalitarianism also have less public support for democracy, suggesting a tradeoff between both values.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    However, the term of "deconsolidation" is contested by numerous political scientists because the backsliding of political freedom around the world is not observable with current (and different) democracy indices (Paldam 2019).

  2. 2.

    Forty-five percent of young Americans, aged 18–29, view capitalism positively while 51% of them are positive about socialism. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx.

  3. 3.

    The empirical literature has focused separately on the individual-level support for democracy (Piazza 2019; Borooah et al. 2013) and on individuals’ support for capitalism versus socialism (Bjørnskov and Paldam 2012; Pitlik and Kouba 2015), but has not yet investigated the relationship across both dimensions.

  4. 4.

    The EU member states included in the waves 5 and 6 of the World Values Surveys are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

  5. 5.

    Two potentially important variables, the number of people in the household and the size of the town in which the respondent lives are not provided systematically for every country-wave pair in the WVS. Thus, those variables are not included in our specification to retain as many countries as possible in our sample; we checked, however, that their inclusion does not modify our results.

  6. 6.

    In unreported tests, we checked the validity of our results by restricting our analysis to the countries that are considered to be free according to Freedom House measures.

References

  1. Bernholz, P. (1982). Expanding welfare state, democracy and free market economy: Are they compatible? Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, (H. 3), 583–598.

  2. Bernholz, P. (1995). Supreme values, tolerance, and the constitution of liberty. In Gerard Radnitzky & Hardy Bouillon (Eds.), Values and the social order. Avebury: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernholz, P. (2001). Democracy and capitalism: Are they compatible in the long-run? In Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century (pp. 9–22). Springer.

  4. Bernholz, P. (2004). Supreme values as the basis for terror. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(2), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernholz, P. (2017). Totalitarianism, terrorism and supreme values. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjørnskov, C., & Paldam, M. (2012). The spirits of capitalism and socialism. Public Choice, 150(3–4), 469–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Borooah, V. K., Katos, A. B., & Katsouli, E. (2013). Inter-country differences in voter satisfaction with the democratic process: A study of world elections. Public Choice, 157(3–4), 569–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eichengreen, B. (2018). The political economy of European monetary unification. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Farrant, A., & McPhail, E. (2009). Hayek, Samuelson, and the logic of the mixed economy? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fukuyama, F. (2006). The end of history and the last man. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Furet, F., & Nolte, E. (2001). Fascism and communism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hall, J. C., & Lawson, R. A. (2014). Economic freedom of the world: An accounting of the literature. Contemporary Economic Policy, 32(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansen, A. H. (1960). The economics of the soviet challenge. Economic Record, 36(73), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hayek, F. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hayek, F. A. (1949). The intellectuals and socialism. The University of Chicago Law Review, 16(3), 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayek, F. A. (2011). Law, legislation and liberty, volume 3: The political order of a free people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ikeda, S. (2002). Dynamics of the mixed economy: Toward a theory of interventionism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuttner, S. (2018). Gratian and the Schools of Law, 1140–1234. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawson, R. A., & Clark, J. R. (2010). Examining the Hayek–Friedman hypothesis on economic and political freedom. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74(3), 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marx, K. (1968). Œuvres, tomes 1 & 2: Economie.

  25. Moore, B. (1967). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world (Boston, 1966). In T. Skocpol (Ed.), On Moore, Dennis Smith,” Discovering facts and values: The historical sociology of Barrington Moore,” vision and method in historical sociology. Cambridge, 1984.

  26. Paldam, M. (2019). Has democracy decreased in the 21st century? P.t. available from: http://martin.paldam.dk/Pa-pers/Democracy/6-Has-democracy-decreased.pdf.

  27. Piazza, J. A. (2019). Democratic skepticism and support for terrorism in the Palestinian territories. Public Choice, 178(3–4), 417–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pitlik, H., & Kouba, L. (2015). Does social distrust always lead to a stronger support for government intervention? Public Choice, 163(3–4), 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation (Vol. 2). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Roemer, J. E. (1994). A future for socialism. Politics & Society, 22(4), 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Roemer, J. E. (2008). Equality of opportunity. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 1–8, 1811–1816.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schumpeter, J. (1928). The instability of capitalism. The Economic Journal, 38(151), 361–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy, 3, 167.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schumpeter, J. A. (1966). Imperialism: Social classes. Two Essays. Cleveland: Meridian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Streeck, W., & Livingstone, R. (2017). The return of the repressed. New Left Review, 104, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tocqueville, A. D. (1835). Democracy in America, 1840. London: Saunders and Otley.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Von Mises, L. (1977). Critique of interventionism. Ludwig von Mises Institute.

  39. Wu, G. (2017). Globalization against democracy: A political economy of capitalism after its global triumph. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Vivekananda Mukherjee, Martin Paldam and the other participants at the Silvaplana Workshop of Political Economy 2019 for very helpful comments. Any remaining errors are ours.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mickael Melki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy. Tocqueville (1835, second book, chapter 1).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Facchini, F., Melki, M. Egalitarianism and the democratic deconsolidation: Is democracy compatible with socialism?. Public Choice 186, 447–465 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00744-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Democracy
  • Deconsolidation
  • Egalitarianism
  • Millennials

JEL Classification

  • D31
  • D72
  • G38