Economic Liberalization in One-Party-Dominant States: Indonesia and Mexico



It is a standard hypothesis that authoritarian regimes are more successful than democratic ones at implementing economic reform, because their leaders can act without fear of being voted out of office by those who feel the ‘short-term’ negative effects such as job loss, lower incomes and reduced social services (Sachs, 1990). Yet several recent studies have shown that, despite predictions to the contrary (based largely on the early examples of China and Chile), democracies are no less able to carry out economic reforms than authoritarian regimes (see Plattner and Diamond, 1994; Remmer, 1995; Przeworski and Limongi, 1993). A second proposition, that economic liberalization creates the conditions for political liberalization, is also widely maintained but less well studied (Armijo, 1995; Przeworski et al., 1996; Chu, 1996).


Economic Reform Government Spending Authoritarian Regime Political Reform Economic Liberalization 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armijo, Leslie Elliott, ed. (1995), Conversations About Democratization and Economic Reform: Working Papers of the Southern California Seminar (Coral Gables, FL: North-South Centre, University of Miami).Google Scholar
  2. Brauchli, Marcus, W. (1994), ‘Asian Paradox: Indonesia is Striving to Prosper in Freedom But is Still Repressive’, Wall Street Journal, October 11, p. 1.Google Scholar
  3. Castañeda, Jorge G. (1993), Utopia Unarmed: Latin America Left after the Cold War (New York: Alfred Knopf).Google Scholar
  4. Centeño, Miguel Angel (1994), Democracy Within Reason: Technocratic Revolution in Mexico (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press).Google Scholar
  5. Chu, Yun-han (1996), ‘The Political Economy of Democratic Transition in East Asia’, paper delivered at the workshop on ‘Constructing Democracy and Markets: Comparing East Asia and Latin America’ (cosponsored by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the International Forum for Democratic Studies) at Los Angeles, January 26–27.Google Scholar
  6. Dresser, Denise (1991), Neopopulist Solutions to Neoliberal Problems (La Jolla, CA: Centre for US-Mexico Studies).Google Scholar
  7. Eigen, Peter (1996), ‘Combatting Corruption Around the World’, The Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 1 (January), pp. 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishlow, Albert, Catherine Gwin, Stephan Haggard, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Wade (1994), Miracle or Design? Lessons From the East Asian Experience (Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council).Google Scholar
  9. Fox, Jonathan (1993), ‘The Difficult Transition from Clientelism to Citizenship: Lessons from Mexico’, World Politics, pp. 152–184.Google Scholar
  10. Geddes, Barbara (1995), ‘Review Essay: The Politics of Economic Liberalization’, Latin American Research Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 195–214.Google Scholar
  11. Hansen, Roger D. (1971), The Politics of Mexican Development (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press).Google Scholar
  12. Haggard, Stephan, and Robert R. Kaufman (1995), The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  13. Hellman, Judith (1994), ‘Mexican Popular Movements, Clientelism and the Process of Democratization’, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring), pp. 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liddle, R. William (1991), ‘The Relative Autonomy of the Third World Politician: Soeharto and Indonesian Economic Development in Comparative Perspective’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lustig, Nora (1992), Mexico: The Remaking of an Economy (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution).Google Scholar
  16. Plattner, Mark and Larry Diamond (1994), ‘Economic Reform and Democracy’, editorial preface to special issue of Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5, No. 4 (October), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  17. Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi (1993), ‘Political Regimes and Economic Growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, No. 7, pp. 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi (1996), ‘What Makes Democracies Endure?’, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 1 (January), pp. 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Remmer, Karen L. (1995), ‘New Theoretical Perspectives on Democratization’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robison, Richard (1988), ‘Authoritarian States, Capital-Owning Classes, and the Politics of Newly Industrializing Countries: The Case of Indonesia’, World Politics, Vol. 41 (October), pp. 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robison, Richard (1993), ‘Economic and Political Liberalization in Southeast Asia: Inexorable Force or Red Herring?’ (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  22. Rubio, Luis (1988), The Changing Role of the Private Sector’ in Susan Kaufman Purcell, ed., Mexico in Transition: Implications for U.S. Policy (New York, Council on Foreign Relations), pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
  23. Sachs, Jeffrey D. (1990), Social Conflict and Populist Policies in Latin America (San Francisco, CA: International Centre for Economic Growth).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneider, Ben Ross (1995), ‘Democratic Consolidations: Some Broad Comparisons and Sweeping Arguments’, Latin American Research Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 215–234.Google Scholar
  25. Schwartz, Adam (1995), A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  26. Thorbecke, Erik (1992), Adjustment and Equity in Indonesia (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  27. Vatikiotis, Michael (1993), Indonesian Politics Under Suharto: Order, Development and Pressure for Change (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Bank (1993), The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  29. World Bank (1994), World Development Report 1994 (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations