1 / 16

The quality of democracy: its impact on economic , political and social performance

The quality of democracy: its impact on economic , political and social performance. Kristobal Miguel Meléndez Aguilar. Introduction.

aideen
Télécharger la présentation

The quality of democracy: its impact on economic , political and social performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The quality of democracy: its impact on economic, political and social performance Kristobal Miguel Meléndez Aguilar

  2. Introduction • In 1959, by calculating averages of some welfare variables, Lipset showed that, in all cases, democracies had a better performance than those countries that decided not to be democratic. • Dahl (1989) notes thatdemocracy has significant advantages over other regimes: Avoids tyranny of representatives; grants rights and essential freedoms; improves human development, political equality, and prosperity, such as basic needs of a society like food, health, education and housing. All these advantages make this type of regime attractive, it is not surprising that an important number of countries have searched the way to become a democracy. • According to Dahl, the five main criteria for having a democratic society are: effective participation, voting equality at the decisive stage, enlightening understanding, control of the agenda and inclusiveness. All these elements are related to election, including the control of the agenda that is based on giving all citizens the ability to choose the public policies that are convenient for them, without taking in consideration if these are or not of quality.

  3. Democratization in the world Source: Compiled by author based on Polity IV

  4. Democratization in the world Source: Compiled by author based on Polity IV

  5. Economic performanceDemocracy vs. other types of regime • Through using the method and variables of Lipset for 1990, 2000 and 2010. For all the periods and variables that were analyzed, it was observed that, on average, democracies have a better performance than those countries that are not democratic. • However, with a deeper analysis, it was found: • 1) Onaverage, non democratic countries are growing at a greater rate than those countries that are democratic. This implies that the gap between both types of regime is decreasing over time. • 2) The averages hide a lot of information. So, a more precise method to analyze the causal relation between democracy and economic performance is needed. • 3) Those democratic countries that stopped being a democracy, had a better progress than those that remained as democratic. Przeworski (2002) found that if a country becomes a democracy and has an income of over 4 thousand dollars per capita, then it remains as democratic. • It is interesting, as a research question, to investigate if democracy has a positive impact on the performance of countries or not. • In order to test the hypothesis of Lipset that democracies have a better performance than those countries that are not democratic.

  6. Democracies have different performances • Democracy has many variants among which we can find classical democracy, protective republicanism, protective democracy, developmental democracy, developmental republicanism,direct democracy, pluralism, constitutional democracy, contemporary elitism, inclusive democracy, cosmopolitan democracy, illiberal democracy, participatory democracy, delegative democracy, radical democracy,among many other types of democracy. • The quality of democracy is a new concept that tries to explain the reason why democratic countries have different levels of performance.

  7. Measuring the quality of democracy • It is not easy to measure the quality of democracy. • O´Donnell (2004) considers that the citizens behavior and the social context are essential elements to determine democratic quality levels. • Diamond and Morlino (2009) developed a more precise definition of democratic quality. This is composed by two components: democracy and quality. Both authors related the concept of quality with three main ideas: procedure, content and results. • Given that there are different types of definitions for democracy and because of the fact that the countries that choose this type of regime have different performances, there are two theoretical debates trying to give us an answer to this dilemma. The first debate is based on whether the concept of democracy must include exclusively procedural elements or if it should also include the content and results of this type of regime. The second debate is based on whether the results must be measured exclusively with political performance or if they must include also economic and social performance. • There are two ways in which the quality of democracy can be measured: quantitatively and qualitatively. • Quantitative variables: Rule of law, accountability through voting, accountability through the institutions, participation, competition, economic freedom, employment, inequality, poverty, human development, public policy performance, political stability and gender equality. • Qualitative variables: Importance of democracy, democratic quality perception and life satisfaction.

  8. First statistical analysis • Method: Simple linear regression. • Dependent variables: 13 essential democratic elements (quantitative variables). • In order to compare coefficients, these variables are standardized in a scale from 0 to 10. • Independent variable: years of democracy. • Findings: 1) Through comparison with political and social performance, the number of years of democracy has a small coefficient in the variables of economic performance as poverty, economic freedom, inequality and employment. This means that economic results will last at least double the time for being observed by people. 2)The number of years of democracy does not have an impact on electoral participation levels and inequality.

  9. Second statistical analysis • Method: Simple linear regression without constant. • Dependent variables: 8 variables of economic and social performance. • Independent variable: index of procedural elements. • In order to compare coefficients, these variables are standardized in a scale from 0 to 10. • Findings: 1) The index of procedural elements has a very good impact on economic and social performance. The fact that coefficients are higher to 1 implies that these procedural elements produce increasing profit to scale in several variables of economic and political performance. 2) However, in all cases, the progress rate is higher in non democratic countries. This implies that the gap between both types of regime is narrowing.

  10. Third statistical analysis • Method: Instrumental-variables regression without constant. • Dependent variables: 8 variables of economic and social performance. • Independent variable: index of procedural elements. • Instrumental variables: electoral participation levelsand indexes of membership and political action. • In order to compare coefficients, these variables are standardized in a scale from 0 to 10. • Findings: 1) The different levels of participation of citizens make procedural elements more effective. 2) In non democratic countries the effect is much greater. In those countries, political action has a greater indirect impact on the economic results and human development.

  11. Fourth statistical analysis • Methods: Simple linear regression and instrumental-variables regression. • Dependent variables: Importance of democracy, democratic quality perception and life satisfaction (qualitative variables). • Independent variables: index of procedural elements and years of democracy. • Instrumental variable: electoral participation levels. • In order to compare coefficients, these variables, except years of democracy, are standardized in a scale from 0 to 10. • Findings: 1) Directly or indirectly (by electoral participation levels), the procedural elements have a substantial influence in the importance of democracy, democratic quality perception and life satisfaction. 2) The number of years of democracy has causal relation with the importance of democracy. However, 90 years of democracy are required in order that the importance of democracy can increase one point in a scale from 1 to 10. Perhaps, because of the fact that citizens have to wait a lot of time to perceive the changes, some democratic countries have decided to change their type of regime.

  12. Conclusions • Lipset showed that, in all cases, democracies had a better performance than those countries that decided not to be democratic. On a deeper analysis, it was found that non democratic countries are growing at a greater rate than those countries that are democratic. This implies that the gap between both types of regime is decreasing over time. • By applying simple linear regressions and instrumental-variables regressions, and analyzing the coefficients of standardized variables, it was found that procedural elements of a democracy produce a better economic and social performance. • It would seem logical that the number of years of democracy and the different types of participation should have a great impact on economic and social performance. However, by applying instrumental-variables regressions, it was found that such effect exists in an indirect way. • Free and fair elections are not enough, all countries should develop a context with a better Rule of law, accountability through voting and accountability through the institutions. It is important to mention that citizens' perceptions about the quality of democracy vary to a very slow pace unless there is a great change on the procedural elements. Therefore, the quality of democracy is important for a better political, economic and social performance.

  13. References • Altman, David and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. "Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries". In Democratization. 9. 2. Summer 2002. pp. 85-100. • Arredondo, Vicente. Construir ciudadanía: Educar para la participación ciudadana. 2006. • Blaug, Ricardo, Louise Horner and Rohit Lekhi. Public Value, politics and public management: A literature review. The Work Foundation. 2006. • Bobbio, Norberto. El futuro de la democracia. Mexico. Fondo de Cultura Económica. 1986. • CIA World Factbook. (Of, 2 july 2014, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/). • Coppedge, Michael. "Quality of Democracy and Its Measurement". In Guillermo O´Donnell, Jorge Vargas and Osvaldo Iazzetta (eds.). The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications. Notre Dame. University of Notre Dame Press. 2004. pp.239-248. • Dahl, Robert. La democracia: una guía para los ciudadanos. Mexico. Taurus. 1998. • Diamond, Larry and Leonardo Morlino (eds.). Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005. • Global Gender Gap Report. World Economic Forum. 2009. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://www.amichediabcd.org/ The%20Globa l%20Gender%20Gap%20report2009.pdf). • Hagopian, Frances and Scott Mainwaring. The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks. Cambridge University Press. 2005. • Held, David. Modelos de democracia. Madrid. Alianza Editorial. 2001. • Heritage. Ranking the countries. 2009. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://www.heritage.org/index/ ranking).

  14. References • Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Voter Tournout. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://www.idea.int/vt/). • Fareed Zakaria. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”. In Foreign Affairs. 76. 6. 1997. pp. 22-43. • Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London. Verso. 1985. • Levine, Daniel and José Molina. Calidad de la democracia: Fortalezas y Debilidades en América Latina. Prepared for the Conference of the Latin American Studies Association. Rio de Janeiro. Junio del 2009. • Lipset, Seymour. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy". In The American Political Science Review. 53. 1. 1959. p. 69- 105. • O´Donnell, Guillermo. "Delegative Democracy". In Journal of Democracy. 5. 1. Enero 1994. pp. 55-69. • O´Donnell, Guillermo. "Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy". In Guillermo O´Donnell, Jorge Vargas and Osvaldo Iazzetta (eds.). The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications. Notre Dame. University of Notre Dame Press. 2004. pp.9- 92. • O´Donnell, Guillermo. "Why the Rule of Law Matters". In: Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino(eds.). Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005. pp. 3-17. • Pogge, Thomas. La pobreza en el mundo y los derechos humanos. Barcelona. Paidós. 2005. • Poiré, Alejandro. "Por una democracia de mayor calidad: La reforma política en México". In: José Aguilar (coord.). México: crónicas de un país posible. Mexico. Fondo de Cultura Económica. 2005. pp. 153-196. • Polity IV Project. Individual Country Regime Trends, 1946-2013. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm). • Przeworski, Adam. “Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990”. In Edward Mansfield and Richard Sisson. Political Science and the Public Interest. Ohio State University Press. 2002.

  15. References • Putnam, Robert. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton. Princeton University Press. 1993. • Schmitter, Philippe. "The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability". In: Larry Diamond and Leonardo Morlino (eds.). Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2005. pp. 18-31. • Tilly, Charles. “La democratización mediante la lucha”. In Sociológica. 57. January – April 2005. pp. 35-59. • Torres, Rosa. Participación ciudadana y educación: Una mirada amplia y 20 experiencias en América Latina. Unit for Social Development and Education of the OAS. 2001. • Transparency International. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://www.transparency.org/). • Ugalde, Luis. "Hacia una democracia de calidad". In Letras Libres. October 2005. pp. 24-26. • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Index. 2009. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/). • United Nations. UNSD Stadistical Databases. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://unstats.un.org/ unsd/databases.htm). • Vargas Cullell, Jorge. "Democracy and the Quality of Democracy". In Guillermo O´Donnell, Jorge Vargas and Osvaldo Iazzetta (eds.). The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Applications. Notre Dame. University of Notre Dame Press. 2004. pp.93-162. • World Bank. World Development Indicators. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://data.world bank.org/products/wdi). • World Bank. Worldwide Governance Indicators. 2009. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://info.world bank.org/governance/wgi/ index.asp). • World Values Survey: The World`s Most Comprehensive Investigation of Political and Sociocultural Change. (Of, 2 july 2014, http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org).

  16. Thank you

More Related