Authors:
Josepf T. Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein, and Morton H. Halperin
This article is very important
because it contributes to the discussion about the relationship between
democracy and development. The article’s main thesis is simply stated: "democracy
first, development later." The authors argue that democracies consistently
outperform non-democracies on most indicators of economic and social
well-being, so that promoting democracy should be prior to expanding economic
development in developing nations.
 |
| illustration from progresso-weekly.com |
There are two important points in
this article. First is the debate about the relationship between democracy and
development, discussion of authoritarianism and state theory, and economic
development. Second is foreign policy and the role of the United States as the donor
that provides assistance to developing countries. In this review, I will only
focus on the first aspect. There are several things that can be discussed about
this article.
First, this article presents a
couple of competing theories that try to explain the relationship between
democracy and development. Among the theories is the theory of modernization as
proposed by Seymour Martin Lipset who argues that economic growth leads to
democracy, so that "development first, democracy later" (Lipset,
1959)[1].
According to Lipset, economic development would have implications on the social
processes such as urbanization that increase the level of education in the
community, as well as generate the values and norms of social and political
life that are conducive to democracy.
However, Samuel Huntington proposes
an alternative explanation of the development of democracy from the perspective
of “process” arguing that the outcome of economic development would lead to
political decay; then the political system once instable would move toward
democracy through and later institutionalization (Huntington, 1968). [2]
In contrast to modernization
theory, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George Downs studied that in the case of
China, and found the result of economic development would not lead to democracy
because authoritarian regimes and autocracies around the world show people that
they can enjoy the benefits of economic development on the one hand and avoid
political liberalization on the other (Mesquita & Downs, 2005). Their
findings are counter to the argument of modernizationists that democracy is the
necessary result of economic development.
Secondly, compared to other theories,
the authors of this article provide empirical evidence about the relationship
between democracy and development. Basically, the “democracy first, development
later” thesis strongly rejects the modernization school and Lipset’s development-first
thesis; they argue that the democracy should be the precondition for
development and promoting democracy is the strategic approach to reach
prosperity, development, security, and peace.
In fact, the democracy-first
thesis originates from the theoretical approach of institution type compared to
economic performance. Democracy-first theorists not only argue institution
matters, but they also further assert democracy matters. The authors in this
article argue that not only do institutions influence states’ economic and
societal performances, but also, from the perspective of regime type,
democracies indeed outperform non-democracies in economic development. Due to
regular elections, democratic regimes need to respond to the demands of their
citizens and societal groups; the institutional arrangement of election is the
key for democracies to better perform economically.
In this article, the author shows
the analysis of the data compiled from indicators of World Bank's World
Development from 1960 to current situation to demonstrate that "low-income
democracies have, on average, grown just as rapidly as low-income autocracies
over the past 40 years." (p. 59). The use of empirical data is a strength in
this article, which also answers Lipset argument that was written in 1959. Although, there are many epistemological
critics to the empirical and positivistic aspects in this article, the data may
provide new insight to enrich the discussions of the relationship of democracy
and development.
Third is the matter of
authoritarianism and development. If we look at the statistics in this article,
an authoritarian state that has high economic growth is an outlier, which means
that the authoritarian case is rare. Perhaps, there is no correlation between
economic growth and authoritarianism.
This is an interesting debate.
Instead of the regime being the sole factor, economic growth is only possible
if the state has a state capacity and autonomy to address a wide range of
vested interests of various groups, including business associations, military,
populist impulses of middle class and lower class, politicians, and others. Then,
the State will develop economic policies that support development. Instead of
authoritarianism, the capacity and autonomy of the state is augmentative.
Related to this article, we may
also assume that under some circumstances, democratization, democracy and
democratic institutions can gradually increase the capacity of the state (state
capacity) in developing countries which then will lead to economic development.
Fourth is the fall of
authoritarianism and democratic transitions. In this article, the authors have a
view relating to rational choice paradigm positing that the agencies and
individuals will calculate the pay-off, profit and loss, and safeguard their interests
in the political process. This opinion is half true because in some cases, such
as Southeast Asia, the emergence of authoritarian elites is precisely the
collective response of fear of the contentious politics of the state. Thus, there
is a need for a strong state in order to bring stability.
Fifth, this article raised the
debate about the relationship between economic development and democracy. Many
questions arise in the discussion. Is democracy easier to grow in countries
with a low level of development? Is democracy better able to survive in
countries with advanced industrialized level? This point was also discussed by
Lipset.
One of Lipset’s responders,
Przeworski, found that the growth of democracy or transition to democracy is
not affected by economic development. According to Przeworski, economic
development will only help a democracy that's been established. But in
developing countries, democracy can be developed, despite the low level of
economic growth.
However, if democracy-first
thesis is true, how can it explain some cases exceptional to its argument? In the
cases of Taiwan and South Korea, both of these two countries experienced
dramatic economic development without democratic institutions during the 1980s
and 1990s. Moreover, the case of China from the 1990s on also demonstrates that
a non-democracy still can achieve economic development.
Overall, this article is very
important to enrich the study about relationship between democracy and economic
development. Furthermore, the article informs the discussion about the
democracy-first paradigm and gives some examples about that.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar