Economic rights and government in developing countries: Cross-national evidence on growth and development

Most analysts assume that economic rights (especially to property and to contracts) help foster economic development, but the relationship is rarely studied empirically. Using three recently developed indexes of economic freedom, this article explores this issue for the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. It finds that developing countries that score better in protecting economic rights also tend to grow, faster and to score higher in human development. In addition, economic rights are associated with democratic government and with higher levels of average national income. Arthur A. Goldsmith is professor of management at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. During the 1998 academic year he is a Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Institute for International Development. Professor Goldsmith has published widely on global economic and management issues, and has consulted for several international development agencies. His most recent articles have appeared inInternational Review of Administrative Sciences, World Development, Journal of Development Studies, andDevelopment and Change. Professor Goldsmith's latest bookBusiness, Government, Society: The Global Political Economy was published in 1996.     

Intellectual Property,Access to Medicines,and Health: New Research Horizons

In this introduction, we review the literature on intellectual property rights and access to medicines, identifying two distinct generations of research. The first generation analyzes the origins of new intellectual property rules, in particular the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the significance of TRIPS to developing countries. The second generation examines national-level experiences, as countries adjust their laws and practices to conform to TRIPS. Based on the insights provided by the articles in the special issue, we contribute to the second generation by considering a pair of overarching sets of issues. First, we highlight the domestic political challenges that affect how countries go about implementing their new obligations under TRIPS. We argue that alliances and coalitions are necessary to underpin the use of policy instruments designed to conform to TRIPS while taking into account local conditions and needs, and we present insights that allow us to understand why alliances and coalitions are difficult to construct and sustain in this area. Second, we explain why policies that many countries adopt in response to TRIPS often do not generate their desired or intended outcomes. In the last section of the introduction, we review the articles that appear in this special issue.     

Liberal moments and democracy’s durability: Comparing global outbreaks of democracy—1918, 1945, 1989

Conclusion Liberal Moments are constructed by ideational as well as more materials phenomena; by the crisis situations of war, the moments of peace that follow, and the liberal norms at play at each junsture. Understanding Liberal Moments is crucial to understanding the development of the international syaytem in the 20th century and the prospects for democracy or dictatorship across polities. These Moments have been times of heady enthusiasm, when the most liberal ambitions of key actors in the world community have been put forward. The patterns and extent of their unraveling are key indicators of the character of national politics thereafter. Daniel M. Green is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. His writings have appeared inDemocratization, Governance, Humboldt Journal of Social Research, and theReview of African Political Economy. He is currently finishing a book on the politics of economic reform in Ghana and editing a volume entitledConstructivist Comparative Politics: Theoretical Issues and Case Studies.     

Democracy, Colonization, and Human Capital in Sub-Saharan Africa

This article examines an empirical anomaly. In most developing regions, poor democratic nations enroll more primary school students than their authoritarian counterparts. Regime type, however, cannot account for the wide variance in enrollment in Africa. This study demonstrates that colonial heritage is a good predictor of primary school enrollment for low-income countries in Africa. Additional analysis shows that colonization's impact on education has not diminished since independence. Rather, the initial differences in enrollment between the former French and British colonies have grown over time. The results hold important implications for the study of political institutions and their impact on economic development. Even after they no longer exist, political institutions can have substantial lingering effects on important developmental outcomes. David S. Brown is an assistant professor of political science at Rice University. His work has appeared recently inThe American Political Science Review, Political Research Quarterly, and inComparative Political Studies. His work focuses on the political economy of development and is based on cross-regional work with specialization in Latin America. Specific areas of interest are human capital, democracy, and the international determinants of domestic politics.     

Private Sector Incentives and the Diffusion of Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Developing Countries

The role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has been extensively debated in the literature on technology transfers and agricultural productivity growth in developing countries. However, few studies offer cross-country evidence on how IPRs affect yield growth by incentivising private sector investment in cultivar improvement. We address this knowledge gap by testing technology diffusion patterns for six major crops using a unique dataset for the period 1961–2010 and an Arellano–Bond linear dynamic panel-data estimation approach. Findings indicate that biological and legal forms of IPRs promote yield gap convergence between developed and developing countries, although effects vary by crop.     

Intellectual Property Rights and the Potential for Universal Access to Treatment: trips,acta and hiv/aids medicine

Where hiv/aids is concerned, the twin goals of ‘zero new infections’ and an ‘aids-free generation’ are now, due to advances in treatment (and treatment as prevention), a realistic possibility. However, these goals can only be achieved through the scaling-up of treatment to the point of universal access. It is inevitable that the success of any scaling-up will be predicated on cost, particularly of hiv/aids medicines. This article argues that recent changes in the global intellectual property landscape—effected by way of bilaterally- and plurilaterally-negotiated trade agreements initiated by developed countries—jeopardise the target of universal access. Enhanced protection of international intellectual property rights increasingly poses a threat to the development of, and international trade in, generic medicines. Unless developing countries move to reinvigorate moribund multilateral institutions, particularly the wto, they will lose control of the intellectual property agenda, and thus the ability to impose an alternative vision regarding universal access.     

Globalization and Labor in Four Developing Regions: An Institutional Approach

This paper is the introduction to a SCID special issue on “Global Pressures, National Response, and Labor Rights in Developing Countries.” We focus on the potentially conflicting demands that developing countries face from international institutions for better labor standards versus more labor flexibility. This is studied through a comparative analysis of four regions: Eastern Europe, Latin America, East Asia, and the Middle East. The major international institutions we examine are the International Labor Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements, and multinational corporations. This introductory paper presents a review of existing literature on labor standards and labor flexibility with particular focus on the role of international institutions in promoting the two processes and their impact on labor market outcomes. It also describes our project and its contribution to the debates, including a discussion of our main methodological innovation, namely, the construction of new indices for labor standards and flexibility. In empirical terms, it compares the indices across the four regions and provides an analysis of the impact of the indices on labor market outcomes.     

Property rights in context: Privatization’s legacy for corporate legality in Poland and Russia

In the first decade after the collapse of Communism, Russia became notorious for conflicts around corporate property and corporate governance. In Poland, such conflicts were far less frequent. This distinction I argue, reflects the form of privatization in each country. In Poland, negotiation among potential shareholders and current enterprise stakeholders preceded privatization, whereas in Russia privatization procedures pitted these same groups against one another. The legacy of privatization in Russia expressed itself in long-running legal conflicts over the security of property rights. These developments highlight the importance of situational incentives to challenge or respect property rights, undermining various new-institutionalist arguments that link security of property rights primarily to the commitment and capacity of state bodies to enforce them, to the normative legitimacy of the law, or to coordination equilibria in a game-theoretic framework. The argument also enables a clarification of the political trajectory now leading to stronger corporate property rights in Russia. David M. Woodruff is associate professor of political science at MIT. His main interest is the politics of economic state-building in the post-socialist countries, especially Russia. His present research focuses on how Russia’s insertion in the international economy affects its ability to build legal institutions appropriate for a market economy. Professor Woodruff is the author ofMoney Unmade: Barter and the Fate of Russian Capitalism (Cornell University Press 1999) and articles inPolitics & Society, Post-Soviet Affairs, andEast European Constitutional Review.     

Financial mobilization and allocation: The South Korean case

There are two major competing views on how financial resources may best be mobilized and allocated to accelerate economic growth of developing countries. One emphasizes the importance of competitive financial markets; the other stresses the role of the developmental state. This study examines one of the world’s fastest-growing economies during the past few decades, that of South Korea, focusing on its experience with financial resources mobilization and allocation. It finds that a state-centered approach provides a better, albeit imperfect, account of the South Korean postwar experience, in which the state has assiduously influenced the access to, and cost, of, available financial resources, going far beyond merely “getting the prices right.” Lawrence Chang is assistant professor of political science at Kean College of New Jersey. His publications include articles on Chinese politics inChina Spring and the political economy of East Asian development inMid-American Journal of Politics. He is currently completing a study of direct foreign investment in the People’s Republic of China.     

Investment penetration,agrarian change,and political conflict in developing countries

This research employs a cross-national design to explore the association between direct foreign investment in agriculture, changes in the agricultural labor force, and political conflict and violence in developing countries. The results reveal different patterns of relationships for Latin American, African, and Asian societies. In Africa, foreign agricultural investments are related to higher employment in the agricultural sector, which in turn is associated with lower levels of political protest. In Latin America, Foreign agricultural investments were directly related to more protest, suggesting a xenophobic nationalist reaction to foreign penetration in this sector. There were no apparent relationships between these variables among Asian states. These results challenge the often-found contention that economic disturbances in the agricultural sector are a fundamental cause of violent uprisings and rebellions. John M. Rothgeb, Jr. is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Miami Univeristy in Oxford, Ohio 45056. He is the author ofDefining Power: Influence and Force in the Contemporary International System (St. Martin’s Press, 1993),Myths and Realities of Foreign Investiment in Poor Countries (Praeger Publishers, 1989) and numerous articles in professional journals. His current research interests include the study of the international and domestic implications of interdependence and the analysis of how economic resources may be used to exercise power in international relations.     

The Theory of International Media Diffusion: Political Socialization and International Media in Transitional Democracies

Despite the long-standing normative assumption that, for individuals in transitional states, exposure to Western media cultivates stronger attachments to Western political and economic values, the evidence presented here suggests otherwise. Using mass public survey data from the mid-1990s in five Central and Eastern European countries, this article demonstrates a general lack of support for international media’s positive contributions to individuals’ democratic attitudes and preferences for market economies. This finding is particularly unexpected because the countries under investigation represent ideal cases based on their proximity to Western democracies and international (Western) media sources’ capacities for extensive transnational media penetration into the region. Yet this failure to find persuasive evidence of the influence of international media diffusion on the development of Western political values sharpens our understanding of the process of political socialization in democratizing countries by eliminating an assumed source and is thus relevant to students of democratization, international development, and mass media.

Taxation data as indicators of state-society relations: Possibilities and pitfalls in cross-national research

Cross-national research on taxation is a growth industry in political science. This article discusses key conceptual and measurement issues raised by such studies. First, it highlights the ways in which taxation has been studied as a rich and varied concept, including as a component of the state-building process, as a collective action problem, and/or as a problem of distributive justice. Second, the article identifies the central tradeoffs associated with the construction of taxation indicators used to measure such ideas. It discusses considerations such as which forms of revenue should be included and which should not, whether and how to standardize taxation measures, and how no fine-tune measures through a clear specification of units, universes, and measurement calibration. These choices have important implications for the “scoring” of countries, and for making valid inferences about the relationship between states and societies. Evan S. Lieberman is a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar at Yale University and will begin and appointment as assistant professor in the Department of Politics at Princeton University in September 2002. His interests include comparative politics, research methods, and economic and social policy. I would like to thank Christopher Achen, David Collier, Marc Morjé Howard, Lucan Way, members of the Robert Wood Johnson Policy Scholars Seminar at Yale University, three anonymous reviewers, and the editors atStudies in Comparative International Development for their valuable comments and suggestions.     

Teachers’ strikes in Argentina: Partisan alignments and public-sector labor relations

In a context of increasing teachers’ militancy in Argentina, this article provides the first empirical analysis of teachers’ strikes in all twenty-four Argentine provinces during the 1990s. Using a cross-provincial statistical analysis, it explains the wide variation across provinces and across time of Argentine teachers’ strikes. It demonstrates that political alignments between provincial governors and teachers’ unions explain these patterns better than organizational and institutional variables, which strongly shape public-sector labor relations in other countries. We emphasize the discretion of provincial governors, for both the application of labor regulations and budgetary appropriations in the politicization of provincial public-sector labor relations in Argentina, especially after the decentralization of education resulted in the provincialization of teachers’ protests. Maria Victoria Murillo is associate professor of political science and international affairs at Columbia University. She was previously an assistant professor at Yale University, a Peggy Rockefeller Fellow at the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, and a Fellow at Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. She is the author ofLabor Unions, Partisan Coalitions, and Market Reforms in Latin America (Cambridge University Press 2001) and various articles on the politics of market reforms, labor protest, and privatization of public utilities in Latin America. the authors acknowledge the useful suggestions of the editor and three anonymous reviewers, and the comments of Ernesto Calvo, Javier Corrales, Tulia Faletti, Miriam Golden, Frances Rosenbluth, Andrew Schrank, Kenneth Scheve, J. Samuel Valenzuela, James Vreeland; and the participants in the Seminar on Globalization and Labor Struggle at Columbia University, the Latin American Seminar of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University, the seventh annual meeting of LACEA, and the Business School seminar at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella. M. V. Murillo acknowledges the support of the Yale Center for International and Area Studies and the Carnegie Program for the Study of Globalization, and L. Ronconi acknowledges the support of the CEDI at the Universidad de San Andrés.     

Citizenship,equality, and urban property rights in Latin America: The Peruvian case

Research on liberal democracy in newly developing countries has been hampered by the view of civil society as a bounded realm; by insufficient attention to power, class, and legal-juridical institutions; and by too limited a conception of social movements with democratic potential. In this study of urban migrants’ struggle for property rights, the migrants’ political action is found to be associated with a capitalist social movement. The legal changes that the movement helped institute and the means that it employed have enhanced democracy by extending property rights to the poor and by opening up policy processes to public debate and input. Insofar as liberal reform involves the law and its administration, it requires a positive, facilitative state, in spite of liberalism’s broadly antistatist commitments. The study also reveals that liberal reform can have a popular content even if supported by elites. The findings suggest that the realization of full citizenship rights is, for now, at least as crucial to the future of Latin American democracy as the narrowing of economic inequalities. David G. Becker is associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. He is the author ofThe New Bourgeoisie and the Limits of Dependency (Princeton University Press, 1982); a counthor ofPostimperialism (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987); and the author of “Beyond Dependency: Development and Democracy in the Era of International Capitalism,” in Dankwart A. Rustow and Kenneth P. Erickson (ededs.),Comparative Political Dynamic (HarperCollis, 1991), in addition to many other articles on aspects of political development. Becker’s current research centers of the nature of constitutionalism and democracy in Latin America. He is preparing a book-length treatment of the rule of law in Latin America, along with an edited book on postimperialism that will present new case studies of a variety of countries and world regions.     

The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy,Autocracy, and State Power Since 1800

This article uses POLITY II, a new dataset on the authority traits of 155 countries, to assess some general historical arguments about the dynamics of political change in Europe and Latin America from 1800 to 1986. The analysis, relying mainly on graphs, focuses first on the shifting balance between democratic and autocratic patterns in each world region and identifies some of the internal and international circumstances underlying the trends, and deviations from them. Trends in three indicators of state power also are examined in the two regions: the state's capacity to direct social and economic life, the coherence of political institutions, and military manpower. The state's capacity has increased steadily in both regions; coherence has increased in the European countries but not Latin America; while military power has fluctuated widley in both regions. The article is foundational to a series of more detailed longitudinal studies of the processes of state growth. Ted Robert Gurr is a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and Distinguished Scholar at the University's Center for International Development and Conflict Management (Mill Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742). Among his 14 books and monographs areWhy Men Rebel (awarded the Woodrow Wilson Prize as best book in political science of 1970).Patterns of Authority: A comparative Basis for Political Inquiry (with Harry Eckstein, 1975), andViolence in America, (3d edition. 1989). He is engaged in a long-term global study of minorities' involvement in conflict and its consequences and resolution. Keith Jaggers is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado and research assistant in the Department's Center for Comparative Politics, Campus Box 333, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. He is co-author with Will H. Moore of “Deprivation, Mobilization, and the State,” recently published in theJournal of Developing Societies, and is currently working on an empirical study of the impact of war on the growth of the state. Will H. Moore is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado and research assistant in the Department's Center for Comparative Politics. He is also a co-author with Maro Ellena of a forthcoming article inWestern Political Quarterly on the cross-national determinants of political violence. His current research interests include the resolution of internal wars and the formation of coercive states.     

Why do presidents fail? Political leadership and the Argentine crisis (1999–2001)

This article explores why Argentine president Fernando de la Rúa (1999–2001) failed to govern and the factors that prevented him from compelting his constitutional mandate. This study draw on current literature about leadership. We argue that President De la Rúa’s ineffective performance was characteristic of an inflexible tendency towards unilateralism, isolationism, and an inability to compromise and persuade. Moreover, we examine how de la Rúas performance, in the context of severe political and economic constraints, discouraged cooperative practices among political actors, led to decision-making paralysis, and ultimately to a crisis of governance This work seeks to make four contributions. First, it conceptualizes political leadership by providing an analytical framework that integrates individual action, institutional resources and constraints, and policy context, thus filling a gap in the literature. Second, it explains the importance of effective leadership in building up and maintaining multiparty coalitions in presidential systems. Third, it complements existing institutional approaches to improve our understanding of a new type of instability in Latin America: the failure of more than a dozen of presidents to complete their constitutional mandates. Fourth, it analyzes the way political and economic variables interact in times of crisis. Mariana Llanos is a researcher at the Institut für Iberoamerika-Kunde (IIK) in Hamburg, Germany, and teaches Latin American politics at the University of Hamburg. Her research focuses on Latin American political institutions particularly to the president-congress relations and the legislatures of the Southern Cone. She is the author ofPrivatization and Democracy in Argentina (Palgrave, 2002), co-author ofBicameralismo, Senados y senadores en el Cono Sur latinoamericano (ICPS, Barcelona, 2005, together with Francisco Sánchez and Detlef Nolte) and co-editor ofControle Parlamentar na Alemanha, na Argentina e no Brasil (KAS, Rio de Janeiro, 2005, with Ana María Mustapic), among other works. Ana Margheritis is assistant professor of international relations and Latin American politics at University of Florida. Her research interests are in international political economy, foreign policy, regional cooperation, and inter-American relations. She is the editor ofLatin American Democracies in the New Global Economy (2003); author ofAjuste y Reforma en Argentina, 1989–1995 (1999); and co-author ofHistoria de las relaciones exteriores de la República Argentina (with Carlos Escudé et al., 1998) andMalvinas: Los motivos económicos de un conflicto (with Laura Tedesco, 1991), as well as of several articles in academic journals and book chapters. The authors are grateful to Vicente Palermo and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.