Political development and economic development: A regional assessment of contemporary theories

Conclusion This paper has been devoted to an assessment of contemporary theories of political and economic development. Specifically, it operationalized and evaluated the hypotheses of the most influential current approach referred to as developmental theory. A comparative study of four regional areas in Latin America concluded that this theory was conceptually and empirically inadequate to the task of explaining the results. Although the theory of structured underdevelopment was not specifically addressed by the research design, it did conform better to the results and suggested an alternative theoretical statement. The hypothesis put forward for subsequent evaluation stresses structural factors related to comprehensive and coordinated organizational forms which, in turn, are explicitly related to varieties of economic development.     

Capitalism,socialism and economic growth: A post-Keynesian pekspective

I thank Robert Dixon for many comments and suggestions and Michael W. Hughey for editorial remarks.     

Post-war Russian economic growth: not a riddle

In a recent article Steven Rosefielde (2003) has advanced three propositions. He suggests that according to the best available statistics the post-war growth of the Russian economy under the command system was surprisingly good; in fact, he argues that it was too good. The standard for this judgement is economic theory, which holds that non-market systems must fail by comparison with market economies; Rosefielde associates specifically this view with the ‘Washington consensus’. He concludes that it is the statistics that are at fault: they ‘lied and were misconstrued’ by Western ‘statistically oriented comparativists’ in a way that was unduly favourable to the command system. In this comment I argue that Rosefielde has misread both the facts and the theory. There is no riddle in the statistics. His conclusion, therefore, must fall.     

Financial development and economic growth: Additional evidence

This note suggests that, contrary to the conclusions reached in several recent studies, the empirical evidence does not support the view that financial development promotes economic growth. It is first noted that the predominant pattern in the data for 95 individual countries is that of a negligible or weakly negative covariation between financial development and growth of real GDP per capita. Second, the individual‐country correlational picture is a sharp contrast to the correlations based on crosscountry data that have been used in most research on the subject. Third, individual‐country estimates of a basic multiple‐regression growth model also do not indicate a positive association between financial development and growth. Fourth, in cross‐country data and models of the kind that have been used in most studies, when the regression structure is permitted to vary across three subgroups, a huge parametric heterogeneity is observed, and the overall indication is that of a negligible or negative association between financial development and growth.     

Sociological explanations of economic growth

Even if questions of how resources aredistributed within and between societies are our main concern, we must continue to grapple with the issue of the causes of economic growth because economic growth and level of development continue to be among the most important causes of inequality, poverty, unemployment, and the quality of life. This paper’s dependent variable is the economic growth rate of 55 less developed countries (LDCs) during two time periods—1970–78 and 1965–84. The causal model consists of control variables—level of development and domestic investment in 1965—and a variety of independent variables drawn from major sociological theories of economic growth published during the last three decades. Multiple regression analysis shows that, net of the effects of the two control variables, the variables that have the strongest effect on economic growth rates are: (1) direct foreign investment, which has a negative effect; (2) the proportion of the population in military service; and (3) the primary school enrollment ratio, both of which have positive effects of economic, growth. On the other hand, variables drawn from some theories receive no empirical suport. The mass media of communications, ethno-linguistic heterogeneity, democracy and human rights, income inequality, and state-centric theory’s key variable—state strength—all fail to show any significant impact on economic growth rates when the control variables and the significant independent variables are held constant. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Regional inequalities,economic growth and liberalisation: A study of the Indian economy

In this article we examine the pattern of regional inequalities in India during 1970–92. Trend analysis shows that inter‐state inequality is rising in India in almost every sphere of economic activity, particularly in the unorganised industry.     

“Three disconnects” and China's rural election: A case study of Hailian Village

With the case study of the local elections in a poverty-stricken, largely illiterate and isolated village in the remote and mountainous Yi minority village, this article is intended to address the so-called “three disconnects” phenomenon in the development of China's rural election. They refer to the disconnect between economic development and democratic elections, the disconnect between democratic elections and democratic consciousness, and the disconnect between direct local elections in the rural areas and the higher level elections in urban regions. The article examines the political reasons and institutional logic behind this unique development of rural democracy in China as well as the existential value of the three “disconnects.”     

The logic and pathologies of local and regional economic development strategies

State and local economic development programs are often loaded with tax incentive and promises of deregulation designed to attract new businesses, encourage expansions, and cultivate new firms. There is little evidence that tax relief and deregulation are effective tools for economic development, however. This article examines the logic of public sector participation in economic development, questions the effectives of typical development policies, and suggests alternatives, including tax-base sharing, greater regional cooperation, and human capital development.     

Fiscal decentralisation and IDC economic growth: An empirical investigation

The impact of fiscal decentralisation on LDC economic growth and development is widely debated in the development literature. Notwithstanding this, there has been little attempt to test systematically this relationship. Accordingly, in this note we present an empirical examination of the relationship between the level of fiscal decentralisation and economic growth rates across a sample of twenty‐three LDCsfrom 1974 to 1991. We fail to find, however, any strong, systematic relationship between the two among our sample of LDCs.     

Democracy’s effect on economic growth: A pooled time-series analysis, 1951–1980

The relationship between democracy and economic growth has concerned social scientists since the 17th century, but recent democracy movements make this question especially important today. Do poor countries face a cruel trade-off between democracy and growth? Do democracy and growth go together as a “win-win” proposition? Or is democracy irrelevant to growth? Using pooled annual time-series data from 1951–1980 for 106 countries, including 88 non-core countries, we explore long-term and short-term direct and indirect effects of democracy on growth. Little or no direct effect emerges, but positive indirect effects appear via two mechanisms: a marginally significant effect via investment and a robust effect via government expenditure. Democracy also has a robust non-linear effect on economic growth via social unrest, inhibiting growth under non-democratic regimes and furthering it in highly democratic ones. Combining these findings, we conclude that democracy does not significantly hamper economic growth, and under many circumstances slightly boosts it.