Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.” Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2001). Jan Teorell is associated professor of political science at Uppsala University. His articles on intra-party democracy, social capital, and political participation appear in international journals.     

Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asymmetry of Power in the Global Political Economy?

Digital technologies are sufficiently disruptive to current ways of doing things to call into question assumptions about the “inevitability” or “natural state” of many economic processes and organizational principles. In particular, the impact of digital technologies on our conceptions of property rights has potentially dramatic implications for the North-South divide and the distribution of power in the global political economy. Drawing on recent experiences with open-source property rights regimes, we present two scenarios, the “imperialism of property rights” and the “shared global digital infrastructure,” to highlight how debates over property-rights could influence the development of the global digital infrastructure and, in turn, contribute to significantly different outcomes in global economic power. Steve Weber is director of, the Institute of International Studies and professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book,The Success of Open Source, was published in April 2004 by Harvard University Press. Jennifer Bussell is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research is on the political determinants of information and communication technology access in developing countries.     

Culture,Sustainability, and Medicine in the Twenty-first Century. Re-grounding the Focus of Medicine Amidst the Current “Global Systemic Shift” and the Forces of the Market: Elements for a Contemporary Social Philosophy of Medicine

This article analyzes the role and the status of medicine within the “post-modern” culture(s) of the West. As we know, culture is a major factor that influences the perception, the interpretation, and the expectations toward medicine, medical institutions, medical politics, and the persons involved with them. When culture changes, the social construct called “medicine” changes. Today, the Western condition of “post-modernity” finds itself in a process of rapid change due to the “global systemic shift” that is manifesting since a couple of years within all four main systemic logics and discoursive patterns of Western societies: in culture, religion, politics, and economics. In this situation, the article tries to elaborate on crucial questions about how a contemporary social philosophy of medicine can be delineated within the current “global systemic shift” and what some consequences and perspectives could be. It pleas for an integrative philosophy of medicine which has to strive to re-integrate the “(de) constructivist” patterns of “nominalistic” post-modern thought (dedicated primarily to freedom and equality) with the “idealistic” patterns of “realistic” neo-humanism (dedicated primarily to the “essence” of human dignity and the possibility of intersubjective morality). Only the institution of a balanced “subjective-objective” paradigm can ensure medicine its appropriate place, role, and status within our rapidly changing society.     

The end of green gold? Comparative development options and strategies in the Eastern Caribbean banana-producing islands

Bananas were the basis of the political economy of Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent during the 40 or so years from their establishment as a crop in the 1950s to the beginning of their decline in the 1990s. Because of successive shifts in European Union policy and successful challenges within the World Trade Organization to the protectionist regime that banana production in these islands enjoyed throughout this period, these three small Eastern Caribbean countries are being pushed inexorably into the “post-banana” era. Their efforts to find a new niche within the global political economy are being led in each case by new, modernizing, labor party governments that won elections and came into office during a brief four-year period between 1997 and 2001. Each government faces the same broad development challenge, but employs different resources, leadership skills, and political style. At the same time, each can be said to be pursuing what is best described as a kind of “managerial populist” development. The range of development options faced by these islands is narrow in the extreme, but they have shown that they can still exercise some limited room to move forward into the post-banana era. Anthony Payne is professor of politics, at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. He was the managing editor of the journalNew Political Economy from 1996 to 2005. He is the author of several books and articles on the Caribbean and on development and globalization. The most recent includeCharting Caribbean Development (University Press of Florida, 2001), co-authored with Paul Sutton;The Global Politics of Unequal Development (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); and, as editor,Key Debates in New Political Economy (Routledge, 2006). The author would like to thank the Nuffield Foundation for supporting fieldwork in Dominica, St. Lucia, and St., Vincent in July 2004.     

Presidential succession,economic crisis,and populist resurgence in Brazil

Latin American populism has been characterized as a time-bound phenomenon, part of the political revolution against the old agricultural oligarchy and accompanying import-substitution industrialization. It has been asserted that populism died with the “exhaustion” of the “easy phase” of import-substitution, and that bureaucratic authoritarian regimes were predicated on that demise. Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Peru are regularly cited as evidence. This article examines these definitional premises in light of the apparent resurgence of populist politics in the democratic transition in Brazil. It is argued that populism is not a pre-1964 anachronism, but is predictably appealing in the 1980s. Distinctions among populistappeals, contention for power, andsuccessful populist order suggest that populism and its leaders offer a very limited alternative to the future of Brazilian politics. Gamaliel Perruci, Jr., a native Brazilian, is a doctoral student in political science at the University of Florida. He is currently conducting research on Brazilian industrial and trade policy. Steven E. Sanderson is professor of political science at the University of Florida. His most recent book isThe Transformation of Mexican Agriculture: International Structure and the Politics of Rural Change (Princeton University Press, 1986). He is currently completing a book entitledThe Politics of Trade in Latin American Development.     

Dominance and change in the global computer industry: Military, bureaucratic, and network state developmentalisms

This article examines the conditions under which firms in different economies were able to emerge as significant actors in the global computer industry during different time periods. To achieve this, the article divides into three periods the history of the industry in terms of the three major policy regimes that have supported the dominant firms and regions. It argues that these policy regimes can be thought of as state developmentalisms that take significantly different forms across the history of the industry. U.S. firms’ dominance over their European counterparts in the 1950s and 1960s was underpinned by a system of “military developmentalism” where military agencies funded research, provided a market and developed infrastructure, but also demanded high quality products. The “Asian Tigers”—Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea—in the 1970s and 1980s were able to eclipse their Latin American and Indian rivals due in large part to the significant advantages offered by a highly effective system of “bureaucratic developmentalism,” where bureaucratic elites in key state agencies and leading business groups negotiated supports for export performance. The 1990s saw the emergence of a system of “network developmentalism” where countries such as Ireland and Israel were able to emerge as new nodes in the computer industry by careful economic and political negotiation of relations to the United States, reestablished at the center of the industry, and by more decentralized forms of provision of state support for high-tech development. Finally, the conditions under which new regimes can emerge are a consequence of the unanticipated global consequences of previous regimes. While state developmentalisms have been shaped by existing global regimes, they have promoted further and different rounds of industry globalization. Seán ó Riain is professor of sociology at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. His research has been primarily on the political economy of high-tech growth in Ireland and elsewhere, and on work and class politics among software developers. He is the author ofThe Politics of High Tech Growth: Developmental Network, States in the Global Economy (Cambridge, 2004).     

Incompetence, Noise, and Fear in Central-Local Relations in China

In this article, I analyze how the structure of the Chinese state affects the probability that local cadres will comply with the directives of the center. Because the Chinese state consists of a five-level hierarchy of dyadic principal-agent relationships, the existence of even moderate levels of routine incompetence and noise ensures that compliance will be less than perfect due to simple error. Moreover, because the center cannot perfectly differentiate between simple incompetence and willful disobedience, the structure of the state enables cadres to engage in strategic disobedience. I thus conclude that the complexity of the linkages between center and locality are a major factor in the observed persistence of corruption and institutional malfeasance. Andrew Wedeman is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. His research focuses on the political economy of reform in China and specifically on the effects of corruption on development, both in China and elsewhere in the developing world. Recent publications include: “Budgets, Extra-Budgets, and Small Treasuries: The Utility of Illegal Monies”,Journal of Contemporary China; “Agency and Fiscal Dependence in Central-Provincial Relations in China”,Journal of Contemporay China; “Stealing from the Farmers: Institutional Corruption and the 1992 IOU Crisis”.China Quarterly and “Looters, Rent-Scrappers, and Dividend-Collectors: Corruption and Growth in Zaire, South Korea, and the Philippines”,The Journal of Developing Areas.     

A Rawlsian analysis of the plight of Bihar

This article presents an analysis of the plight of Bihar, India’s poorest state, based on Rawlsian microfoundations as contrasted with those underlying neoclassical economics and rational choice theory. While these two disciplines, conceive of the individual as a rationally self-interested utility-maximizing agent, Rawls credits the individual with a reasonable as well as a rational capacity. A Rawlsian analysis, therefore, identifies and explains the principles upon which political action in Bihar has been based. Rather than focus on the failure to establish conditions for competitive markets or the maximizing strategies of political actors, this article identifies conflicts between democratic principles of equality and hierarchical principles of caste as central causes for Bihar’s stark conditions. Bihar … has become a, byword for the worst of India: of widespread and inescapable poverty; of corrupt politicians indistinguishable from the mafia dons they patronize; of a caste-ridden social order that has retained the worst feudal cruelties; of terrorist attacks by groups of “Naxalite” Maoists; of chronic misrule that has allowed infrastructure to crumble, the education and health systems to collapse, and law and order to evaporate (Long, 2004: 17–18). Paul Clements is associate professor of political science at Western Michigan Univerisity and teaches primarily in the Master of Development Administration program. He received his doctorate from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton in 1996. I am grateful for comments and suggestions from Emily Hauptmann, Jacinda Swanson, Atul Kohli, Peter Stone, Stephen Jackson, Lucinda Dhavan, from the editors atStudies in Comparative International Development, and from two anonymous reviewers. Suggestions from one reviewer were particularly helpful for the article’s articulation of the Rawlsian roots of the proposed analytic approach, and the integration of the theoretical and empirical arguments owes much to the editors.     

Beyond Boom and Bust: External Rents,Durable Authoritarianism,and Institutional Adaptation in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Drawing on recent critiques and advances in theories of the rentier state, this paper uses an in-depth case study of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to posit a new “supply and demand” approach to the study of external rents and authoritarian durability. The Jordanian rentier state is not exclusively a product of external rents, particularly foreign aid, but also of the demands of a coalition encompassing groups with highly disparate economic policy preferences. The breadth of the Hashemite coalition requires that the regime dispense rent-fueled side payments to coalition members through constructing distributive institutions. Yet neither rent supply nor coalition demands are static. Assisted by geopolitically motivated donors, the Hashemites have adapted institutions over time to tap a diverse supply of rents that range from economic and military aid to protocol trade, allowing them to retain power through periods of late development, domestic political crisis, and neoliberal conditionality.

Twenty Years Later: A Call for Existential Revolution: Vaclav Havel in Conversation with Adam Michnik

In light of the fact—despite a widespread impression to the contrary—that the collapse of Communism in the fall of 1989 did not happen overnight, the paper explores the kind of gradual societal work that had led to the emergence of democratic polities in Central Europe but that had generally escaped the notice not only of policy makers and the leaders of the “free world” but also of theorists. The concept and practices of performative democracy as it manifested itself in the period of late Communism (1970s–1989), but also in South Africa at the dusk of apartheid, and the conditions for political performativity, as well as its main features, are then discussed.     

Introduction: Brain drain in East Asia

Editor’s Note: In the first issue ofStudies in Comparative International Development under my editorship, I indicated that special issues would be published from time to time. The first of these was volume 25 (spring) 1990, number 1, “On Measuring Democracy,” with Alex Inkeles as guest editor. We present a somewhat different grouping of articles in this issue, edited by Parris Chang. “Brain Drain in East Asia” considers this important contemporary developmental issue along the lines indicated in his introduction, Other thematic topics or groupings of articles are also being considered for future issues of SCID.     

Resistance and Creativity in Social Interaction: For and Against Memory in Poland, Israel–Palestine, and the United States

In this paper, I present an analysis of Adam Michnik’s notion of “Amnesty without Amnesia”. His was a wise political judgment presented at a critical moment in the struggle to constitute a democratic polity in Poland. Mine is an appreciation of his political position, along with a sociological analysis that highlights the empirical difficulties of its realization in practical action. I will show how at critical moments of social change creative political action works to erase memories of the relevant past, which act as a repressive force, while “re-remembering” (to use Toni Morrison’s formulation). Three cases will be compared, Michnik’s, after the fall of the communist regime in east central Europe, and cases drawn from the Palestinian–Israeli conflict and the American presidential campaign. A paper prepared for presentation at Cerisy, France, Summer, 2008.     

Reverse brain drain in South Korea: State-led model

Korea’s reverse brain drain (RBD) has been an organized government effort, rather than a spontaneous social phenomenon, in that various policies and the political support of President Park, Chung-Hee were instrumental in laying the ground work for its success. Particular features of Korea’s RBD policies are the creation of a conducive domestic environment (i.e., government-sponsored strategic R & D institution-building, legal and administrative reforms), and importantly, the empowerment of returnees (via, i.e., exceptionally good material benefits, guarantees of research autonomy). President Park played the cardinal role in empowering repatriates at the expense of his own civil bureaucracy, and his capacity for such patronage derived from Korea’s bureaucratic-authoritarian political system. Returning scientists and engineers directly benefited from this political system as well as Park’s personal guardianship. For Park, empowerment of returning “brains” was necessary to accomplish his national industrialization plan, thereby enhancing his political legitimacy in domestic politics. An alliance with the R & D cadre was functionally necessary to successfully consolidate strong presidential power, and politically non-threatening due to the particular form of “pact of domination” in Korea’s power structure. RBD in Korea will continue in the near future given Korea’s drive for high technology, and the remarkable expansion of local industrial and educational sectors. Korea’s future RBD, however, needs to pay closer attention to the following four problems: research autonomy; equality issues; skill-based repatriation of technicians and engineers rather than Ph.D.’s; and subsidies to small and medium industry for RBD. Bang-Soon L. Yoon is assistant professor of political science, Central Washington University. She is currently working onWorld Bibliographical Series: South Korea, to be published by Clio Press, Ltd., Oxford, England, co-edited with Michael A. Launius. An earlier version of this paper was read at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 18–20, 1991.     

Media Transitions in the Rear-View Mirror: Some Reflections

This essay explores the development of media systems in Central and Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet period, including the influence of social and political factors, outside media assistance, and the drive toward privatization and public service broadcasting, in an effort to understand what the experience teaches about democracy promotion, about the efficacy of various forms of media intervention, and about the utility of various forms of incentives and pressures in setting agendas and effecting political change. Despite differing historical, social, and political traditions and different forms of and reactions to media assistance efforts, factors, both exogenous (“Americanization” and “strategic communication”) and endogenous (“modernization,” secularization and commercialization), ultimately contributed to a homogenization of systems, rendering less relevant the particular distinctions among countries.     

Rethinking political development: A look backward over thirty years,and a look ahead

The article analyzes the rise of the political development approach in comparative politics and the reasons for it. It traces the history of the political development literature and its emergence as the dominant paradigm in the field. It then presents and assesses the critiques, that have been levelled against political development. It also assesses the various alternative approaches that came to supplant political development. The article next presents the factors that have led to a renaissance in political development. It concludes by suggesting that while the political development approach was based on some erroneous assumptions in the short term, from a longer-term perspective that approach looks considerably better. Howard J. Wiarda is Professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst; associate of the Center for International Affairs. Harvard University; adjunct scholar of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; and associate of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. This article is based on a paper presented at the Fourteenth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 28–September 1, 1988. A somewhat revised version of this article was presented at the Conference on “Comparative Politics: Research Perspectives for the Next Twenty Years,” sponsored byComparative Politics and the Ph.D. Program of the City University of New York, September 7–9, 1988. It will also be published under the title “Concepts and Models in Comparative Politics: Political Development Reconsidered-and Its Alternatives” in Kenneth Paul Erickson and Dankwart Rustow (eds.),Comparative Political Dynamics: Research Perspectives for the Turn of the Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1990).     

The institutional logic of small-firm economies in Italy and Taiwan

This article compares the small-firm economies of Taiwan and Italy, utilizing an institutional oganizational approach in the analysis of economic structures. It is divided into three sections. First, there is a presention of the main features of the Italian and the Taiwanese economies to draw out their distinctive similarities. The second part identifies a set of institutional factors which help us understand the similarities observed in the two economies, and classifies them along two analytical headings: individual values and social structure. The third section explores the significance of the author's crossnational comparison of small-firm economies for improving the status of an institutional theory of economic structures. By, emphasizing the role of institutional factors and the social embeddedness of economic activities in Italy and Taiwan, the article provides a corrective to the unilateral emphasis on an East versus West model of economic action and shows the obvious inadequacies of restrictively cultural, political, or economic interpretations of national economies. Marco, Orrù is assistant professor of sociology at the University of South Florida. Recent publications include “Patterns of Inter-Firm Control in Japanese Business” (Organization Studies, December 1989, 549–74) and “Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia” inThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis P. Dimaggio and W. Powell, eds., (University of Chicago Press, 1991). Dr. Orrù's research has also appeared inThe British Journal of Sociology, Sociological Forum, Japan'sFinancial Economic Review, and other professional journals. He is currently working on a monograph,Patterns of Asian Capitalism, co-authored with Gary G. Hamilton and Nicole Woolsey Biggart.     

Democracy without democratic values: A rejoinder to Welzel and Inglehart

In reply to Welzel and Inglehart in this issue, we deploy three lines of criticism. First, we argue that their newly invented construct “effective democracy” is conceptually and empirically flawed. Second, we show that their results are highly sensitive to model specification. Regardless of the time period, their supportive evidence vanishes if a more pertinent measure of democracy is used instead of measures based on the absence of corruption, if a broader index of socioeconomic modernization is controlled for, and if their compound index of emancipative values is replaced by its core component; liberty aspirations. Third, we find that emancipative values are not a coherent syndrome at the individual level within countries, rendering the causal mechanism linking these values to democracy through collective action unintelligible. We conclude that democratic values are not a robust determinant of democratization. Jan Teorell is associate professor of political science at Lund University. He has published on intra-party politics, social capital and political participation, and, together with Axel Hadenius, is now involved in a project on the determinants of democratization. Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Lund University. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).     

Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’sDevelopment as Freedom

Conclusion Sen showed his usual wisdom and astute judgement in keeping his argument carefully focused and, therefore, elegant and compelling. Nonetheless, the understanding and pursuit of “development as freedom” must go beyond the arguments he lays out. As the global political economy moves with ever greater determination toward the implantation of more thoroughly marketized economic relations, analysts must correspondingly focus more closely on how to prevent market-based power inequalities from undermining “development as freedom.” Centralization of power over the cultural flows that shape preferences is a more subtle form of “unfreedom” than those which Sen highlights, but no less powerful for being subtle. Institutional strategies for facilitating collective capabilities are as important to the expansion of freedom as sustaining formal electoral institutions. Indeed, without possibilities for collective mobilization formal elections too easily become a hollow farce. Sen’s capability approach provides an invaluable analytical and philosophical foundation for those interested in pursuing development as freedom, but it is a foundation that must be built on, not just admired. Peter Evans is professor in the Sociology Department at the University of California, Berkeley. His current research interests focus on globalization and global governance institutions, and their effects on ordinary citizens. He has written numerous articles and books on subjects ranging from globalization, the role of the state in industrial development, and urban environmental issues. A current project supported by the Russell Sage Foundation examines possibilities for constructing North-South links between labor movements as a strategy for increasing the bargaining power of labor movements in the global South.     

Bonanza and dependency in Botswana

This article compares the recent history of economic growth in Botswana with Becker’s model of “bonanza development.” While the Becker model generally applies to Botswana, the case also manifests some areas of disagreement. “Bonanza development” in Botswana is characterized by the continuation of dependency and related social inequalities. Perhaps the Botswana experience is described best as “dependent bonanza development.” Thomas Meisenhelder is a professor of sociology at California State University in San bernardino, California 92407. He spent 1986–1987 as a Fulbright Lecturer in the department of sociology at the University of Botswana (Gaborone) and lived in Harare Zimbabwe during 1992. He has recently published inMonthly Review andNature, Society and Thought. His current research includes a study of the adoption of a structural adjustment program in Zimbabwe and an interpretation of the references to Africa in the writings of Marx and Engels.     

Geopolitics and geoculture in world-systems theorizing: A review essay

This article discusses the strengths and weakness of world-system theorizing in the light of recent geopolitical changes and the emergence of new “shatter zones” in the world economy. It also examines the relationship between hegemonic social sciences and the crisis of the world-system. Thus, it argues, the idiographic tradition that emerged in the nineteenth century pushed us in the direction of specialization and micro-analysis at a time when a global perspective and comparative, interdisciplinary analysis could have offered deeper insights into the nature and direction of social and geopolitical change in the modern world. It also suggests that the nomothetic tradition which emerged in the 1960s is being revived in order to push us away from structuralist explanation and in the direction of atheoretical and quantitative analysis. The article concludes with a brief discussion on the organization and political problems confronting antisystemic movements in the modern world. Dr. James Mac laughlin is on the faculty of the geography department at University College, Cork, Ireland. His most recent publications include “Defending the Frontiers: The Political Geography of Race and Racism in the European Community” (1993) andEmigration and the Peripheralization of Ireland in the World Economy: A World-Perspective on Irish Emigration (1993).