What makes political regimes rise, endure, and fall? The main question is whether the observed close relation between levels of economic development and the incidence of democratic regimes is due to democracies being more likely to emerge or only more likely to survive in the more developed countries. We answer this question using data concerning 135 countries that existed at any time between 1950 and 1990. We find that the level of economic development does not affect the probability of transitions to democracy but that affluence does make democratic regimes more stable. The relation between affluence and democratic stability is monotonic, and the breakdown of democracies at middle levels of development is a phenomenon peculiar to the Southern Cone of Latin America. These patterns also appear to have been true of the earlier period, but dictatorships are more likely to survive in wealthy countries that became independent only after 1950. We conclude that modernization need not generate democracy but democracies survive in countries that are modern.
Does democracy in the political realm foster or hinder economic growth? Our discussion of this question begins with a review of arguments in favor of and against democracy. Then we summarize statistical studies in which political regime is included among determinants of growth and identify some methodological problems entailed in such studies. The conclusion is that social scientists know surprisingly little: our guess is that political institutions do matter for growth, but thinking in terms of regimes does not seem to capture the relevant differences.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
Is economic development conducive to political democracy? Does democracy foster or hinder material welfare? These two questions are examined by looking at the experience of 135 countries between 1950 and 1990. Descriptive information, statistical analyses, and historical narratives are interwoven to gain an understanding of the dynamic of political regimes and their impact on economic development and other aspects of material welfare. The findings, several most surprising, dispel any notion of a trade-off between democracy and development. Economic development does not generate democracies but democracies are much more likely to survive in wealthy societies. Political regimes have no impact on the growth of total national incomes, while political instability affects growth only in dictatorships. Per capita incomes grow faster in democracies since population increases faster under dictatorships. In general, political regimes have more of an effect on demography than on economics.
RESUMONada autoriza tratar o sistema político brasileiro como singular. Coalizões obedecem e são regidas pelo princípio partidário. O presidente, que teve seu poder institucional reforçado pela Constituição de 1988, detém monopólio sobre iniciativa legislativa, o que aproxima o sistema brasileiro das democracias parlamentaristas européias. Ainda que estruturada em torno de questões empíricas, a discussão tangencia questões teóricas, como a importância das escolhas institucionais e como estas afetam as relações entre a maioria e a minoria em governos democráticos.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: sistema político; democracia; teoria democrática; presidencialismo. SUMMARYThere is no reason to treat the Brazilian political system as a singular one. Coalitions obey and are built according to party principles. The president, whose institutional power was enhanced by 1988' s Constitution, monopolizes legislative initiative, which puts Brazilian system close to European parliamentary democracies. Even though its based upon empirical data, this essay formulates theoretical problems, such as the importance of institutional choices and how they affect relations between majority and minority in democratic governments.KEYWORDS: political system; democracy; democratic theory; presidentialism. NOVOS ESTUDOS 76 ❙❙ NOVEMBRO 2006 17[1] Versão levemente modificada da aula proferida em 29/09/2006 durante as provas do concurso de Professor Titular no DCP/USP. Para Adam Przeworski,meu professorO tema desta aula,conforme o edital,é presidencialismo de coalizão e processo decisório no Brasil contemporâneo. Creio ser esta uma boa oportunidade para ampliar o enfoque e mostrar que é um equívoco traçar linhas demarcatórias rígidas entre, por exemplo,a pesquisa empírica e a teoria,entre métodos quantitativos e qualitativos e assim por diante. Cientistas políticos têm mostrado uma tendência a se dividir em tribos e pequenos grupos, cada um deles reivindicando para si o papel de herdeiro ou arauto da verdadeira disciplina.Presidencialismo, coalizão partidária e processo decisório 1
We review arguments and empirical evidence found in the comparative literature that bear on the differences in the survival rates of parliamentary and presidential democracies. Most of these arguments focus on the fact that presidential democracies are based on the separation of executive and legislative powers, while parliamentary democracies are based on the fusion of these powers. From this basic distinction several implications are derived which would lead to radically different behavior and outcomes under each regime. We argue that this perspective is misguided and that we cannot deduce the functioning of the political system from the way governments are formed. There are other provisions, constitutional or otherwise, that also affect the way parliamentary and presidential democracies operate and that may counteract some of the tendencies that we would expect to observe if we were to derive the regime's performance from its basic constitutional principle.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.