Upload
vivien-marjory-parks
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REGIMES IN LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES Regime = common constellation of politics, policy
and institutions Two key differences with regimes in Rich
Democracies Much less stable
Conflict more likely to result in violence Institutions more fragile Policies more erratic
Greater diversity Types
Authoritarian developmental (S. Korea, Taiwan) Economic development and improved citizen capability
Authoritarian predatory (Nigeria, Zaire (DRC)) Neither development nor capability
Developmental democracies (Chile, Costa Rica, Mauritius) Development and improved citizen capability
Fragmented democracies (Brazil, India, Philippines) Some development and some citizen capability
AUTHORITARIAN DEVELOPMENTAL: POLITICS Geographical and political circumstances
Threatened by powerful enemies (S. Korea by N. Korea; Taiwan by China); needed support of citizens; prosperity would lend legitimacy
Threats of internal unrest: rapid industrialization would raise living standards and reduce conflict
Absence of rich natural resources These challenges (conditions) gave elites incentives to
promote economic development and share wealth Advantages: colonized by Japan (developed
infrastructure); had model of state-led growth; enormous economic and military aid (U.S., anticommunist allies)
Appealed to nationalism, anticommunism Built support in specific constituencies
Among entrepreneurs/capitalists through credit, tariffs, anti-union labor policy)
Among farmers through (agricultural extension programs; land reform)
In short run, workers paid much of the cost of industrialization; over time, enjoyed more benefits (increased literacy, social mobility, better jobs, wage increases)
AUTHORITARIAN DEVELOPMENTAL: POLICIES Goal = rapid industrialization; long-term
competitiveness Initially, pursued import substitution
industrialization (ISI) Over time, manufactured for export, export-
oriented industrialization (EOI) To compete in world markets in price and quality
Did not use market capitalism model Instead, used Japan’s state-led development
model Government played an important role in
promoting key sectors through incentives (loans, credit, etc.)
Social welfare targeted well-off and key allies Invested in wealth-sharing mechanisms: universal
public education, land reform, promoted small and medium-sized businesses
AUTHORITARIAN DEVELOPMENTAL: INSTITUTIONS Centralized political system
Power concentrated in small elite (executive) Elected legislatures, courts, and local
government not effective checks Strong and coherent state
Effective policy implementation Government officials autonomous (shielded from
pressures), competent, professional (corruption minimized)
Officials executed policies as leadership intended Close relationship to business community
Frequent consultation Institutions devoted to legitimation and security
Elections gave façade of democratic accountability Schools and media towed government line Iron fist: huge armies, massive security apparatus,
repression of dissent
PREDATORY: POLITICS Least successful authoritarian regimes in economic and
human development Rulers have little incentive
No military threats (no need to industrialize to produce weapons) Oil, diamonds, gold (natural resources) reduce incentives to
industrialize, educate citizens) Rely on foreign aid
Plagued by ethnic, linguistic, regional conflicts Class interests submerged (lack business/working class to assert
interests) Loyalties built on narrow coalitions based on ethnic, linguistic,
regional loyalties Cemented through clientelism = patron (powerful) gives client
(less powerful) favors (patronage) in return for support Government positions (bureaucracy, police, army) with access to
salaries and income from corruption State contracts, valuable licenses in return for kickbacks, political
favors Divide and rule tactics; intimidation
Clientelist politicians draw support from narrow, geographically defined constituencies; concentrate on providing patronage to supporters Large parts of population receive little benefit or support (health
care, education, safety)
PREDATORY: POLICIES Goal of leaders = enrich themselves,
families, followers Economic development policies means to
concentrate wealth in elite hands ISI led to accumulation of wealth by leaders
Human development policies Education and health care provide opportunities
for making money School, clinic construction – kickbacks, graft
PREDATORY: INSTITUTIONS Weak states: without capacity to implement
policy and without autonomy from powerful individuals
Political parties without clear policy goals Weak legislatures (without significant role in
policy, checking executive) Bureaucracies riddled with corruption
Personal considerations key Massive corruption by elites permeates
bureaucracy Few incentives to follow rules
State unable to deliver basic goods and services Inadequate infrastructure Limited protection of property rights Inefficient firms protected Inefficient management of foreign investment, aid
TYPOLOGY OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES Table 8.1, 225 Why do authoritarian regimes vary in their
promotion of economic and human development? Why are some developmental while others are
predatory? Incentives leaders have to build broad or
narrow coalitions of support Quality of state institutions available for
implementing policies Kinds of groups and social classes available
for constructing coalitions of support
DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENTAL: POLITICS Commitment to democracy, economic growth, and
human development (increasing citizens’ capability) Leaders view goals as mutually reinforcing
Consolidating democracy requires convincing social groups/classes they benefit from democracy
Meet needs of poor; do not threaten interests of wealthier groups
Economic growth through market; policies improve capability of peasants and workers
Capitalists reassured regime supports economic growth; in turn, pay higher taxes
Workers and rural poor assured by improved education, health care, and pensions (progress slow)
Trade-offs require broad-based social democratic political parties, federations of labor and business, state bureaucracies that are capable and coherent
Compromise gives political influence to agricultural workers, small farmers, and urban workers (beyond clientelist relationships)
DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENTAL: POLICIES Strong social democratic parties
Capitalist economic growth with substantial safety nets
Minimal state ownership of enterprises Growth with equity
Export-led growth and integration into global market
Substantial social welfare programs Strengthened labor union bargaining power
with employers Increased citizens’ capability (in terms of
infant mortality, life expectancy, and literacy)
DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENTAL: INSTITUTIONS Stable, broad-based political parties Capable, coherent state bureaucracies Encompassing labor and business federations Parties appeal to broad groups of voters through policies
that aim to promote growth with equity Agricultural laborers, small farmers, urban workers, parts
of middle class Important part of governing coalitions
Broad-based labor and business federations Represent workers and businesses in most sectors
Prevents narrowly based unions or business associations from seeking benefits only for their members at expense of society (narrow agendas)
Makes bargaining easier
Strong, autonomous states Make, implement policies favoring broad categories of
population (especially poor, disadvantaged) State bureaucracies with capable officials; more
coherent, successful policy-making and implementation
FRAGMENTED DEMOCRACIES: POLITICS Fragmented political parties, interest associations, and states
Parties win elections by utilizing patronage and appealing to narrow groups of voters based on racial, ethnic, religious, regional identities
Interest groups represent specific groups with narrow interests State often beset by bureaucratic infighting
Tend to emerge in countries with large inequalities in wealth, power, citizen capability; large and diverse populations Wealth concentrated in hands of elite Diversity makes broad-based interest associations, political
parties difficult to form Politicians appeal to upper income groups (owners of large
businesses, urban middle class, large commercial farmers) Clientelism inhibits peasants and workers Rulers engage in identity politics (submerging class differences;
avoids having to promise change in distribution of income/wealth) Politicians also engage in populism Governments target benefits to privileged groups, organized
workers Local elites manipulate elections (electoral democracies: frequent
violations of civil and political rights)
FRAGMENTED DEMOCRACIES: POLICIES Benefits of economic and social policies go
mainly to wealthier business people, some union leaders, large farmers, and middle class
ISI protects businesses; gives subsidies to large farmers
Educational, health care, retirement, unemployment spending geared to upper- and middle-classes
Policies biased toward urban middle-class and wealthy, but some improvements in lives of poor Declining poverty rates
FRAGMENTED DEMOCRACIES: INSTITUTIONS Fragmented political institutions Multiple political parties, interest groups, federal systems
Create obstacles to improve health, education, and safety for the poor
Rich do not need broad-based associations or political parties to promote interests (can use personal connections, narrow interest associations)
Parties rely on patronage and/or appeals to racial and ethnic identity rather than presenting consistent policies
Legislators focus on pork barrel projects, local benefits Often benefiting middle and upper income groups the
most Do little to promote capabilities
Fragmentation within the state prevents implementation of coherent programs (bureaucratic infighting and political competition for ministry positions, patronage opportunities)
TYPOLOGY OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMES Table 8.4, 236 Differences in ability to promote citizens’
capability Incentives leaders have to build broad or narrow
coalitions of support Quality of state institutions available for
implementing policies Groups and social classes available for
constructing coalitions of support Also used to differentiate between authoritarian
developmental and authoritarian predatory Extent to which political parties and interest
groups are broad-based or fragmented Poor and marginalized citizens can be effective
politically only when they have broad-based parties and associations to represent them
COMPARING CAPABILITY Physical well-being
Authoritarian developmental and developmental democratic regimes lowest rates of absolute poverty (Table 8.5, 237) and best records on health (infant mortality, life expectancy) (Table 8.6, 238); predatory regimes the worst
Informed decision-making In terms of adult literacy (Table 8.7, 239), a similar
pattern emerges (from best to worst): Authoritarian developmental developmental democracy fragmented democracy predatory
Safety Likewise with political stability/violence and rule of law
(Table 8.8, 240): developmental democracy fragmented democracy predatory
Civil and political rights From best to worst in terms of civil liberties, political
rights (Table 8.9, 241): developmental democracy fragmented democracy authoritarian developmental predatory