EBP: Inequality and Democratization

Inequality and Democratization: A Contractarian Approach

By Ben Ansell and David Samuels

Reviewed by Holly Stanford

This journal article examines the relationship between economic development and democratization. This article focuses on a contractarian approach to democracy and comparing that approach to a redistributivist approach. It has been argued both that democratization occurs when inequality is low, but also that it occurs when inequality is at a 'middle' level. In this article, the contractarian political theory is drawn on to suggest that democratization is a function of demands by rising economic groups for the protection of the state. The alternative idea suggests that income inequality is likely to promote democratization.

In the first part of the article, the author draws on two books; the first by Carles Boix, the second by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. Both books focus on the redistributivist theories of democratization. These theories suggest that changes to a regime is driven fundamentally by the autocratic elites' fear of the costs of redistribution under a democratic regime, the idea being that as inequality increases, elites have more to be concerned about from the future median voter. This is that the future median voter will demand increased taxation and social spending. By contrast, when inequality is at a lower level, the median voter would demand less redistribution.

The author suggests, using a contractarian approach, that regime change is a function of politically disenfranchised economic groups' struggles to obtain credible commitments when faced with the autocratic governing elite taking their income and assets for their benefits. A Contractarian viewpoint suggests that political transactions are a function of conflict between the elite rather than the elite's fear of an uprising of the impoverished population. 

North Korea's Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un

The author supports the idea that inequality supports autocracy whereas equality fosters democratisation. This was an interesting idea for me and I previously had not given much thought to the idea that there was a link between countries with equality being mostly democratic. Countries like China and North Korea have vast inequalities and differences between the lives of the ruling elite and the general population. It was interesting to compare how the differences in each countries' politics with their population inequality.

The author argues that democratisation will be most likely to emerge when newly wealthy economic groups acquire a large share of national income, whilst leaving the poor behind. Democratisation would then be associated with higher income inequality.

The next section of the article reviews the redistributivist ideas about the relationship between inequality and democratisation, and explains how the contractarian approach differs. The redistributivist idea suggests that autocratic elites fear the threat of redistribution less when the future median voter has an income similar to their own. Thus, under conditions of equality elites have little to fear from democratization. The author then explores how democracy comes about, and looks at the works of several different authors that have different viewpoints.

The next area of the article tests the author's theory that land and income inequality affect democratization differently. The propositions on two different measures of democracy were tested, using a variety of estimation techniques and two different sources of data on income inequality. The author concludes by calling into question the theories of both Boix and Acemoglu and Robinson. The author found that the tests undertaken dispute their findings, supporting the idea that income and land inequality have separate and powerful independent political effects on democratisation, regardless of a country’s other attributes.

I found this piece somewhat hard to follow and understand, however, it was possible to grasp the main points. This article will have obvious controversies in the fact that it goes against the writings of two other scholars. It may be interesting to see how they respond.

Bibliography:
Ansell, B. & Samuels, D. (2010). Inequality and Democratization: A Contractarian Approach. Comparative Political Studies. 43(12), 1543–1574.