THE STRATEGIC TIMING OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY

This paper focuses on the strategic timing of elections by agenda-setters in direct democracy settings. Because concurrent elections affect turnout, scheduling referenda for different elections will produce different median voters. I hypothesize that agenda-setters with power over the timing of a referendum will schedule the referendum in conjunction with the other set of races that produce a policy closest to their preferred outcome. Consistent with the theory, I show that Wisconsin school boards' use of special elections for school referenda are related to differences in the revealed preferences of voters in low- and high-turnout elections.     

Political exchange and the voting franchise: universal democracy as an emergent process

The expansion of democracy presents a puzzle for a rational choice theory of politics: why would those in power choose to dilute their power by expanding the voting franchise? In this article I introduce a new path of democratization, through mutually-beneficial political exchange aimed at securing collective-consumption goods. This political exchange path will produce a more constrained state than other paths to democracy, due to the subjective preferences of the two groups and the possibility of revoking the franchise. I briefly apply the democratization framework to the United State prior to the Civil War.     

Democracy Evolving: A Diversity of Institutional Contradictions Transforming Political Economy

I analyze democracy as an evolving socio-historical process of autonomy, participative governance, social learning, and institutionalization. I discuss a variety of institutional contradictions, ranging from protective versus developmental democracy, socialist versus capitalist democracy, transcendental versus comparative institutionalism, and utilitarian versus pragmatist democracy. I argue that these contradictions are inherent in the agonistic nature of democracy that is transforming political economy along with the antagonistic interests of its members and institutions. I also present a basic synthesis of some dynamic aspects of democracy that enable and enhance social emancipation and transformation.     

Trade, democracy, and the gravity equation

Does democracy affect trade? There are several channels by which democracy may affect trade, with differing implications. First, democratization in the exporting country can improve product quality and reduce trade costs, increasing bilateral trade. Second, democratization in the importing country may increase trade barriers and thus reduce imports. In this paper, I analyze the effect of democracy on trade by augmenting the gravity equation with democracy. Using a rich panel data set and controlling for the endogeneity of democracy, I find empirical evidence consistent with the hypothesis that democracy fosters trade. This finding is robust to various econometric methods and to the use of disaggregated specifications.     

Short and long run democracy diffusion

Does democracy diffuse across borders? If so, how long does it take? Can diffusion cause path dependence, such that if a region is initially democratic (or autocratic), it becomes increasingly so? In this paper I estimate short and long run regional democratic diffusion and account for feedback to and from other countries within the region. Although it is difficult to establish causality, I estimate that when regional democracy in year (t-1) increases, domestic democracy receives or “catches” 40–42% of the increase in the next 5 years, 55–61% in 10 years, and 68–85% in the long run prior to accounting for feedback. When I account for feedback, the average region converges to a unique long-run democracy level regardless of how democratic it is initially. I also provide region-specific and contiguous neighbor estimates, use the model to explain democratization waves, and estimate the alternative V-DEM dataset. In the V-DEM data, democracy diffuses much faster, although the long-run diffusion effects are comparable.     

Inequality,Democracy, and Persistence: Is There a Political Kuznets Curve?

The aim of this paper is to provide comprehensive empirical evidence on recent theories that link democracy and income inequality for the period 1960–1997. In simple cross-country regressions I find a non-monotonic link between democracy and inequality when using ordinary least squares, instrumental variables, and Eusufzai tests. I also employ dynamic panel data techniques, which control for potential simultaneity and heterogeneity problems. I also find support for the existence of apolitical Kuznets curve. Moreover, it appears that income inequality is unconditionally persistent. Results are robust to different democracy proxies when sensitivity analysis is applied.     

How Necessary Are Unions? Insights from John R. Commons

In this article, I assess Commons’s warning that union suppression endangers democracy. I do so by considering evidence from four viewpoints: (i) Commons’s view, (ii) the free market view, (iii) the power resource view, and (iv) the comparative sociology view. I expand on Commons’s insights with the question: What is democracy? My conclusion points to the reasonableness of his warning.     

Does Democracy Increase Growth More in New Countries?

Countries face governing challenges at their inception, albeit not of the same degree or type. Challenges such as creating governing structures and forming one nation from disparate groups can create uncertainty and so lower economic growth. Does democracy exacerbate or lessen such problems? This paper considers an empirical specification where the effect of democracy upon economic growth is allowed to vary over time. I find that democracy is more greatly associated with economic growth in newer countries. This suggests that democracy helps to mitigate governing challenges that can lower economic growth.     

The growth effect of democracy and technology: An industry disaggregated approach

The theoretical and empirical sides of democracy-growth literature fail to offer a consensus on the impact of democracy on growth. This paper provides a disaggregated manufacturing approach that reveals different effects of democracy across industries within countries. I surmise that the interplay between democracy and technological development is crucial to the economic performance of industries. A panel dataset of 61 manufacturing industries from 72 countries between 1990 and 2010 is employed, along with a wide variety of democracy measures. The results point to a technologically-conditioned effect of democracy. Political regime changes towards democracy are growth-enhancing for industries close to the World Technology Frontier but have a negative effect on backward industries. This evidence is robust to specification changes and alternative estimation techniques, and prevails once the possible dynamics of manufacturing growth are tackled.     

Ethnicity, Politics and Economic Performance

The paper investigates the effects of ethnic diversity on economic performance. Previous studies have found that diversity has various detrimental microeconomic effects, tending to reduce public sector performance, and has large detrimental effects on the overall growth rate. I develop a simple model of the effect of ethnic diversity on a government decision problem in which there is a tradeoff between growth and distribution, in the contexts of democracy and dictatorship. I find that in democracy ethnic diversity has no effect upon the decision, whereas in dictatorship ethnic diversity leads to a government choice which reduces the growth rate. I then test these propositions on two data sets. The first is for 94 countries over the period 1960–1990. I find that whether diversity adversely affects overall economic growth depends upon the political environment. Diversity is highly damaging to growth in the context of limited political rights, but is not damaging in democracies. The second is for World Bank projects in 89 countries. I find that the same relationship between diversity and democracy affects the proportion of projects which are successful.     

Will democracy engender equality?

Summary. Many suppose that democracy is an ethos which requires, inter alia, a degree of economic equality among citizens. In contrast, we conceive of democracy as ruthless electoral competition between groups of citizens with different interests, who are organized into parties. We inquire whether such competition, which we assume to be concerned with distributive matters, will engender economic equality in the long run. Society is modeled as OLG, and each generation competes politically over educational finance and tax policy; the policy space is infinite dimensional. A political equilibrium concept is proposed which determines the membership of two parties endogenously, and their proposed policies in political competition. One party wins the election (stochastically). This process determines the evolution of the distribution of human capital. We show that, whether the limit distribution of human capital is an equal one depends upon the nature of intra-party bargaining and the degree of inequality in the original distribution.Received: 3 December 2002, Revised: 6 February 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D72, H2.This article reports on a longer project, to be published as Democracy, Education, and Equality (Cambridge University Press). Here, I motivate the problem, explain one of the models, and state one of the principal results. Proofs of theorems are omitted, but will be available in the aforementioned monograph. Many individuals have provided valuable comments and help on this project, including Ignacio Ortuño-Ortin, Herbert Scarf, Roger E. Howe, Karine Van der Straeten, John Geanokoplos, and Colin Stewart. I also acknowledge the useful comments of an anonymous referee for this journal. A preliminary version of this work was delivered as the Graz-Schumpeter Lectures at the University of Graz in May 2003, and I am grateful to the Graz Schumpeter Society for their hospitality and comments.The general topic of this article has been, I believe, of keen interest to Birgit Grodal, a dear friend and staunch supporter of my unconventional work in economic theory since I embarked upon that path in the late 1970s. I will always be deeply grateful for her friendship, support and encouragement, and I am honored to contribute this paper to her festschrift.     

The democratic (dis)advantage: The conditional impact of democracy on credit risk and sovereign default

Many have argued that democracies are able to make credible commitments to repay their debts and consequently enjoy higher sovereign credit ratings. In contrast to this expectation, I argue that the advantage of democracies in credit ratings is conditional on the countries' level of financial vulnerability and adjustment needs. Because democracies have more diffuse decision-making and are more accountable to the public, they encounter greater difficulty than autocracies in passing unpopular economic adjustment measures. Thus, I argue that democracies with high debt levels and low foreign reserve assets experience worse credit outcomes, whereas democracies with low vulnerability experience more positive outcomes. In a sample of up to 96 developing countries, I show that democracies have worse credit ratings and CDS Spreads and are more likely to default than their autocratic counterparts when foreign reserves are low relative to external debt. Notably, I also show that large debt burdens increase credit risk mainly in more democratic countries. I further test the causal pathway of the democratic advantage by constructing democracy scores of “market-friendly” and “adjustment-difficulty” democracy, finding that democracy worsens debt outcomes due to adjustment difficulty. These findings help to revise and clarify the causal logic surrounding the democratic advantage hypothesis.     

TWO OR THREE PROBLEMS CONCERNING SOCIAL STABILITY AND OUR MEASURES OF WELFARE: WHAT CAN ECONOMISTS LEARN FROM OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCES?*

This paper takes up several problems that are related to psychology, political science and ethics—disciplines that we regard as neighbours on the boundaries of economics. I pay particular attention to such topics as mass psychology and social stability, democracy and economic performance and the notions of wellbeing and happiness. After laying out some of the history of academic discourse on these problems and notions, I reconsider the nature of discrepancy between microlevel motivations and macrolevel phenomena, trade‐offs between equality and liberty and the problem of measurement of social welfare and “happiness” from the perspective of “dissociation of intention and consequence”.     

Does high labour mobility always promote trade liberalization?

Labour immobility (high adjustment cost) has been regarded as a major obstacle to trade liberalization and it has been argued that higher labour mobility promotes trade liberalization. However, this is not the case when we take into account conflicts of interest between politicians and voters that are inevitable in representative democracy. I construct a simple two‐period model including both elections and sectoral adjustment. Then I show that the non‐monotonic relationship between labour mobility and the equilibrium degree of trade liberalization exists due to the principal–agent relationship. In representative democracy, higher labour mobility prevents trade liberalization in some cases.     

中国网络民主发展问题研究

随着科技的进步,互联网技术发展日新月异,网络信息技术迅猛发展,其影响已经渗入到社会生活的方方面面,网络技术的应用也为全面突破传统民主形式的局限注入了新的生机,对民主建设有着不可或缺的作用和深远的影响。但是由于中国的网络民主仍然处在发展的初级阶段,其本身必然存在一定的问题。因此,通过对网络民主的定义、发展现状及存在问题加以分析研究,进而对中国网络民主发展的完善策略进行探讨。     

Natural resources and the tradeoff between authoritarianism and development

Why do African and Middle Eastern countries seem cursed by an abundance of natural resources yet USA, Australia and Norway seem blessed? A growing literature has argued that the benevolence or malignance of natural resources depends upon the quality of institutions. This paper offers a new explanation based on associational freedom and its interaction with the political system. The model predicts that natural resources have an adverse impact on economic performance and transition to democracy in authoritarian regimes but not in democracies. It also predicts that repression of associational freedom will be increasing in natural resources in authoritarian regimes. I test the model's predictions using fixed-effects regressions on an international panel from 1975 to 2000 and find support.     

Democracy in the neighborhood and foreign direct investment

The determinants of foreign direct investment (FDI) have been extensively studied. Even though there is extensive research in the area, most of it is based on analyzing the effects of host country characteristics on FDI flows, and yet there is little research on how neighboring country characteristics play a role in facilitating FDI flows to host countries. This paper analyzes the association between the democracy level in neighboring countries and FDI flows to host countries. Using bilateral FDI flows from the OECD countries, with a large host country sample, we find that countries surrounded by democratic countries attract higher FDI flows. Furthermore, we find evidence that countries that are surrounded by neighboring countries with good institutions tend themselves to have better institutions, experience lower civil conflict, and have higher political stability and hence indirectly attract higher FDI flows. Our findings suggest that if neighboring countries act in such way as to become more democratic, FDI flows to these countries would be higher since not only does improving the quality of democracy attract more FDI inflows, but also being surrounded by neighboring advanced democratic countries will also lead to higher FDI flows to them.     

Democracy and growth

Growth and democracy (subjective indexes of political freedom) are analyzed for a panel of about 100 countries from 1960 to 1990. The favorable effects on growth include maintenance of the rule of law, free markets, small government consumption, and high human capital. Once these kinds of variables and the initial level of real per capita GDP are held constant, the overall effect of democracy on growth is weakly negative. There is a suggestion of a nonlinear relationship in which more democracy enhances growth at low levels of political freedom but depresses growth when a moderate level of freedom has already been attained. Improvements in the standard of living—measured by GDP, health status, and education—substantially raise the probability that political freedoms will grow. These results allow for predictions about which countries will become more or less democratic over time.     

Young democracies and government debt: evidence from South America

I test the hypothesis that when democracies are young, or still fragile and unconsolidated, government debt tends to increase, presumably because of increased demand for redistribution, or to buy out the electorate, so that democracy becomes acceptable and “the only game in town”. I use a sample of all South American young democracies during the 1970–2007 period and the results, based on dynamic panel time-series analysis, suggest that those young democracies are indeed associated with larger government debt. Furthermore, I test the hypothesis that the outgoing dictatorships of the day bequeathed the young democracies with large government debt. This hypothesis is not confirmed by the analysis. Lastly, there is no evidence that, as those democracies mature over time, government debt tends to decrease. Given how I conduct the exercise, that is, the nature of the sample, the methodology I use and the counterfactuals I run, and also that there are always new episodes of democratisation being experienced by different countries around the world, with some being economically successful and others less so, the results I report are informative of what to expect in terms of government debt during political transitions into democracy when particular institutions are still not in place.     

Is democracy compatible with global institutions?

The salience and relevance of the currently existing global institutions raise the question of their compatibility with some reasonable notion of democracy. I hold that democracy, as a form of government based on social consent, can be operationalized with different institutional formulas, mostly depending on the territorial scale and the degree of conflict of interests of the issues submitted to collective decision-making. Democratic institutional formulas include the people’s assembly in small cities, party elections of representatives in large states, and expert accountable rulers at the global level. Analogously to how democracy was scaled up from the city level to the state level in early modern times, it needs to be scaled up to the global level by the design and adoption of appropriate institutional formulas.