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