Outline the view that democratization stimulates development
Rowan Sheppard
TMA02
Outline the view that democratisation stimulates development.
In the 1990's the opinion that democratisation stimulates development was a popular one amongst Western aid circles. The idea that democratisation stimulates development was given the term 'The Washington Consensus', by economist John Williamson in 1989. Supporters of the Washington Consensus argue that its policies are composed of successful methods of restoring financial stability and economic growth to nations. The idea is centred on privatising state-owned enterprises, reducing state taxes and liberalizing interest rates. It looked particularly at trade and attracting foreign direct investment. A combination of liberal democracy, good governance and liberal market capitalism provided elements of a comprehensive strategy for development success for all types of society. Good governance is sound management of a country's economic and social resources[RK1].
Aid agencies such as the World Bank tried to stimulate development by including liberal democratic conditions to aid packages and supporting good governance.
Western development in the early 1990's believed that good governance and liberal democracy were essential for development in all societies[RK2].
The Un said in 1998 said that they believed that no amount of funding or charity alone would help the developing world to prosper. That good governance was essential to build a prosperous and democratic society.
Rowan Sheppard
TMA02
Various examples that support the view that democratisation stimulates development have been seen in India, Sri-Lanka, Vietnam and Uganda.
In India the system of famine prevention is linked to democracy. The government cannot ignore the famine problem because of the free media brought about by democracy. Also if the government is not being seen to do the best for the people, the media can influence votes[RK3].
Sri-Lanka has had a long democratic tradition involving holding governments accountable. This has helped to ensure that money is spent on public services and that ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Rowan Sheppard
TMA02
Various examples that support the view that democratisation stimulates development have been seen in India, Sri-Lanka, Vietnam and Uganda.
In India the system of famine prevention is linked to democracy. The government cannot ignore the famine problem because of the free media brought about by democracy. Also if the government is not being seen to do the best for the people, the media can influence votes[RK3].
Sri-Lanka has had a long democratic tradition involving holding governments accountable. This has helped to ensure that money is spent on public services and that it is well spent[RK4]. In Vietnam in the early 1980's, Peasant Union, Trades Union, Women's Union and other mass organisations were involved in the decision-making structures of the party. They debated policy proposals and often modified them[RK5].
In Uganda in the 1980's and 1990's adult residents were members of their villages council. There were numerous free and open elections; also no political parties were involved. Uganda was a no-party democracy. Social and economic development was evident[RK6].
The view that democratisation stimulates development was supported by numerous academic studies. In 1997 Surjit Bhalla asked the question 'does greater freedom lead to improved economic growth and social development?. ' He analysed the data for over 90 countries. Bhalla concluded that 'more
Rowan Sheppard
TMA02
Freedom is unambiguously good for both growth and social development.' (Bhalla, 1987 , p.228) Free markets and free society are the both essential to rapid economic development[RK7].
What critisms can be raised against this view?
One of the main arguments against the view that democratisation stimulates development was about India. India has mostly been a liberal democratic country. It grew at a low rate of 1.9% per capita, but three countries under authoritarian regimes, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore grew at a rate of 6.4% per capita. Bhalla could explain this as he used both political and economic freedoms in support of his views. He said that India had low economic freedom, although they had high political freedom, and therefore grew slowly. Whereas the regimes in Pacific Asia had low political freedom but high economical freedom, so therefore grew faster[RK8].
A popular view in partially democratic and authoritarian countries was that democratisation could impede development in poor societies. Lee Kwan Yew (1992) believed that a country needed discipline more than democracy. This view was supported by Leftwich (1993), who argued that unrestrained economic and political freedom would not help solve the real problems of poverty[RK9].
Rowan Sheppard
TMA02
One explanation that supports the view that democratisation does not stimulate development, refers to the fact that Liberal Democracy is conservative whereas development is radical. Therefore they would work against each other. A liberal democracy is settled and stable, certain settlements are made so that as governments change the main concerns of the country will stay the same, this would slow down development[RK10].
Another view was that authoritarian regimes stimulated economic development more than liberal democracies. Although this view was argued against. A study done by Przeworski (1996) concluded that 'dictatorships are no more likely to generate economic growth then democracies. ' (Przeworski et al., 1996, p40) Two countries that were exceptions to these findings were South Korea and Taiwan, they were examples of authoritarian developmental states, but were thought to be unusual and not the norm[RK11].
A view supported by Przeworski and Limongi (1993) was that neither liberal democracy or an authoritarianism regime were more likely to promote economic growth, but something else. In the late twentieth century Alexander Pope suggested that 'the something else' was good governance and that was the key for successful development[RK12].
Rowan Sheppard
TMA02
References
Allen, T & Thomas, A. (2000) 'Poverty and Development into the 21st Century'
,Oxford,Oxford University Press /The Open University
[RK1]Good opening statement to set the scene, but do reference, i.e.Potter, p375
[RK2]Potter, p375
[RK3]good example, but reference, Dreze & Sen 1989, p63 CB
[RK4]Another good example see p 97 CB
[RK5]yet another good example, see Potter, p367
[RK6]again, Potter, p367
[RK7]good to underpin with this research
[RK8]a relevant feature, but better to demonstrate the success of authoritarian developmental states such as S Korea etc.
[RK9]good material, and referenced.
[RK10]relevant material, but you need to draw on Leftwich's work and then illustrate with the example of India, p377.
[RK11]Useful material, but what about China?
[RK12]Useful masterial; to draw the bebate to a conclusion
W3124995 UZX213 1
