Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Studies in Comparative International Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba. 1963.The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, David and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán. 2002. “Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness, and Participation in Eighteen Latin American Countries.”Democratization 9: 85–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Kenneth. 1979.Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive user’s Manual. Binghamton: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, Benjamin. 1984.Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Brian. 1970.Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Nathaniel and Jonathan Katz. 1995. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section data.”American Political Science Review 89, 3: 634–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1996. “Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series Cross-Section Models.”Political Analysis 6: 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix, Carles and Susan Stokes. 2003. “Endogenous Democratization,”World Politics 55 (July): 815–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Kenneth. 1990. “Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps.”Studies in Comparative International Development 25, 1: 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1993. “Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures.”American Journal of Political Science 37, 4: 1207–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Kenneth and Robert Jackman. 1989. “Democracy, Stability, and Dichotomies.”American Sociological Review 54: 612–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Kenneth and Pamela Paxton. 2000. “Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy.”Comparative Political Studies 33, 1: 58–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, Michael and Robert Mattes. 2001. “Support for Democracy in Africa: Instrinsic or Instrumental?”British Journal of Political Science 31: 447–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhart, Ross and Michael Lewis-Beck. 1994. “Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis.”American Political Science Review 88, 4: 903–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, Thomas. 2002. “The End of the Transition Paradigm.”Journal of Democracy, 13, 1: 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chee, Soon Juan. 2001. “Pressing for Openness in Singapore.”Journal of Democracy 12: 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, David and Robert Adcock. 1999. “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts.”Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 537–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael. 2003. “Book Review: Przeworski et al. 2000,”Studies in Comparative International Development 38, 1: 123–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert. 1971.Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boef, Suzanna and Jim Granato. 1997. “Near-Integrated Data and the Analysis of Political Relationships.”American Journal of Political Science 41, 2: 619–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999. “Testing for Cointegrating Relationships with Near-Integrated Data.”Political Analysis 8 (1): 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Larry. 1992. “Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered,”Reexamining Democracy: Essays in Honor of Seymour Martin Lipset. Eds. Marks, Gary and Larry Diamond. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999.Developing Democracy. Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. “Thinking about Hybrid Regimes.”Journal of Democracy, 13, 2: 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, Zachary. 2000. “Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations,”American Journal of Political Science 44: 287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon. 1998.Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, Steven. 1995.Causal Analysis with Panel Data. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasiorowski, Mark. 1995. “Economic Crisis and Political Regime Change: An Event History Analysis.”American Political Science Review 89, 4: 882–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, Kristian and Michael Ward. 1997. “Double Take: A Reexamination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Politics.”The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 4: 361–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsworthy, Jeffry. 2001. “Legislative Sovereignty and the Rule of Law,” inSkeptical Essays on Human Rights, Eds. Compbell, T., K.D. Ewing, and A. Tomkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Zvi. 1967. “Distributed Lags: A Survey.”Econometrica 35, 1: 16–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, Axel. 1992.Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, John. 1994. “Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth.”British Journal of Political Science 24: 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Kim Quaile. 1994.Democracy in the Fifty States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, Barry. 1974.The Nature of Democracy. London: Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald. 1988. “The Renaissance of Political Culture,”American Political Science Review 82: 1203–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald. 1997.Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. “How Solid is Mass Support for Democracy—And How Can We Measure It?”PS: Political Science and Politics, 36: 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald et al. 2000.World Value Surveys and European Value Surveys, 1981–1984, 1990–1993, 1995–1997. ICPSR Study 2790. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel. 2003. “Political Culture and Democracy: Analyzing Cross-Level Linkages.”Comparative Politics 36, 1: 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl, Terry Lynn. 1990. “Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America,”Comparative Politics 23: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Legitimacy.”American Political Science Review 53: 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Edward and Mitchell Seligson 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships,”American Political Science Review 88, 3: 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munck, Gerardo L. and Jay Verkuilen. 2002. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices,”Comparative Political Studies 35: 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.”Journal of Democracy 5: 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. “Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics.”Studies in Comparative International Development 36: 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo and Phillippe Schmitter. 1986. “Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies,” inTransitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy. Eds. O’Donnell, G., P. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, Roland. 1979.Democratic Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam and Fernando Limongi. 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.”World Politics 49: 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub and Fernando Limongi. 2000.Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert. 1993.Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard and William Mishler. 2001. “Comparing Regime Support in Non-Democratic and Democratic Countries.”Democratization 9, 2: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rustow, Danckwart. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.”Comparative Politics 2: 337–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, Andreas. 2001. “Measuring Democratic Consolidation.”Studies in Comparative International Development 36: 66–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sussman; Leonard. 1982. “The Continuing Struggle for Freedom of Information.” inFreedom in the World, 1982. Ed. Gastil, Raymond. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welzel, Chris, Ronald Inglehart, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2003. “Human Development as a Theory of Social Change: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.”European Journal of Political Science 42, 3: 341–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, Laurence (2001). “Bolivia and the Viability of Democracy,”Journal of Democracy 12: 6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Axel Hadenius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Teorell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Jan Teorell is associated professor of political science at Uppsala University. His articles on intra-party democracy, social capital, and political participation appear in international journals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hadenius, A., Teorell, J. Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence. St Comp Int Dev 39, 87–106 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686166

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686166

Keywords

Search

Navigation