Inclusive Democracy and Economic Inequality in South Asia: Any Discernible Link?

Abstract

Studies of the relationship between political democracy and economic inequality have produced diverse findings. This study attempts to mitigate some conceptual and methodological problems inherent in such studies by using multi-indicator concepts of inclusive democracy and economic inequality. Data from the five major historically and culturally homogeneous South Asian countries covering 1980-2003 suggest some bidirectional, positive relationship between inclusive democracy and economic inequality indicating that democracy and equality may not be fully compatible in this region. The paper offers contextual explanations and some mechanisms that may have led to these findings for the region, somewhat deviating from the conventional arguments.inclusive democracy, political and civil liberties, democratic institutions, economic inequality, panel data, South Asia,

The economic footing of the global poor, 1980–2005: The roles of economic growth, openness and political institutions

“…(2001) and Milanovic (2005) have highlighted these differences identifying significant roles of many regionally circumscribed social, cultural and religious contexts. Findings from many regional studies such as those of Gradstein and Milanovic (2004) and Wagle (2009) have largely deviated from general findings especially on democracy and inequality, reaffirming the significant explanatory power held by various regional clusters.…”

“…Viewing universal adult suffrage as the most fundamental political mechanism to manifest preferences, inequality in economic outcomes is considered to escalate class struggle and threaten democracy (Lipset, 1994; Muller, 1995; Tilly, 2003). Political and economic freedoms go hand in hand, not necessarily because the former expands the roles of the state in economic order and reorganisation (Wagle, 2009). More importantly, it is because democracies allow greater participation of the citizenry in policymaking through adult suffrage, public opinion and lobbying and redistribution of resources (Alderson and Nielsen, 2002; Kenworthy and Pontusson, 2005).…”

“…Many studies including those of Gradstein et al (2001) and Milanovic (2005) have highlighted these differences identifying significant roles of many regionally circumscribed social, cultural and religious contexts. Findings from many regional studies such as those of Gradstein and Milanovic (2004) and Wagle (2009) have…”

Generalised Trust, Institutional Trust and Political Participation

“…This unfortunate situ ation describes not only the ex-communist regimes in Central Asia, but many Southeast Asian countries as well that are also economically struggling and democratically lagging (Antlov et al, 2010;Sanyal, 2009;Weiss, 2009). In his study on the relationship between democracy and economic inequality in Southeast Asia, Wagle (2009) points out that one of the hallmarks of this region has been the oscillation between democratic and authoritarian forms of gov ernment. The lack of regime stability, in the context of relatively weak civil society, has meant limited guarantee of democratic rights in many Southeast Asian countries, discouraging active civic engagement on the part of their citi zens.…”

RELATIONSHIPS of INCOME DISTRIBUTION, DEMOCRACY, REAL INCOME and TRADE OPENNESS: THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM BALKAN STATES

“…Öte yandan 63 gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkede demokrasinin gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkilerini analiz eden Artan ve Kalaycı (2014), demokrasinin gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkisinin gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkelerde farklı olduğunu ortaya koymuşlardır. Wagle (2009), 1980-2003 döneminde panel veri analiz yöntemini kullanarak Güney Asya ülkelerinde demokrasinin gelir dağılımı üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmıştır. Çalışmada literatürdeki mevcut sonuçlardan farklı olarak Güney Asya ülkelerinde demokrasinin gelir dağılımı eşitsizliğini arttırdığı yönünde bulgulara ulaşılmıştır.…”