Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Democracy and Development
Relationship between social development and economic development
Democracy and Development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Democracy and Development
Introduction
Determinants of social development in the developing world are unclear just as the ones facilitating economic development and industrialization. The subject has remained a controversial one for a while, at least among academics, and might remain that way for years to come. From McGuire to Haggard and Kaufman to Huber and Stephens, different theories have been put forward to explain the origin or causes of social entitlements in the global South, as well as its development over time, with no central point of agreement among the authors.
Even though there is a lack of agreement as to the main determinants of social development in the developing world among the authors, they all agree that, raising the human capital of individuals mainly through investments in education, as well as provision of social insurance, services, and assistance are necessary and important in the fight against poverty and inequality.
In this paper, I will focus and analyse the different explanations of social development, offered by Huber and Stephens in their book “Democracy and the Left” and by Haggard and Kaufman in “Development, Democracy and the Welfare States”. I will argue that while both explanations seem to have their merits and limitations, Haggard and Kaufman’s argument seem to be more convincing, as their explanation of factors influencing social development could be easily applied to most regions of the developing world than the one put forward by Huber and Stephens. However, this not to suggest, as I will demonstrate in the paper, that explanations offered by Huber and Stephens are completely inadequate as it rightly described to an extent, the development of social benefits in the region they focused on –Latin America.
This pape...
... middle of paper ...
...ntrast among the various regimes –communists, conservatives, and the left– based on their three previously discussed determinants of social development in the developing world. By focusing on only one region- Latin America, Huber and Stephens arguments on the importance of democracy and ‘left’ parties for social development, might for instance, be difficult to apply to Eastern Europe.
Moreover, while both literatures have some areas of agreement, Haggard and Kaufman seem to offer better explanations based on the following points:
Works Cited
Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert. Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008
Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, John. Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
Wainryb, C., Smetana, J.G., & Turiel. E. (2008). Social development, social inequalities, and social justice. New York, NY: CRC Press.
In chapter three Isbister explains that social scientists wrestled to justify conditions in the third world, as a result, a mixture of indefinite theories developed. A point often overlooked, by social scientists is that the struggle and growth of Asia, Africa, and Latin America cannot be measured “in statistics, nor in treatises of social scientists and historians.” After reading the chapter, an obvious conclusion stood out poverty is tangible for most of the world’s people and nations. Why is this and who is to blame? Are the poor people to be blamed for their own poverty? The answers are arranged into three different groups: mod¬ernization, dependency, and Marxism.
The Allies’ victory in WWII marked democracy’s triumph over dictatorship, and the consequences shook Latin America. Questioning why they should support the struggle for democracy in Europe and yet suffer the constraints of dictatorship at home, many Latin Americans rallied to democratize their own political structures. A group of prominent middle–class Brazilians opposed to the continuation of the Vargas dictatorship mused publicly, “If we fight against fascism at the side of the United Nations so that liberty and democracy may be restored to all people, certainly we are not asking too much in demanding for ourselves such rights and guarantees.” The times favored the democratic concepts professed by the middle class. A wave of freedom of speech, press, and assembly engulfed much of Latin America and bathed the middle class with satisfaction. New political parties emerged to represent broader segments of the population. Democracy, always a fragile plant anywhere, seemed ready to blossom throughout Latin America. Nowhere was this change more amply illustrated than in Guatemala, where Jorge Ubico ruled as dictator from 1931 until 1944. Ubico, a former minister of war, carried out unprecedented centralization of the state and repression of his opponents. Although he technically ended debt peonage, the 1934 vagrancy law required the carrying of identification cards and improved ...
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
Harry E. Canden. , & Gary Prevost, (2012). Politics Latin America. (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Filh, Alfredo Saad. "Neoliberalism, Democracy, and Development Policy in Brazil." DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIETY June 2010: 1-28.
Why do nations fail? This is a topic of popular debate with many economists and a question many scholars have struggled to find an answer to. Global poverty is an issue that economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson investigate and provide an alternative insight for in their book: ‘Why Nations Fail’. Acemoglu and Robinson investigate inequalities that exist across countries and why nations are an epitome of success and others, failure. They come up with an alternative explanation for why standards of living differ across countries, and why a gap exists between the rich and poor. The book introduces an example of two cities that are separated by a border: Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora. On the American side of the border, the income of the average household is $30,000, the population is relatively healthy, and the citizens live prosperously (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). On the opposite side of the border in Mexico, majority of the population do not own a high school degree, poor health conditions exist, poor infrastructure and unfortunately, high infant mortality rates (Acemoglu & Robinson 2012). How can situations on opposite borders be so different? The basis for Acemoglu and Robison’ s thesis for this phenomenon is that of institutions. They propose that that there is a strong correlation between economic and political institutions. That is, inclusive political institutions support inclusive economic institutions, and extractive political institutions support extractive economic institutions (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Democratic institutions generally allow opportunities for the majority, leading to positive economic growth. Political institutions that look after a narrow elite is reinforced with stag...
Poverty and income inequality are issues affecting a majority of people around the different parts of the globe. These issues exist and are increasingly becoming a major concern in both developing and developed countries. The purpose of this paper is to show some of the causes and effects of income inequality and poverty in developing and developed countries. Income inequality varies especially by region, education and social standing and hence increasingly widening for so many years. In addition, a large group of people in the world have the inability to access high quality education, shelter, food, clothing and basic medicine. Business activities are an important factor in the economy and have the ability to aid in eradicating poverty through
Wiarda H. J. and Skelley E. M., 2005, Dilemmas of Democracy in Latin America: Crises and Opportunity, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc
When looking through the topic of development, two drastically different ways to assess it arise. The majority of the western world looks at development in terms of per capita GNP. This means each country is evaluated on a level playing field, comparing the production of each country in economic value. Opposite this style of evaluation is that of the alternative view, which measures a country’s development on its ability to fulfill basic material and non-material needs. Cultural ties are strong in this case as most of the population does not produce for wealth but merely survival and tradition.
Modernisation theory has been a dominant theory since post-World War II (McMichael 2012:5) to describe development and social change. It is structured and outlined through five different stages of 'development ladder' proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow in The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (1961:4) The first premise of modernisation theory reflected by 'development ladder' is that development happened in a sequential process through stage by stage while the second premise underpinned by ‘development ladder’ is conformity towards West's values and norms. However, these two premises are found to be problematic as they are neglecting the differences in societies and assuming that the 'development ladder' system is applicable to all societies. Thus, Rostow's 'development ladder' is highly challenged as it gathers a lot of critiques.
Development originated in the colonial era, when Europeans constructed domestic and imperial government systems and concentrated within the emerging national states as industrial system fueled by the products of colonial labor regimes (McMichael, p. 2). In the 19th century, development was understood philosophically as the improvement of humankind. European political elites interpreted development practically, as a way to socially engineer emerging national societies (McMichael, p. 3). In the post WWII, United State was concerned how to shape the future of the newly independent states in ways that would ensure that they would not be drawn into the communist Soviet bloc. Motivated by this concern, the United States enlisted its social scientists
Extractive institutions are used throughout this book to explain that the upper class extracts resources and goods from the lower class. They don’t allow growth or competition, but rather they just exploit the rest of society into doing their labour. It’s used to please a few, rather than the majority, and can still be seen in most places in the world. Whereas, inclusive institutions are the ideal way nations should be run, allowing for fair economical systems, property ownership, educational facilities and allowing all citizens to participate in the growth of the economy. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that this is the main factor in distinguishing the rich countries from the poor and, moreover, how they treat their citizens. This system is relatively used in North America and Western Europe.