POLS 550 Seminar Comparative Politics

1. POLS 550 Seminar Comparative Politics Discussion of Structural Approaches to Democracy

2. Structural Approaches to Democracy • To begin: Understand that there different types of “structural” analyses of democracy, some which we can classify as historical and others as largely ahistorical. • Most structural analyses done today are historical, but this was not always true and was most evident in work done by early modernization theorists.

3. Structural Approaches to Democracy A little on modernization theory • The basic premise of this theory is pretty simple: based on the idea that “modernization,” which meant capitalist industrialization, led inevitably to democracy. • The logic was clear: modernization increased complexity of society, both technologically and socially, and rising complexity created “conditions” for democratic transition.

4. Structural Approaches to Democracy A little on modernization theory • Why did rising complexity lead to democracy? • Because as conditions become more complex, pre-modern political systems gradually lost their ability to govern in an effective, efficient manner. • This, in turn, weakened the existing regime’s authority, which allowed democratic forces to take shape, emerge, and ultimately take control.

5. Structural Approaches to Democracy A little on modernization theory • One set of authors explained it this way: “Modernization consists of a gradual differentiation and specialization of social structures that culminates in a separation of political structures from other structures and makes democracy possible. The specific causal chains consists of sequences of industrialization, urbanization, education, communication, mobilization, and political incorporation, among innumerable others; a progressive accumulation of social changes that ready a society to proceed to its culmination, democratization” (Przeworski and Limongi, 2).

6. Structural Approaches to Democracy A little on modernization theory • The concept of causal chains is important: Modernization theory suggests that everything begins with industrialization--with a growth in income through industrialization, none of the other changes in society can take place, and if none of these other changes takes place, then democracy cannot be achieved. • This is why it would be a mistake to focus on, say, education, as the key determinant (i.e., we need to focus on the primary as opposed to secondary factors)

7. Structural Approaches to Democracy Discussion • Does the modernization thesis on democracy make sense? Is it logical? • Are there any obvious problems or flaws in the modernization approach? If so, what are these?

8. Structural Approaches to Democracy Discussion • Logically, modernization seemed to hold a lot of water, but there were some clear, undeniable problems, which Przeworski and Limongi discuss. • For example, there is an empirical problem. There are many cases of highly modernized dictatorships, and relatively “un-modern” democracies. Classical modernization is at a loss to explain or account for these anomalies. • Examples: Singapore, East Germany, Taiwan, USSR, Spain, Bulgaria, Argentina, Mexico; while many of these countries have since become democracies, for years and years they survived as dictatorships with incomes over $5,000 (which is generally regarded as a basic cut-off point)

9. Structural Approaches to Democracy Discussion • Another problem is theoretical or conceptual: Modernization is premised on an assumption that the only thing that differentiates societies or countries is their relative level of modernization; indeed, to modernizationists, there are really only two kinds of societies--primitive and modern. • This is what makes modernization ahistorical, that is, it doesn’t recognize that historical forces can have a profound affect on how societies develop

10. Structural Approaches to Democracy • The flaws in modernization have not completely destroyed the theory, but as far as structural analyses go, modernization does not presently exert great influence. Instead, the strongest structural arguments about democracy today are generally “historical-structuralist” ones. The readings by Huber, Ruyschemeyer and Stephens are a good example of this literature.

11. Structural Approaches to Democracy “The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy” • What is the basic argument (or central thesis) put forward by the authors? [Try to answer this question without referencing your notes or the reading itself]

12. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • Thesis is stated explicitly on p. 74-5: “Capitalist development is related to democracy because it shifts the balance of class power, because it weakens the power of the landlord class and strengthens subordinate classes. The working and middle classes-unlike other subordinate classes in history—gain an unprecedented capacity for self-organization due to such developments as urbanization, factory production, and new forms of communication and transportation”

13. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • To put it in the most simple terms, we might sum up their argument in this way: The struggle for democracy is a struggle for power.

14. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • A key point: To properly understand process of democratization, necessary to focus on class relations (in other words, class is the primary unit of analysis): according to authors, the expectation is that classes exhibit definite central political tendencies in the struggle for political democracy--i.e., some classes will oppose democracy, while others will welcome it. This is why the relative balance of class power is so important: unless subordinate classes have sufficient power, they cannot effectively challenge the existing system

15. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • In the authors’ framework, which are the most important classes and what are their interests? • The most resistance social class (traditionally) is large landlord; also bourgeoisie (albeit to a lesser extent --- this contrasts with many other studies); middle class has limited openness to democracy. In other words, the role of middle class is contingent, rather than determinative • But the class most in favor democracy is the urban working class.

16. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • Why a focus on the “urban” working class in particular, and not the working class as a whole?

17. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • What are the other critically important elements of the authors’ argument?

18. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • State powerand state-society relations: Modern state plays crucial role in all societies. The state exists as both part of society and above society. This is because the state is not only an apparatus of implementation and enforcement, but also the arena in which binding collective decisions are made. • What does this mean in terms of the state’s influence on democracy? How do the authors answer this question?

19. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • According to authors, the “state needs to be strong and autonomous enough to ensure the rule of law and avoid being the captive of the interests of dominant groups; the state’s authority to make binding decisions in a territory and the state’s monopoly of coercion must be settled. The vote does not rule where it competes with the gun.” At the same time, state cannot be too powerful; it has to be counterbalanced by social forces.

20. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • What do the authors mean by transnational relations of power? How and why might these relations of power be important?

21. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • Another point:In authors’ framework, the three power clusters must be analyzed holistically: they are closely interrelated, with developments in one affecting the dynamics of others. To look at each in isolation would be a serious mistake. At the same time, the authors give primary causal power to class relations.

22. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • One more point: Clusters of power and their interrelations, once forged, often persist beyond their original conditions --- this represents the idea of path dependence, which underscores the importance of going beyond ‘presentist’ explanations of democracy and, instead, engaging in historical analysis (which can take such persistencies into account).

23. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Discussion • What do you think of the authors’ basic argument and framework? Does it make sense? Does it appear useful? How might you use it in your own analyses?

24. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Methodological Issues • What is the basic methodological strategy used by the authors?

25. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Methodological Issues • What is analytical induction? • Answer: Basically a case-oriented, comparative-historical approach. Let’s break down the concept a bit more …

26. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Methodological Issues • Induction means “The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.” Practically, this means using one or few cases as a starting point for a broader theoretical argument. • But induction by itself is not sufficient. Instead, once the basic argument is proposed, additional case studies are used to “test” and re-test these general principles. Where there seems to be some discrepancy between the theory and evidence, deeper analysis is required, which may lead to modifications or refinement of the original theory.

27. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Methodological Issues • Cases, it is important to note, are not examined in isolated fashion, but are constantly compared to other cases. Comparisons may raise new questions, or confirm the initial hypotheses. • The objective to build a theory progressively, but in a step-by-step manner.

28. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • A case-oriented, comparative historical-approach often adds complications and complexity to an analysis. This is certainly the case the authors’ argument. • The best example of this (although not obvious) is in their discussion of class interests: as they put it, “class interests are not ahistorical givens” (p. 75). What do they mean by this?

29. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • Answer: We cannot simply assume that urban workers have the same interests across time and space--e.g., urban workers will not always support democracy. The same goes for any other significant class: peasants, the middle class, landlords, industrial capitalists, and so on. • Instead, class interests are “historically constructed by movements, organizations, and leaderships that act in some particular environment of influences and oppositions, possible alliances and enmities” (p. 75).

30. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy • Key point:Understanding the historical construction of class interests allows us to explain, in a theoretically consistent manner, why democracy exists in places where our theory tells us it shouldn’t or vice versa.

31. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Evidence/Empirical Argument • Do the authors provide sufficient, reliable and relevant evidence to support their argument? • Did you find the empirical argument compelling? Any questions left unanswered? Any cases you think might undermine or support their argument?

32. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Quick review of the evidence presented • Europe: Major transitions to democracy occurred between 1870 and 1920, when all Western European countries had made the transition. Their theory “predicts” that all transitions should have been marked by a growing urban working class and shift in balance of power between classes supporting democracy and those opposed. • In all countries, non-agricultural workforce grew dramatically to an average of 61 percent of the total workforce; in addition, development of “class consciousness” and class organization strongly evidence in strengthening of trade unions and socialist parties.

33. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Quick review of the evidence presented • Europe:In situations where working class was still relatively weak and the landlord class relatively strong, moreover, democracy turned out to be fragile: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, and Italy • Conclusion: Evidence is consistent with original framework

34. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Quick review of the evidence presented • Latin America: Continued power of large landowners was major obstacle to democracy in much of Latin America; the breakthroughs to full democracy only took place in cases where the large landowners were primarily engaged in ranching, and thus had lower labor needs (Argentina and Uruguay), or where they economic power was undermined by the presence of a strong mining export sector (Venezuela and Bolivia) • Conclusion: The many breakdowns of democracy also support the authors’ theory; that is, democracy was unstable where dominant classes maintained disproportionate power or where, conversely, subordinate classes had relatively weak power base

35. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Quick review of the evidence presented • Latin America: Also important, though, were state structures, which tended to be heavily militarized; this was partly a legacy of past wars and partly a product of US intervention in the region (in other words, transnational power relations clearly played an important role in Latin American democracy).

36. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Quick review of the evidence presented • Central America and the West Indies. Most plantation economies, with limited mining and industrialization, high level of economic dependence, small working class. Thus, relatively little democracy, although there are two exceptions: Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic • To understand the general pattern and the exceptions, authors begin with historical analysis focusing on the 1930: here a key difference was the nature of the state

37. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Quick review of the evidence presented • Central America and the West Indies. In most countries, the state was largely controlled by the dominant landlord class and/or the military; thus, when wide-spread labor protest emerged, it was put down through coercive force. In some countries, however, large landowners were not in firm control of state, primarily due to the influence of British colonialism. This allowed for the “exceptions.”

38. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Impact of Economic Development on Democracy Discussion • Last question: How do you think these authors would assess the chances of democracy in Iraq? • How would the authors structure their argument?

39. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions Discussion • How does this article differ from the first?

40. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions • What do the authors mean by formal democracy? • “By formal democracy we mean a political system that combines four features: regular free and fair elections, universal suffrage, accountability of the states’ administrative organs to the elected representatives, and effective guarantees for freedom of expression and association as well as protection against arbitrary state action.”

41. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions • Do authors believe this is all there is to democracy? • Obviously not. Yet, they also believe formal democracy is valuable in its own right: it makes deepening toward more fully participatory democracy and progress toward increasing equality possible.

42. Structural Approaches to Democracy The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions • Repeat purpose of article: Authors want to extend their analysis to include substantive democracy; they want to know if their original framework can explain, in a coherent fashion, why some countries are able to move toward a stronger, more substantive version of democracy, while others are not.

43. Structural Approaches to Democracy Defining substantive democracy • Participatory democracy—this is a step above formal democracy, and is based on all the elements of formal democracy plus a high level of participation without systematic differences across social categories • Social democracy—this is the highest form of democracy and is based on all the elements of participatory democracy plus increasing equality in social and economic outcomes

44. Structural Approaches to Democracy Summary: Elements of democracy • Consists of: (1)regular free and fair elections, (2) universal suffrage, (3) accountability of the states’ administrative organs to the elected representatives, (3) effective guarantees for freedom of expression and association as well as protection against arbitrary state action, (5) high level of participation, and (6) increasing equality in social and economic outcomes. 1-4 = formal democracy 1-4 + 5 = participatory democracy 1-4 + 5 + 6 = social democracy

45. Structural Approaches to Democracy • Repeating key point: The authors want to see if their framework helps explain why some societies, even though that have achieved formal democracy, have difficulty in moving toward participatory or social democracy; while also explaining why some relatively new formal democracies have been able to make the transition to stronger democracy fairly quickly(this part of argument, though is implicit). • How do they go about doing this? How do they organize their argument?

46. Structural Approaches to Democracy • Steps taken by authors: • Review of their original argument, plus explanation of how it likely applies to issue of participatory and social democracy. (Pay attention to discussion of transnational relations of power.) • Literature review--how is this structured? • Empirical argument

47. Structural Approaches to Democracy Review: Determinants of formal democracy • Balance of class power: Transition occurred primarily because of growing pressure from a rapidly emerging civil society, but the upsurge in mobilization was followed by a decline after the first democratic elections. This decline partly due to the disappearance of a common target of protest, and partly to disenchantment with the failure of democratic rule to bring about significant improvements in the material situation of most citizens. Where formal democracy was weakest, so was the organization of the subordinate classes. • State and state-society relations. Fragmented state apparatus contributed to formal democracy, but inability to overcome fragmentation has made if difficult to establish accountability. • Transnational Relations of power. Diplomatic pressure has played positive role in establishing and maintaining formal democracy, but developments in world economy have had more ambiguous impact. International debt and pressures to implement neo-liberal reforms are both positive and negative.

48. Structural Approaches to Democracy Review: Determinants of participatory democracy • Balance of class power: Mobilization of subordinate classes have been difficult to maintain over time, largely because primary target—i.e., the authoritarian state—no longer exists. Political parties, moreover, have been unable to establish strong and enduring ties to subordinate classes. • State and state-society relations. State structures, even under formal democracy, remain centralized; presidential systems are common, and legislatures fairly weak. • Transnational relations of power. International system has tended to work against greater citizen participation, in part because neoliberal reforms tend to undermine worker organization (e.g., unions). Debt pressures also make it difficult for democratic governments to build popular support.

49. Structural Approaches to Democracy Review: Determinants of social democracy • Balance of class power: In most Latin American countries, class power has shifted more and more toward capital and away from labor. • State and state-society relations. State capability—except in terms of coercive power—remains relatively weak in Latin America. This means that state lack the means to undertake redistributive intervention, which creates the basis for more equality. • Transnational Relations of power. Class power and state/state-society relations are both deeply impacted by increasing globalization. Because foundation in both areas was already shaky, moreover, this third cluster has overwhelmed most countries, leaving very little room for development of social democracy.

50. Structural Approaches to Democracy Discussion • Overall assessment of articles? Did you find the arguments compelling, unpersuasive, unintelligible or something else? • Which theoretical perspective offers, to your mind, the best framework for understand/explaining democracy? • Which framework are you likely to use for your paper? Why?