Research on the economic origins of democracy and dictatorship has shifted away from the impact of growth and turned toward the question of how different patterns of growth - equal or unequal - shape regime change. This book offers a new theory of the historical relationship between economic modernization and the emergence of democracy on a global scale, focusing on the effects of land and income inequality. Contrary to most mainstream arguments, Ben W. Ansell and David J. Samuels suggest that democracy is more likely to emerge when rising, yet politically disenfranchised, groups demand more influence because they have more to lose, rather than when threats of redistribution to elite interests are low.

The rise of populism in new democracies, especially in Latin America, has brought renewed urgency to the question of how liberal democracy deals with issues of poverty and inequality. Citizens who feel that democracy failed to improve their economic condition are often vulnerable to the appeal of political leaders with authoritarian tendencies. To counteract this trend, liberal democracies must establish policies that will reduce socioeconomic disparities without violating liberal principles, interfering with economic growth, or ignoring the consensus of the people. Poverty, Inequality, and Democracy addresses the complicated philosophical and moral issues surrounding the distribution of economic goods in free societies as well as the empirical relationships between democratization and trends in poverty and inequality. This volume also discusses the variety of welfare-state policies that have been adopted in different regions of the world. The book’s distinguished group of contributors provides a succinct synthesis of the scholarship on this topic. They address such broad issues as whether democracy promotes inequality, the socioeconomic factors that drive democratic failure, and the basic choices that societies must make as they decide how to deal with inequality. Chapters focus on particular regions or countries, examining how problems of poverty and inequality have been handled (or mishandled) by newer democracies in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. Poverty, Inequality, and Democracy will prove vital reading for all students of world politics, political economy, and democracy’s global prospects. Contributors: Dan Banik, Nancy Bermeo, Dorothee Bohle, Nathan Converse, Alberto Díaz-Cayeros, Francis Fukuyama, Béla Greskovits, Stephan Haggard, Ethan B. Kapstein, Robert R. Kaufman, Taekyoon Kim, Huck-Ju Kwon, Jooha Lee, Peter Lewis, Beatriz Magaloni, Mitchell A. Orenstein, Marc F. Plattner, Charles Simkins, Alejandro Toledo, Ilcheong Yi

A global panorama of the historical development and contemporary malaise of liberal democracy, from a renowned social theorist. Barely a century has passed since liberal democracy became established in the majority of advanced capitalist economies. Elsewhere, it is of even more recent vintage. Classical liberalism held universal suffrage a mortal threat to property. So why did it nevertheless come to pass, and how stable today is the marriage between representative government and the continued rule of capital? People on all continents consider inequality a "very big problem". The Davos Economic Forum and the OECD say they are worried. But capitalist democracies don't respond. How has democracy been transformed from a popular demand for social justice to a professional power game? These questions are raised, and answered, in Inequality and the Labyrinths of Democracy. Together with an essay on the current situation, it includes a compact global history of 'The Right to Vote and the Four World Routes to/through Modernity' and two landmark essays from New Left Review, 'The Rule of Capital and the Rise of Democracy' and 'The Travail of Latin American Democracy', collected here in book form for the first time.

This book offers a new theory of the historical relationship between economic modernization and the emergence of democracy on a global scale, focusing on the effects of land and income inequality.

Examines the sources of democracy, the relationship between economic development and thresholds of democracy, and responses to democratization.

The relationship between socioeconomic inequality and democratic politics has been one of the central questions in the social sciences from Aristotle on. Recent waves of democratization, combined with deepened global inequalities, have made understanding this relationship ever more crucial. In The Great Gap, Merike Blofield seeks to contribute to this understanding by analyzing inequality and politics in the region with the highest socioeconomic inequalities in the world: Latin America. The chapters, written by prominent scholars in their fields, address the socioeconomic context and inequality of opportunities; elite culture, public opinion, and media framing; capital mobility, campaign financing, representation, and gender equality policies; and taxation and social policies. Aside from the editor, the contributors are Pablo Alegre, Maurício Bugarin, Daniela Campello, Anna Crespo, Francisco H. G. Ferreira, Fernando Filgueira, Liesl Haas, Sallie Hughes, Juan Pablo Luna, James E. Mahon Jr., Juliana Martínez Franzoni, Adriana Cuoco Portugal, Paola Prado, Elisa P. Reis, Luis Reygadas, Sergio Naruhiko Sakurai, and Koen Voorend.

The impact of economic development on democratization has long concerned social scientists, with prominent recent research focusing on the effects of economic inequality and factor specificity. Boix (2003) suggests that democratization is likelier when economic equality is high and factor-specificity is low. Acemoglu and Robinson (2006) argue that democratization is more likely when inequality is at middling levels. Both arguments assume that democratization is a function of autocratic elites' relative fear of the costs of redistribution at different levels of inequality. Drawing on contractarian political theory, we suggest that democratization is not about demands for redistribution from the elite; it is about demands for protection from the state. This alternative theoretical approach generates different predictions about the relationship between inequality and democratization, and suggests that land and income inequality impact democratization differently. Autocracies with unequal land distribution are less likely to democratize, while autocracies with substantial income inequality are more likely to democratize.