Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 6,227 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 1246 - Next  Jump:
2007 - Southern Political Science Association Words: 443 words || 
Info
1. Chen, Liang-chih. "Development First, Democracy Later? Or Democracy First, Development Later? The Controversy over Development and Democracy" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel InterContinental, New Orleans, LA, Jan 03, 2007 <Not Available>. 2019-05-27 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p143832_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The central research question in this paper is to investigate the sequence of economic development and democracy in the process of democratization of developing countries. Basically, at least, there are five theoretical models arguing the issue of the priority of development and democracy: First, modernizationists, such as Seymour Lipset, argue that economic growth would lead to democracy, so that “development first, democracy later.” Second, however, Samuel Huntington proposes an alternative explanation of democratization from the perspective of “process” arguing that the outcome of economic development would lead to political decay; then the political system under instability would move toward democracy after institutionalization. Third, in contrast to modernization theory, scholars, who support “democracy first, development later,” such as Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin, argue that democracies consistently outperform non-democracies on most indicators of economic and social well-being, so that promoting democracy should be prior to expanding economic development in developing nations. Forth, some scholars, such as Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, argue that although politics indeed influences economic performance, the impact of regime type might not be significant on states’ economic growth; and people do not know whether democracy improves or limits economic development. Fifth, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George Downs find that in the case of China, the result of economic development would not lead to democracy because authoritarian regimes and autocracies around the world show people that they can enjoy the benefits of economic development on the one hand and avoid political liberalization on the other. Their finding runs counter to the argument of modernizationists that democracy is the necessary result of economic development.
After reviewing these five models above, this paper would not have any inclination of supporting any specific theoretical position but attempts to point out that the controversy over the priority of development and democracy should depend on particular cases. In other words, in some cases development leads to democracy: South Korea and Taiwan; in others, democracy is prior to development: India, Dominican Republic, and Mozambique. In addition, this study would attempt to pre-hypothesize that the shift of the international system—from the Cold War to the post-Cold War—is the key to influence the debate of development and democracy: “development first, democracy later” in the era of the Cold War; then “democracy first, development later” under the period of the third wave of global democratization, the post-Cold War, and Anti-terrorism War. Finally, according to these debates above, what would be the implication of American foreign policy of promoting democracy in the world? To the underdevelopment world, should the U.S. assist to develop economy first or to improve democracy first? Or should the U.S. do these two simultaneously?

2018 - 89th Annual SPSA Conference Words: 187 words || 
Info
2. Placek, Matthew. "Learning Democracy Digitally?: The Internet and Knowledge of Democracy in Non-Democracies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 89th Annual SPSA Conference, Hyatt Regency, New Orleans, LA, Jan 03, 2018 <Not Available>. 2019-05-27 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1327593_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The study of public opinion in nondemocratic states has found that people often say they support democracy, yet they show little demand for democratization or regime change. Given this paradox, recent scholarship has shown that these attitudes exist because people who live under the rule of non-democratic regimes often misunderstand what democracy is. Individuals in these societies often think that authoritarian ways of governance are fundamental aspects of democracy. In another strain of literature, research has shown that the internet can alter demands for democracy and increase protest activity in non-democracies. Given these findings, this study investigates what impact that the internet has on understanding democracy in non-democracies. This is an important and understudied dynamic because if we expect democratic demands and protest within autocracies to produce successful democratization, then citizens must be aware of what democracy is. Using World Values Survey data and employing a Two-Stage Least Squares model, the study finds that consuming information from the internet leads to a better understanding of essential elements of democracy. The findings also show that the effects are more pronounced in autocracies than they are in illiberal regimes.

2018 - Northeastern Political Science Association Words: 254 words || 
Info
3. Spanakos, Tony. "Is Democracy in Decline? Lessons for Mature Democracies from New Democracies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Bonaventure Hotel, Montreal, Canada, <Not Available>. 2019-05-27 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1427833_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Only a few years ago, democratization literature had a very clear distinction between mature democracies, which did not need to democratize and new democracies, which needed to further democratize and consolidate gains won. In other words, the regime question was irrelevant in the former and still a concern for the latter. Remarkably a single election in Britain and the United States, an electoral defeat in a second round in France, along with a predictable trajectory deepening in Hungary, Turkey, and Russia (and China) have led to a sudden sense that mature democracies are vulnerable. Politics literature aimed at mass consumption repeats a narrative that "it could happen here" and there is no shortage of books and discussions of possible American fascism or a descent into authoritarianism. This paper examines two different processes in Latin America (Brazil and Venezuela) where groups identified with the political left won the presidency and pushed ahead with reforms that aimed at democratizing democracy. The Brazilian experience was ubiquitously praised before (and in some cases after) its economic crisis and then the impeachment of President Rousseff. The Venezuelan case has been equally ubiquitously condemned. What has been fundamental in the assessment of democratization analysts has not been democracy per se but declining popular and elite support for liberal values and institutions. Drawing on this lesson, the paper then returns to the question of the alleged decline of democracy in mature democracies which may be more appropriately seen as a decline in liberal values often because of democratic pressures and demands.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 1246 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy