Page 144 - kpi21190

144

Glaeser (2006) distinguishes three different ways in which inequality affect
4
politics and political institutions. First, higher inequality might increase redistribution
because of the median voter’s preference for redistribution. Second, higher
inequality might reduce redistribution because inequality of resources changes the
political clout of different groups. Third, higher inequality might undermine the
quality of democracy and threaten its stability and survival. Considering these lines
of research, we may raise the following questions concerning political consequences
of inequality in the context of East Asia: whether higher levels of inequality
increase or decrease redistribution in democracies; whether higher levels of
inequality undermine the quality of governance; whether higher levels of inequality
threaten the stability and survival of democracy; and whether higher levels of
inequality facilitate non-democracies to democratize.

III

Overall, East Asia appears to offer anomalies to existing theories of
comparative political economy. As regards the relationship between economic
development and democracy, Boix and Stokes (2003) argue that economic
development increases the likelihood that a country will transition to democracy.
Przeworski and his associates (2000) claim that economic development causes
democracy to last but does not make non-democracies democratize. South Korea
and Taiwan became democratic as they became affluent. Mongolia, the Philippines,
and Indonesia became democratic even though they remained poor. Singapore did
not become democratic even though it became prosperous. Thailand, a less affluent
country, suffered democratic breakdown, but democratic government persists in the
poorer nations of Mongolia and Indonesia. Democratic transition in South Korea and
เอกสารประกอบการอภิปรายร่วมระหว่างผู้แทนจากต่างประเทศ
Taiwan, affluent countries, may be treated as evidence of both views. Yet,
democratic transition in Mongolia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, less affluent
countries, and a lack of democratic transition in Singapore, an affluent country,
seem inconsistent with the view of Boix and Stokes. The breakdown of democracy
in Thailand, a less affluent country, may be consistent with the view of Przeworski
and his associates, but the absence of democratic breakdown in Mongolia and
Indonesia, less affluent countries, seems inconsistent with their view.

As regards the relationship between inequality and democracy, Boix (2003)
argues that democratization is more likely when inequality is low. Acemoglu and
Robinson (2006) maintain that democratization is more likely when inequality is at
middling levels. Ansell and Samuels (2014) claim that income inequality is more

4 For a survey of the theoretical and empirical literature on the effect of inequality on
institutions, see Savoia, Easaw and MaKay (2010).