Capitalist Development & Democracy by Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens and John D

Capitalist Development & Democracy by Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens and John D. Stephens, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Notes by Marko Papic October 22, 2006 – University of Texas at Austin

I. Introduction: The Problem of Capitalist Development and Democracy

- State that both the Leninist and the Western views of relationship between democracy and capitalism are essentially the same: “the unrestrained operation of the market for capital and labor constitutes the material base of democracy. Democracy is the characteristic political form of capitalism.” (1) - The historical record is mixed, while all “full-fledged democracies we know are associated with capitalist political economies”, (2) history is filled with examples of non-democratic capitalist regimes. - They also note that agrarian regimes are not conducive to democracies. - Two modes of research are in particular contention in view of democracy vs. development: o “Quantative cross-national comparisons of many countries have found consistently a positive correlation between development and democracy.” (3)  OPTIMISTIC o “By comparison, comparative historical studies that emphasize qualitative examination of complex sequences tend to trace the rise of democracy to a favorable historical constellation of conditions in early capitalism” (3)  PESSIMISTIC - They want to integrate the two methodologies and offer a unique theoretical approach to the question at hand. - Quantative results are strong and irrefutable, but do not carry with them causal mechanisms of the relationship, nor explanations for deviant cases. “Nor can it account for how the same end can be reached by different historical routes.” (4) - Comparative historical studies, on the other hand, can give “insight into sequence”. (4) o METHOD: “we employ… “political economy” perspective that focuses on actors… whose power is grounded in control of economic and organizational resources and/or of coercive force and who vie with each other for scarce resources in the pursuit of conflicting goals. While such a perspective does recognize the role of ideas, values and non-material interests, especially when they are grounded in institutions and collective organization, it differs sharply from the functionalist and culture-centered premises of modernization theory.” (5) - “Our most basic premise is that democracy is above all a matter of power. Democratization represents first and foremost an increase in political equality… The central proposition of our theoretical argument virtually follows from this: it is power relations that most importantly determine whether democracy can emerge, stabilize, and then maintain itself even in the face of adverse conditions.” (5) - Power balance among different classes and class coalitions. o Difficult to gauge because it is not objective. o “… in a given historical case, one would have to examine the structure of class coalitions as well as the relative power of different classes to understand how the balance of class power would affect the possibilities for democracy.” (6) o Civil society, “totality of social institutions and associations, both formal and informal, that are not strictly production-related nor governmental or familial in character” (6) increases in size due to capitalist development. - Strength, structure and autonomy of the state apparatus. o Independent and autonomous, “arena in which binding collective decisions are arrived at.” (6) - Impact of transitional power relations on the balance of class power and on state- society relations. o Factors outside of state borders influencing the process. - PATH DEPENDENCE: “social patterns, once forged, often persist beyond their original conditions.” (7) They argue that this point runs counter to “presentist” explanations that seek to observe contemporary situations only, or class based explanations that are too “mechanical”. - THEIR MAIN ARGUMENT: “… capitalist development is associated with democracy because it transforms the class structure, strengthening the working and middle classes and weakening the landed upper class. It was not the capitalist market not capitalists as the new dominant force, but rather the contradictions of capitalism that advanced the cause of democracy.” (7) o Working Class Attitude: pro-democracy o Landed Upper Class Attitude: most consistently anti-democratic (losing labor supply). o Bourgeoisie Attitude: Supportive democracy, but opposed to including lower classes o Middle Classes Attitude: ambiguous role, pushed for their own inclusion, but opposed lower classes. However, they did see an alliance with the working class as a possibility. Could also turn against democracy if they saw populism as a threat to their own wellbeing. o Peasantry and Rural Workers Attitude: Difficult to gauge, most could not be organized. - In Latin America, working class was small, middle class was large, so the middle classes pushed for democracy, in often restrictive terms. - “Geo-political dependence relations were even more important. Geo-political interests of core countries generated direct interventions and support for the repressive apparatus of the state and thus created an unfavorable balance of power between state and civil society for democratization.” (9) – This is a very important point that Bates completely ignores in his book on Africa. - They have a very pro-party view. Their conclusions seem to argue that party establishment is absolutely necessary for the entrenching of democracy. Russia would be a good example of how failure to create parties has stymied the development of democracy. - “the positive association of democracy with a legacy of British colonialism and Protestantism and the negative association of democracy with ethnic diversity.” (9) - They subscribe to the Dahlian, polyarchy, view of democracy: “… state’s responsibility to parliament (possibly complemented by direct election of the head of the executive), on regular free and fair elections, on the freedom of expression and association, and on the extent of the suffrage. - Again, a small thread of Marxism can be detected: “Ultimately, we see in democracy – even in its modest and largely formal contemporary realizations – the beginning of the self-transformation of capitalism.” (11)

II Capitalist Development and Democracy: The Controversy

Early quantitative cross-national studies

- Lipset (1959) – publishes a paper linking democracy and economic development. Focuses on modernization and tolerance. Middle-classes are seen as the stalwarts of democracy. - Phillips Cutright (1963) used multivariate analysis to the problem. Concluded that “political institutions are interdependent with the level of social and economic development.” (15) - Cutright and Wiley (1969) concluded that “the positive association between social and economic development and democracy holds for all four decates [under investigation], and the data suggest a causal priority especially for economic development.” (16) “Demands fir democracy… derive their strength from unmet economic needs.” (16)

Retreat from comprehensive theoretical interpretations

- Ken Bollen (1979) sees “favorable conditions for democracy rooted in the particular historical constellation of early capitalism and it maintains that such favorable conditions are not going to be repeated.” (17) Finds correlation with the number of Protestants in a country. - Presents research (Muller 1988) that argues that income inequality is not necessary for the inauguration of democracy, but is correlated to the changes of maintaining democracy. - Also list research on the dependency of the periphery to the core (Chirot 1977, Thomas 1979, Bollen 1983 and Muller 1985). - Hannan and Carroll (1981) – ethnic diversity as destabilizing factor.

Early comparative historical investigations

- Karl de Schweinitz (1964) argues that latecomers to capitalism need a strong state to espouse protectionist measures in order to stave off competition from the core. - At the same time, modernization gives states more tools with which to practice their repression (similar to Bruno dM argument).

More recent comparative historical work

- O’Donnell (1979) argued that high development of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in many ways resulted in their turn away from democracy in the 60s and 70s. He sees in the domestic inflations of the 50s the roots for social disorder that led to political crisis. o “These regimes insulated economic policy makers from popular pressures and deactivated unions and left-wing political parties, by force if necessary. Thus, it was exactly in the more advanced of the Latin American countries that particularly harsh authoritarian rule was imposed in the 1960s and 1970s.” (22) - Barrington Moore (1966) and his book The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy breaks down the class relations that lead to either the capitalist democracy, fascist dictatorship or communist dictatorship. He also says that “the route that ended up in capitalist democracy… was itself a part of history that almost certainly will not be repeated.” (23) His book is detailed on pages 22-24. - “…Moore’s book represents a towering achievement. It helped transform the social sciences by reestablishing the comparative historical mode of research as the most appropriate way of analyzing macro-social structures and developments.” (25)

Methodological Reflections

- They argue that the most potent argument from O’Donnell’s criticism of quantitative work was his charge that “it is highly problematic to draw diachronic conclusions – about charges over time and thus about causation – from cross- sectional analyses… The systematic exploration of causal conditions through comparative analysis of historical sequences is a cornerstone of our own approach.” (29)

The comparative advantage of historical analyses

- They note the problem that exists between number of case studies and complexity required to understand causal mechanics. - “Our aim is rather to construct a framework of inquiry that is in principle equally well attuned to the study of process and to the recognition of structural constraints.” (33) - Sequencing is another main point here.

A methodological strategy outlined

- “We want to develop a theoretically adequate account of the causal conditions of democracy that is sensitive to the insights of comparative historical research and capable of explaining the persistent statistical relationship between development and democracy.” (36) - They want to use the concept of “analytic induction”: “…more explicitly analytic orientation. It begins with thoroughly reflected analytic concerns and then seeks to move from the understanding of one or a few cases to potentially generalizable theoretical insights capable of explaining the problematic features of each case. These theoretical generalizations are then tested and retested in other detailed case studies.” (36) - CASE STUDY A  ANALYTICAL INDEPTH STUDY  THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS  MORE CASE STUDIES TO TEST THE CONCLUSIONS - They argue that the proper way to come up with theory for testing is to first survey previous research and limited empirical evidence and come up with theory for testing that is then subjected to in-depth case studies. o “The theoretical framework does not represent unchangeable assumptions. It does not constitute a “metatheory” in the sense of a set of premises upon which the validity of any finding is contingent.”

III. Capitalist Development and Democracy: A Theoretical Framework

1. DEMOCRACY AND ITS RELATION TO SOCIAL INEQUALITY

The possibility of democracy

- Existing democracies diverge from an ideal model, but the Dahlian term of plyarchy still holds enough relevance for a study to be conducted. - Democracy can only exist in a society where there is a strong institutional separation of the “realm of politics from the overall system of inequality in society.” (41) - Argue that it is possible for classes to know their interests and to consciously pursue them through a democratic system (counter to what Leninists and Rosa Luxemburg believed)

The concept of democracy

- Concept of democracy: “… first, regular, free and fair elections of representatives with universal and equal suffrage, second, responsibility of the state apparatus to the elected parliament… and third, the freedoms of expression and association as well as the protection of individual rights against arbitrary state action.” (43)

Democracy and class-inequality

- John S. Mill saw in democracy a problem, since a class society would be a divided society. He feared class rule by the working classes, influenced as he was by Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority”. - “It is a central thesis of our theoretical framework that democratization was both resisted an pushed forward by class interest. It was the subordinate classes that fought for democracy. By contrast, the classes that benefited from the status quo nearly without exception resisted democracy.” (46) - They see the introduction of democracy around the world in the 20th century as a legitimizing factor that countries undertake. “However, where democratic institutions rest primarily on such bases rather than on the demand and power of formerly excluded classes, they will be more vulnerable to authoritarian reversals and they are more likely to be merely formal trappings, subject to restrictions such as dominant influence of the military, bureaucracy, or hegemonic party.” (46) - “It is the struggle between the dominant and subordinate classes over the right to rule that –more than any other factor – puts democracy on the historical agenda and decides its prospects. Capitalist development affects the chances of democracy primarily because it transforms the class structure and changes the balance of power between classes. The core of our analytical framework is therefore a ‘relative class power’ model of democratization.” (47)

How central is social class?

- They primarily see class conflict as reflecting the distribution of material goods in the society, this is the main cleavage. - They follow a Gramscian model of civil society that sees independent civil society as necessary for separate classes to begin demanding their political goods. - See ideas, culture and religion as primarily performing a neo-Marxist, hegemonic role of particular classes.

2. CLASS STRUCTURES, CLASS, AND CLASS ORGANIZATIONS