Democracy and economic growth

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Democracy and economic growth are so closely tied that 117 out of 191 independent states today call themselves democratic. Economists and historians remain sharply divided over why that link exists. Does a country grow because it turns democratic, or does it turn democratic because it already grew wealthy? Both directions of that question turn out to be true in different places, and neither offers a single formula. What happens to a country's economy the moment it starts holding real elections? And what happens to democracy itself when growth stalls? Those two questions run through everything ahead.

• 2. Ancient Foundations

  ›

  In the city of Athens, trial by jury, civil liberties, and free speech let residents sustain a self-sufficient city at public expense. Markets and specialization expanded alongside those reforms. Xenophon wrote the first surviving document describing that structure, and the result was a highly positive correlation between democracy and growth.

  Rome went further, building an economic boom on its unmatched iron production and the trade routes of the Pax Romana. Roman government mixed kingship, aristocracy, and democracy in a single structure, and that blend helped drive the growth. Rising military competition forced Rome to spend more on defense, and it paid for that spending by debasing its coins. That debasement eventually pushed the empire back toward a countryside barter economy, closing the era's first democratic experiment.

• 3. Waves of Modern Democratization

  ›

  England's shift from mercantilism to liberalism, paired with the expansion of international trade, pushed political institutions to change to keep development moving. Merchants who gained political power through profits in international trade pushed policymakers to grant them new tools, and the whole economy grew as a result. The Industrial Revolution and the Great Divergence both trace back to these same shifts in political institutions tied to democratization.

  After World War II, more than 100 nations went through a transition in political and economic development. Over the past two decades, a democratic revolution has swept much of the world. Brazil, India, and Mauritius each notched real economic gains during their democratic periods, though none stands as a flawless model. Tunisia and Libya, by contrast, had stronger economic periods before shifting to democratic rule, a difference tied to their own culture and history. Whatever the order, each of these transitions left its economy exposed to a very specific risk in the years immediately following the switch.

• 4. How Democracy Shapes Growth

  ›

  A country that swaps a non-democratic regime for elections typically sees its GDP fall first, before settling into a volatile but rising growth path. Authoritarian regimes tend to show the opposite pattern, growing sharply at first and then declining over the long run. Non-democratic governments are often better at pushing through decisive policy and settling ethnic and sub-national conflicts, which explains their early speed. That same speed becomes their weakness, since they have every incentive to extract wealth from society rather than let it grow.

  Democratic institutions build on liberty and equality instead, and those principles feed directly into the choices firms and individuals make, lifting growth over time. These gains from delegating authority and easing social conflict outweigh democracy's restrictions, especially when set against autocracy. Voters accept hard trade-offs mainly when there is no visible alternative, and that willingness is strongest in more educated societies. A country's existing development level, in other words, helps decide whether its democratic reforms will stick. None of this guarantees success, since for every case that works there is a matching failure, and no single formula exists.

  A 2008 meta-analysis found that democracy carries no direct effect on economic growth at all. Its indirect effects were strong, showing up as higher human capital, lower inflation, less political instability, and greater economic freedom. Researchers tied democracy to better education and longer lifespans, through improvements to schools and healthcare systems. One analysis summarized this by noting that newly empowered workers in developing democracies begin demanding better living conditions, health care, and clean water. Those same conditions raise life expectancy, and rising life expectancy in turn lifts productivity. Some evidence also links democracy to larger governments and more restrictions on international trade.

  Leaving East Asia aside, poor democracies grew their economies 50% faster than nondemocracies over the past forty-five years. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal outpaced nondemocracies like Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.

  Democratizing African countries have sometimes chosen the economically larger autocratic China over democratic Taiwan when weighing aid, trade, and foreign direct investment. That pattern held in all seven African countries that became new democracies after 2000, or that approached an election following a weak economic stretch. Whether any of these regimes hold onto their democratic institutions depends on forces distinct from the growth numbers themselves.

• 5. What Makes Regimes Last

  ›

  Some autocracies collapse in the middle of an economic crisis. Others fall only after decades of prosperity, the death of a founding dictator, or defeat in a foreign war. Predicting exactly when a transition to democracy will happen is difficult, because conditions only create the possibility; people's actions decide the outcome. One school of thought says a civil society forms almost on its own, driven by broader shifts in the social structure. A second school says the outcome hinges on people who play what researchers call the "strategic game," striking a bargain under fixed conditions. The literature frames this as "sociological" versus "strategic," though both forces appear necessary and are not mutually exclusive.

  A country does not need economic growth, usually measured as income per capita, to democratize. The reverse holds too, and a counter-example exists for nearly every case. Political stability, political institutions, social insurance, government capacity, and religion all shape the outcome. Two countries with nearly identical democratic regimes can end up in completely different places. The two concepts complement each other strongly, and history shows real difficulty wherever they have been pulled apart. Executive constraint by legislatures also affects how sharply an economy contracts during a change in leadership.

  A democracy's odds of survival are tied to per capita income, the clearest measure of a country's development level. A second factor is the schooling of the labor force, specifically the average citizen's years of education, which sharply raises survival odds. Income and education are highly correlated, yet their effects appear partly independent, with per capita income carrying the stronger pull. Democracy grows more fragile wherever per capita income stagnates or falls, though researchers have not settled why. Democracy simply shows up more often among economically developed countries and less often among poor ones, which fits this pattern. Lipset's own explanation for why income matters this much is where the story turns next.

• 6. How Growth Shapes Democracy

  ›

  In 1959, Lipset argued that economic development is one of democracy's prerequisites, a view that had already dominated thinking through the 1950s. Both concepts carry equal weight in practice, and each regularly serves as a prerequisite for the other. Economic development can tighten what researchers call the revolution constraint, widen inequality, or simply raise incomes across a society. GDP growth is the most common yardstick, but the deeper shifts include changing productive relationships, workers migrating into cities, and rising human capital and technology. As an economy tilts toward capital intensity, capital starts to matter more than land, one reason richer countries per capita tend to perform better.

  Causality between growth and democracy remains unsettled. Yet growth clearly builds several of democracy's preconditions. Among them are industrialization, urbanization, wider education and literacy, wealth, and a strong middle class invested in protecting its own rights and public affairs. Lipset's comparative studies found a strong statistical link between GNP per capita and democracy. He concluded that "the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chance that it will sustain democracy." That link matters most in shaping new democracies, even though poorer ones can still manage to survive.

  Democracies need certain political institutions, yet those institutions themselves have little measurable impact on economic growth. What matters for development instead is political stability, not any particular kind of institution, since any stable arrangement tends to support growth. Strikes, demonstrations, and riots occur far more often in democracies than in dictatorships, yet that instability does not slow democratic economies. Growth under dictatorships, by contrast, slows sharply whenever a ruler's grip on power looks threatened. Under dictatorships, workers and crowds gather to strike and protest whenever the regime is threatened, and the economy suffers as a result. Under democracies, protest of that kind is rarer, since citizens already know their government will change through normal elections. Gerald Scully offers some of the strongest arguments connecting political instability to growth. These studies find democracies carry a negative but weak effect on growth, while low growth itself can raise the odds of political instability. Whether that damage flows from democracy to growth, or the reverse, is exactly the puzzle researchers tackle next. They start with a set of post-socialist countries.

• 7. Which Comes First

  ›

  Research on post-socialist nations found that rising political freedom had little to no direct effect on their economic growth. Growth still shaped political freedom in the other direction, changing how much freedom those same countries allowed. Wider studies elsewhere found democracy improving growth through higher government spending, greater private investment tied to economic freedom, and social unrest.

  Chile, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea all achieved rapid growth from once-impoverished starting points without real democratic institutions in place. Any political democracy in these countries today only emerged recently. What they shared as backward economies in the past was a relatively free market. Almost none of them used protectionism such as tariffs or import quotas, with South Korea as the one exception. That freedom relieved citizens of heavy taxation and economic regulation, one reason behind their growth. Secure property rights and the rule of law were the other trait these countries held in common.

  India shows a different pattern. Economic prosperity there was jeopardized once people organized into interest groups and lost political freedom, undermining the free market institutions growth depends on. A similar pattern has played out across Africa north of the Sahara, where the same loss of free market institutions still shapes whether growth continues.