The relation between market and democracy in the West has been characterized by an high positive correlation, even for those countries contemporary applying authoritarianism in politics and socialism with protectionism in economy. Before 1989, non-Western modernizing countries have often applied two shortcuts. Latin American countries have more respected democracy, but sacrificed market. Instead, Asian countries favored economic liberalization, but within authoritarian regimes. The current research has classified post-1989 economic and political institutions of non-Western countries. There are four possibilities: liberal democracy, protectionist democracy, market authoritarianism, state authoritarianism. Statistics indicators, like those of the Freedom House (for democracy) and the Heritage Foundation (for market), have been used. Quantitative analysis has been coupled with qualitative “area studies” generalizations, for each of them: Eastern Europe, Latin America, North Africa and Middle East, Asia, Sub-Saharian Africa. The empirical evidence has shown that the correlation between democratization and economic liberalization has been high in Eastern Europe and Latin America, medium/high in Asia and intermediate in Middle East and Africa. The two boxes with alternate combinations (much democracy with little laissez faire and much laissez faire with little democracy) are almost empty. Shortcuts have been less drastic than during the cold war; moreover, there are many hybrid regimes and intermediate economic liberalizations. Eastern Europe has made progress in both directions, like Latin America, that is always prioritizing a little bit more democracy. Asia is slowly stabilizing both processes, but economic liberalization is more advances. Correlation between democracy and market is lower in the other two regions; Africa has made some more (limited) political progresses, which is the weakness of Middle East, with only hybrid or authoritarian regimes and more laissez faire in the Gulf monarchies.

Il rapporto fra i processi di democratizzazione e di liberalizzazione economica nei paesi non occidentali dopo l'89

FOSSATI, FABIO
2013-01-01

Abstract

The relation between market and democracy in the West has been characterized by an high positive correlation, even for those countries contemporary applying authoritarianism in politics and socialism with protectionism in economy. Before 1989, non-Western modernizing countries have often applied two shortcuts. Latin American countries have more respected democracy, but sacrificed market. Instead, Asian countries favored economic liberalization, but within authoritarian regimes. The current research has classified post-1989 economic and political institutions of non-Western countries. There are four possibilities: liberal democracy, protectionist democracy, market authoritarianism, state authoritarianism. Statistics indicators, like those of the Freedom House (for democracy) and the Heritage Foundation (for market), have been used. Quantitative analysis has been coupled with qualitative “area studies” generalizations, for each of them: Eastern Europe, Latin America, North Africa and Middle East, Asia, Sub-Saharian Africa. The empirical evidence has shown that the correlation between democratization and economic liberalization has been high in Eastern Europe and Latin America, medium/high in Asia and intermediate in Middle East and Africa. The two boxes with alternate combinations (much democracy with little laissez faire and much laissez faire with little democracy) are almost empty. Shortcuts have been less drastic than during the cold war; moreover, there are many hybrid regimes and intermediate economic liberalizations. Eastern Europe has made progress in both directions, like Latin America, that is always prioritizing a little bit more democracy. Asia is slowly stabilizing both processes, but economic liberalization is more advances. Correlation between democracy and market is lower in the other two regions; Africa has made some more (limited) political progresses, which is the weakness of Middle East, with only hybrid or authoritarian regimes and more laissez faire in the Gulf monarchies.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2746098
 Avviso

Registrazione in corso di verifica.
La registrazione di questo prodotto non è ancora stata validata in ArTS.

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact