Economic Variables In The Process Of Democratization

The relationship between economy and democracy is one of the concerns in modern politics research. Western scholars probe this relationship mainly from two perspectives. Some scholars probe it in relation to economic development, while others probe it in relation to models of economy. It is still controversial among these scholars as to whether democracy promotes economic development. Generally, they consider it uncertain. Some scholars believe that economic development promotes democracy and democratization, among them are Lipset and Huntington, who try to prove it by their hypothesis of positive correlation between economy and democracy and theory of political transition zone respectively. In contrast, other scholars challenge Lipset and Huntington from different point of view. Dahl, for example, believes that centrally planned economy is incompatible with democratic politics. It even hinders the development of democratic system. They believe that social phenomena arising in the process of market economy and marketization provide the foundation for democracy. According to these scholars, even in democratic countries, there is no pure free market economy. Only the mixed economy, with which the government interferes in order to avoid its negative effects, is compatible with stable democratic system. On the one hand, they believe that market economy promotes democracy; on the other hand, they think it is unfavorable for democracy in the sense that it brings about political inequality and is unfavorable to the development of democracy beyond the level of polyarchy. On the basis of this summary, this thesis believes research of these western scholars into the relationship between economy and democracy give great impetus to the development and perfection of the western theory about democracy, whose research results can be drawn on by the developing countries in the process of their democratization. However, we should also admit the research method based on quantitative evidence, which is adopted by theorists led by Lipset, is likely to result in factual description about political phenomena and therefore lack of systematic analysis. This, to certain extent, diminishes the depth of their research.