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 statesociety 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: states
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

-

ODonnell (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.
Moores 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 ODonnells 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 crosssectional 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

III.

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.
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 Tocquevilles 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

-