Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The central research question in this paper is to investigate the sequence of economic development and democracy in the process of democratization of developing countries. Basically, at least, there are five theoretical models arguing the issue of the priority of development and democracy: First, modernizationists, such as Seymour Lipset, argue that economic growth would lead to democracy, so that “development first, democracy later.” Second, however, Samuel Huntington proposes an alternative explanation of democratization from the perspective of “process” arguing that the outcome of economic development would lead to political decay; then the political system under instability would move toward democracy after institutionalization. Third, in contrast to modernization theory, scholars, who support “democracy first, development later,” such as Joseph Siegle, Michael Weinstein, and Morton Halperin, argue that democracies consistently outperform non-democracies on most indicators of economic and social well-being, so that promoting democracy should be prior to expanding economic development in developing nations. Forth, some scholars, such as Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, argue that although politics indeed influences economic performance, the impact of regime type might not be significant on states’ economic growth; and people do not know whether democracy improves or limits economic development. Fifth, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George Downs find that in the case of China, the result of economic development would not lead to democracy because authoritarian regimes and autocracies around the world show people that they can enjoy the benefits of economic development on the one hand and avoid political liberalization on the other. Their finding runs counter to the argument of modernizationists that democracy is the necessary result of economic development.
After reviewing these five models above, this paper would not have any inclination of supporting any specific theoretical position but attempts to point out that the controversy over the priority of development and democracy should depend on particular cases. In other words, in some cases development leads to democracy: South Korea and Taiwan; in others, democracy is prior to development: India, Dominican Republic, and Mozambique. In addition, this study would attempt to pre-hypothesize that the shift of the international system—from the Cold War to the post-Cold War—is the key to influence the debate of development and democracy: “development first, democracy later” in the era of the Cold War; then “democracy first, development later” under the period of the third wave of global democratization, the post-Cold War, and Anti-terrorism War. Finally, according to these debates above, what would be the implication of American foreign policy of promoting democracy in the world? To the underdevelopment world, should the U.S. assist to develop economy first or to improve democracy first? Or should the U.S. do these two simultaneously?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper argues for the necessity of shifting our attention in the study of democracy from the simple assessment of democratic institutions to examining the relationship between differential institutional performance and democratic quality.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Empirical studies on democratization over time and space clearly show that transitions to democracy cluster geographically. This paper presents an original agent-based model, showing regime diffusion as a product of social cross-border interaction.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper I seek to test a possible explanation for the contradiction between those scholars who contend that the U.S. is a model democracy and those who have contended that democracy has been in decline in the U.S. for many decades. The former may be focusing on democracy as an end, while the latter may be focusing on democracy as a means. Thus, election turnout may decline and major civic organizations may have lost members, but new or rarely used mechanisms may have taken their place. By examining the use of alternative means in the city of Claremont, California, over a two-month period of intense political activity in early 2005, the posited explanation was not substantiated. Alternative means served as means for communicating the views of a small group of individuals and misinformation. Thus, the alternative explanation was not confirmed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: When inequality is too high and thus harmful for a democracy is not as straightforward a question as it might seem. Inequality can be a problem both because it is too high in absolute or relative terms, and because the public thinks it is too high.