Politico-Economic Regimes: An Evaluation
BY JAN-ERIK LANE AND SVANTE ERSSON
Introduction
Perhaps t h e most controversial question in politi­
cal e c o n o m y is the evaluation of the performance
of various types of economic systems o r so-called
politico-economic regimes. Which politico-eco­
nomic system is t h e superior one? This is a p r o b ­
lem to be decided ultimately by values, but t h e
deliberations about pros and cons also involve
matters of fact. D o e s capitalism d o better t h a n
socialism in terms of economic growth? H o w
about t h e degree of inequality in the distribution
of resources in various countries? A n d which type
of regime is more likely to run into double digit
inflation o r hugh national debts?
Not only are economic aspects relevant t o t h e
rise and decline of nations, but we also have to
take into account how countries score on political
criteria of evaluation like e. g. democratic values.
Moreover, how about welfare effort? T h e r e is a
large n u m b e r of relevant evaluation criteria:
which a r e t h e most appropriate ones? A n d any
identification of politico-economic regimes o r
systems faces t r e m e n d o u s conceptual p r o b l e m s in
relation t o how to sort out real life systems with­
out such a simple dichtomy as capitalism versus
socialism. Is it at all possible to say something
about t h e evaluation of regimes from a political
economy perspective given this stage of theoret­
ical and empirical knowledge?
Regimes
T h e r e a r e several relevant ways of classifying sys­
tems from a politico-economic perspective. In t h e
mainstream economics literature t h e focus is o n
the concept of an economic system. A n d a few
key kinds of economic systems are identified and
evaluated. A definition of "economic s y s t e m "
may look as follows:
An economic system is a set of mechanisms and in­
stitutions for decision making and the implementation
of decisions concerning production, income, and con­
sumption within a given geographic area. (Lindbeck,
1977:214)
It follows from such an identification of t h e eco­
nomic system in a country that it covers not only
what traditionally counts as economic institutions
like property and the m a r k e t . A n y description of
an economic system would have to include a
statement of the place of t h e state and t h e range
of mechanisms for public resource allocation and
income redistribution, i . e . political institutions.
T h u s , we may speak of politico-economic
regimes
in order to denote the various ways in which the
m a r k e t , the state, property institutions and p u b ­
lic systems for budget allocation and redistrib­
ution are mixed in different countries.
In their Comparative Economic Systems (1989)
Gregory and Stuart employ a framework for the
analysis of economic systems comprising four ba­
sic features which each has two modes: (1) orga­
nization of decision making: centralization and
decentralization; (2) provision of information and
coordination: market or plan; (3) property rights:
private, cooperative and public; (4) the incentive
system: moral or material. Gregory and Stuart
use these categories to derive t h r e e main types of
politico-economic regimes: capitalism, m a r k e t
socialism and planned socialism. Can we really
speak of actually existing m a r k e t socialist re­
gimes? Is there some kind of p u r e model of cap­
italism which contain t h e essence of all non-so­
cialist systems?
It is interesting to relate the standard cate­
gories in the literature on economic systems to
Gastil's framework, presented in Freedom in the
World (1987) as it is a m o r e refined o n e . Gastil
categorizes politico-economic systems in the fol­
lowing way: (a) capitalist: a high degree of eco­
nomic freedom and relatively little m a r k e t in­
tervention by the state; (b) capitalist-statist: sub­
stantial state intervention in markets and large
62
Jan-Erik Lane & Svante Ersson
public sectors, although t h e state remains com­
mitted to the institutions of private property; (c)
mixed capitalist: an activist state with income re­
distribution, m a r k e t intervention and regulation
although the size of direct budget allocation of re­
sources is not that large; (d) mixed-socialist: some
economic freedom, private property and individ­
ual initiative within t h e framework of a socialist
economy; (e) socialist systems: basically com­
m a n d economies with little of economic freedom,
private property a n d individual intiative.
Gastil classifies a large n u m b e r of countries
with t h e following politico-economic categories
employing the legal status of voluntary exchange
mechanisms and o w n e r s h i p as the crucial charac­
teristics, a m o n g o t h e r s :
Capitalist: U S A , C a n a d a , Dominican R e p u b ­
lic, El Salvador, C o s t a R i c a , Colombia, E c u a d o r ,
Chile, Ireland, Belgium, L u x e m b o u r g , Switzer­
land, Spain, G e r m a n y F R , Iceland, Liberia,
C a m e r o o n , Kenya, Malawi, J o r d a n , South Ko­
rea, J a p a n , T h a i l a n d , Malaysia, Australia, N e w
Zealand, Haiti, Barbados, Guatemala, Hondu­
ras, Cyprus, Niger, Ivory C o a s t , Sierra L e o n e ,
G a b o n , C h a d , L e b a n o n a n d Nepal.
Capitalist-State: M e x i c o , P a n a m a , Venezuela,
Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, P a r a g u a y , A r g e n t i n a , Italy,
G h a n a , Nigeria, Z a i r e , South Africa, M a r o c c o ,
I r a n , Turkey, India, Pakistan, Sri L a n k a , Philip­
pines, Indonesia, J a m a i c a , Trinidad, M a u r i t a n i a ,
Central African Republic, U g a n d a , Saudi A r a b i a
and Taiwan.
Mixed-Capitalist:
U r u g u a y , United K i n g d o m ,
N e t h e r l a n d s , F r a n c e , Portugal, Austria, G r e e c e ,
Finland, Sweden, N o r w a y , D e n m a r k , Senegal,
Tunisia, Israel, Singapore, Nicaragua, G u i n e a ,
B u r u n d i , Sudan and E g y p t .
Mixed-Socialist:
Yugoslavia, Z a m b i a , M a d a ­
gascar, G u y a n a , Mali, B u r k i n a Faso, Togo, Con­
go, R w a n d a , Somalia, Libya, Syria, China a n d
Burma.
Socialist:
G e r m a n y D R , Hungary, Soviet
U n i o n , Bulgaria, R o m a n i a , Czechoslovakia, Tan­
zania, E t h i o p i a , Algeria, I r a q , Albania, B e n i n ,
Angola, M o z a m b i q u e , Afghanistan, Mongolia,
North Korea, C a m b o d i a , Laos and Cuba.
—There-are-a-few-majorproblems'irrrelatiorrto"
the Gastil framework and its classification. First­
ly, are t h e categories really conceptually distinct?
Whereas it may b e empirically feasible to dis­
tinguish t h e capitalist systems from the mixedcapitalist o n e s , t h e distinction between mixedsocialist and socialist is m o r e troublesome to a p ­
ply o n t o real world systems. Similarly, t h e sep­
aration between capitalist and capitalist-state is
not all together easy to handle.
Secondly, any classification of countries into
types of politico-economic regimes is b o u n d to b e
time d e p e n d e n t . Gastil's classification refers to
the late 1970s and early 1980s but politico-eco­
nomic structures are not invariant over time. If
the effort is to evaluate the performance of poli­
tico-economic regimes over time during t h e post
World W a r II period, t h e n t h e classification has
to b e reworked for s o m e countries at certain
points of time.
Thirdly, when evaluating types of politico-eco­
nomic regimes it is vital that enough countries be
covered so that the conclusions apply t o systems
with different backgrounds. O n the o t h e r h a n d , it
is not necessary to include each and every country
in t h e analysis, simply because the country back­
ground may be too deviant. T h u s , o n e could re­
frain from including countries that have h a d to
face extended processes of internal or external in­
stability like e . g . war experience.
T h e description of the Federal Republic of
G e r m a n y as only capitalist must be questioned
given t h e strong tradition towards t h e welfare
state in t h e 1949 consitution. Similarly, Portugal
and Spain should be regrouped in t h e light of t h e
strong state involvement in these societies, at
least during the fascist period. T h e m o r e detailed
description of some African and Asian countries
is o p e n to discussion. In o r d e r to illustrate t h e dif­
ficulties in classifying countries in terms of poli­
tico-economic categories we will m a k e a short
geographical overview of the major countries on
each continent employing inter alia The Econo­
mist Atlas (1989) and Political Systems of The
World (1989). Which evaluation criteria should
we concentrate on when describing politico-eco­
nomic systems?
Performance
Gregory and Stuart evaluate the performance of
their t h r e e types of economic systems by m e a n s
of a set of outcomes: economic growth, efficien­
cy, i n c o m e distribution, stability, development
objectives and national existence, where the
overall finding is t h e p r e c e d e n c e of t h e capitalist
type o n these evaluation criteria in relation t o the
others. However, why should we focus o n these
criteria? In o r d e r to evaluate how various types of
politico-economic systems d o in the real world
Politico-Economic . . .
o n e could employ both economic and political
evaluation criteria.
H e r e w e only attempt to suggest s o m e prelimi­
nary steps towards the evaluation of politico-eco­
nomic regimes. We will focus on five dimensions
of politico-economic regimes which may b e m e a ­
sured by m e a n s of specific evaluation criteria: two
economic o n e s , two political ones a n d finally o n e
social indicator. T h e average rate of economic
growth over a n u m b e r of years taps a dynamic as­
pect of politico-economic regimes w h e r e a s the
average yearly rate of inflation captures a stabil­
ity aspect. T h e evaluation criteria in a democracy
index indentifies several crucial performance as­
pects in relation to h u m a n values such as freedom
and equality whereas a welfare effort index m e a ­
sures a different aspect on politico-economic per­
formance. Finally, there is the inequality dimen­
sion t o b e measured by an indicator on t h e skewness in t h e distribution of income which is a
standard o u t c o m e criterion.
To sum u p , we will consider t h e following di­
mensions of a politico-economic regime in a
country: economic growth, inflation, democratic
rights and welfare effort by the state as well as the
extent of inequality in t h e distribution of income.
T h u s , we have the following evaluation criteria:
(i) economic growth (EG): growth in real G D P
p e r capita in international U S dollars between
1980 to 1985; (ii) inflation (I): average annual
rates of inflation during 1980-1985; (iii) demo­
cratic rights (D): the status of democracy about
1980 as m e a s u r e d by a complex index covering
h u m a n rights, political competition and so on
( H u m a n a ' s index); (iv) welfare effort by the state
(W): a complex index calculated by Estes for
roughly 1980; (v) income inequality (Q): the
share of t h e t o p quintile of the total national in­
c o m e m e a s u r e d on income data for about the
1970ies.
These evaluation criteria - economic, political
and social - have been measured in various data
sources stated in A p p e n d i x 1. T h e rationale for
the selection of these five evaluation criteria is
simply t h a t they are often used. O t h e r criteria
like u n e m p l o y m e n t , trade pattern and political
stability could have been employed, but there is
n o natural limit where to stop. Let us t a k e a close
look at t h e country variation in politico-economic
regimes and their performance a r o u n d 1980 by
moving from one continet t o a n o t h e r focussing on
economic growth, inflation, democratic perform­
ance, welfare effort and inequality. T h e data
63
about t h e size of the population in various coun­
tries refer to about 1985.
America
T h e predominant orientation of the countries on
the American continent towards some type of
capitalist politico-economic regime is obvious,
but there is much m o r e t o be said about the nu­
ances. T h e r e has existed systems that fall outside
of the set of capitalist regimes. It is true that the
two examples of a socialist politico-economic re­
gime - C u b a (10 million) and until the 1990 elec­
tion Nicaragua (3.3 million) - are small states
when compared with t h e giant capitalist nations
in this hemisphere. A s t h e r e is hardly any case of
a mixed-capitalist regime in America, the basic
devision a m o n g t h e countries on the A m e r i c a n
continent is between two types of capitalist re­
gimes, decentralized capitalist and capitalist-state
regimes. Besides C a n a d a (25.4 million) the Unit­
ed States (239 million) belongs to the former cat­
egory where also a n u m b e r of small countries in
the Caribbean islands a n d Central A m e r i c a
should be placed: El Salvador (5.6 million), D o ­
minican Republic (6.3 million), B a r b a d o s (0.3
million), G u a t e m a l a (8 million), H o n d u r a s (4.4
million) and Costa Rica (2.6 million).
T h e difficulty in drawing t h e demarcation line
between capitalist and capitalist-state regimes is
obvious with regard to E c u a d o r (9.4 million) and
Chile (12 million), but we follow the Gastil classi­
fication here. T h e remaining countries should be
classified as capitalist-state. H e r e , we have the gi­
ant countries in Latin A m e r i c a : Mexico (79 mil­
lion), Brazil (136 million) and Argentina (31 mil­
lion). Into the same t y p e of politico-economic
systems enters a n u m b e r of countries with fairly
large populations: Venezuela (17.3 million), Peru
(18.7 million), and Bolivia (6.4 million). To t h e
same set belongs a few less populous countries
like Paraguay (3.4 million), P a n a m a (2.2 million),
Trinidad (1.2 million) a n d Jamaica (2.2 million).
It must be explicitly p o i n t e d out that the sep­
aration between decentralized capitalist and cap­
italism-state regimes is difficult to apply with pre­
cision. H o w to classify U r u g u a y (3 million) is an
open question, as it is s o m e t i m e s designated as a
mixed-capitalist system. A n overall picture of
politico-economic p e r f o r m a n c e on the A m e r i c a n
continent is given in Table 1.
64
Jan-Erik Lane & Svante Ersson
Table 1. Politico-economic
Canada
USA
Mexico
El Salvador
Dominican rep
Guatemala
Honduras
Costa Rica
Panama
Colombia
Venezuela
Ecuador
Peru
Chile
Bolivia
Paraguay
Brazil
Argentina
Uruguay
EG 80-85
1.27
1.65
-1.34
-2.51
-1.03
-2.94
-2.54
-2.10
.60
.31
-3.30
-1.41
-2.32
-3.06
^t.80
.14
-.37
-3.29
-3.85
regimes in
America
180-85
6.3
5.3
62.2
11.6
14.6
7.4
5.4
36.4
3.7
22.5
9.2
29.7
98.6
19.3
569.1
15.8
147.7
342.8
44.6
D 80
94
92
67
30
75
30
75
90
84
62
89
85
81
37
50
30
70
44
50
W80
16
13
5
6
5
2
1
6
7
11
4
10
9
20
8
8
16
12
16
Q 75
41.0
42.8
64.0
54.4
57.5
58.8
67.8
50.6
61.8
58.5
54.0
72.0
61.0
51.4
61.0
-
66.6
50.3
47.4
Note: EG 80-85 = average yearly economic growth between 1980-85; 180-85 = average yearly inflation rate between
1980-85; D 80 = Humana's democracy index for about 1980; W 80 = Estes' welfare effort index for roughly 1980; Q
75 = inequality scores for the 1970s. The higher the score on D 80, W 80 andQ75, the more of democracy, welfareeffort and income inequality.
T h e performance d a t a o n politico-economic in
the Western hemisphere indicate severe p r o b l e m s
of both an economic a n d political nature. A l m o s t
all countries in Latin A m e r i c a did badly on t h e
evaluation criteria e m p l o y e d here in t h e late
1970s and early 1980s. T h e decentralized capital­
ist regimes score higher o n most criteria com­
pared with the state-capitalist regimes. Several
large nations on the A m e r i c a n continent have
had t o face not only i n c o m e inequalities, hyper­
inflation and sluggish e c o n o m i c growth, but they
have also scored low o n democracy and welfare
effort.
T h e status of democracy is confusing in Latin
A m e r i c a . T h e r e is a conspicuous lack of a sub­
stantial and positive relationship between af­
fluence and democratic political institutions in
-Latih-America.contrar.y-tO-the-wellr.known-wealth.
model of democracy (Lipset, 1959; O ' D o n n e l l ,
1973). Democracy as a regime displays a circular
existence pattern over time as Figure 1 shows.
It remains a puzzle to account for the swing
back and forth b e t w e e n democratic and author­
itarian rule in Latin A m e r i c a .
Africa
T h e r e a r e few giant nations on the African conti­
nent. In t e r m s of politico-economic orientation
there is an interesting pattern of a blend of cap­
italist a n d socialist regimes, often existing side by
side. In t h e north there is Morocco (22 million)
which is a capitalist-state co-existing with a n u m ­
ber of m o r e socialist oriented regimes in C a p e
Verde (0.3 million), Algeria (21.9 million), Libya
(3.6 million), Egypt (47.1 million), S u d a n (22 mil­
lion), E t h i o p i a (42.3 million) and Somalia (5.4
million). H o w these socialist regimes are to be d e ­
scribed in m o r e detail is not altogether clear, as
Libya a n d Ethiopia are much m o r e marxist ori­
ented t h a n Sudan and Egypt. Algeria has moved
towards m o r e of capitalism during the 80ies as
has S u d a n , but both must be classified as socialist
regimes-around-1980rTunisia-("7'rl-million)-is-difficult to place, Gastil suggesting that it belongs to
the mixed-capitalist type:
In West Africa the prevailing regime types are
decentralized capitalism or state-capitalism:
Mauritania (1.7 million), Senegal (6.6 million),
G a m b i a (1 million), Liberia (2.2 million), Sierra
Politico-Economic . . .
H o w to separate a capitalist regime from a cap­
italist-state regime in this part of the world is not
always easy. T h u s , it has been argued that cap­
italist Singapore (2.6 million) belongs to the
mixed-capitalist t y p e , which is debtable t o say the
least. Populous Indonesia (162.2 million) may be
designated capitalist-state as should t h e Phillippines (54.7 million). Into the set of socialist poli­
tico-economic regimes enter mainland China
(1042 million), N o r t h Korea (20.4 million), Mon­
golia (2 million), V i e t n a m (62 million), C a m b o ­
dia (7.3 million) and Laos (3.6 million).
In relation to t h e evaluation of t h e perform­
ance of politico-economic regimes in Asia one
must take into account the e n o r m o u s impact of
long time periods of external o r internal war.
W h e n presenting d a t a on t h e preformance of
Asian politico-economic regimes we focus in par­
ticular on countries where about 1980 war in­
volvement had not h a d a drastic impact on the
country. Table 3 has t h e data.
T h e overall picture when evaluating politicoeconomic regimes on t h e Asian continent includ­
ing South E a s t Asia is very much different from
that of Latin A m e r i c a or Africa. E v e n though the
Table 3. Politico-economic
Israel
Jordan
Syria
Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Pakistan
India
Sri Lanka
Burma
Thailand
Malaysia
Singapore
South Korea
Taiwan
Japan
China
Indonesia
Philippines
Australia
New Zealand
North Korea
EG 80-85
.34
2.02
-.93
-<5.03
5.54
majority of countries are L D C : s o r NIC.s. Poli­
tico-economic performance has been o n the
whole much m o r e impressive a m o n g the set of
Asian countries. T h e average rate of economic
growth tends to be higher and the level of in­
flation lower. S o m e countries display exception­
ally high average growth rates in their economies.
W h e n it comes to t h e political criteria of eval­
uation things are not as bright as when t h e eco­
nomic evaluation criteria were applied. It is true
that there are quite a n u m b e r of countries that
score high on the democratic index, but there is
also a large n u m b e r of countries that are rightwing or left-wing authoritarian regimes. Besides
the level of welfare state effort' tends to b e very
low and the extent of income inequality high.
Europe
It remains to look at politico-economic perform­
ance in the old world, h e r e covering both western
and eastern E u r o p e including the USSR and Tur­
key. O n the E u r o p e a n continent in this wide
sense all the various politico-economic regime
types may be found. It is not easy to draw a sharp
regimes in Asia and
Oceania
I 80-85
196.3
3.9
6.1
D 80
73
50
34
27
30
29
30
42
70
75
50
64
54
61
51
53
92
32
53
51
93
96
22
-.36
2.76
3.69
4.73
2.55
2.03
1.62
11.51
4.83
3.77
2.73
8.49
3.01
-2.04
1.00
1.44
-
Note: for the abbreviations see Table 1.
-8.1
7.8
14.7
2.6
3.2
3.1
3.1
6.0
-1.2
2.4
10.7
19.3
9.1
9.8
-
67
W80
7
3
1
5
9
Q75
39.9
-3
49.2
6
5
3
1
4
4
0
-
12
-6
62.7
44.5
-
53.4
56.4
-
42.7
39.2
41.0
-
4
22
25
52.0
54.0
43.0
41.4
-
-
68
Jan-Erik Lane & Svante Ersson
dividing line between the various kinds of capital­
ist regimes, but a preliminary classification may
be suggested for the early 1980s.
To t h e set of mixed-capitalist systems should be
counted all countries with a strong welfare state
combined with extensive m a r k e t allocation. T h e
set of mixed-capitalist regimes includes several
small a n d a few large countries: Norway (4.1 mil­
lion), Finland (4.9 million), Sweden (8.3 million),
D e n m a r k (5.1 million), Iceland (0.2 million),
Netherlands (16.6 million), Belgium (9.9 mil­
lion), United Kingdom (56.6 million), Ireland
(3.6 million), Federal Republic of G e r m a n y (61
million), Austria (7.6 million), F r a n c e (55.1 mil­
lion) a n d Italy. Perhaps o n e may argue that Italy
(57 million) could be placed a m o n g the capitaliststate regimes, b u t this applies only if the time p e ­
riod studied is t h e 1950s o r 1960s. Equally debat­
able is the classificaiton of Spain (38.7 million)
and Portugal (10.2 million) which, however, is
here placed a m o n g t h e set of capitalist-state re­
gimes as we refer to t h e early 1980s. Into the cate­
Table 4. Politico-economic
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Germany FR
Austria
France
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Greece
Turkey
Yugoslavia
Romania
-Bulgaria
Hungary
CSSR
Poland
USSR
Germany DR
gory of capitalist regimes we enter L u x e m b o u r g
(0.4 million), Switzerland (6.4 million), G r e e c e
(10 million) and Turkey (52 million), although
Turkey could b e placed a m o n g the capitalist-state
regimes.
U p until 1989 the socialist regime type covered
the entire E a s t e r n E u r o p e including the U S S R .
T h u s , there was a n u m b e r of populous socialist
countries and o n e giant such system: Poland (37.3
million), G e r m a n Democratic Republic (16.7
million), Czechoslovakia (15.5 million), H u n g a r y
(10.7 million), R o m a n i a (22.9 million), Bulgaria
(9 million), Yugoslavia (23.1 million), Albania (3
million) and t h e Soviet Union (276 million). O n e
may wish to distinguish between various types of
socialist regimes, but it is far from evident how
such distinctions are to be applied empirically in a
systematic way.
Table 4 covers performance d a t a for the E u ­
ropean politico-economic regimes in the early
1980s. T h e tiny countries on t h e E u r o p e a n conti­
nent have b e e n excluded.
regimes in Europa
EG 80-85
2.30
1.67
1.96
2.23
.10
.88
.93
1.44
1.04
.40
1.42
.40
.61
.83
-.02
.31
1.54
1.16
1.38
r7-l.78
1.00
-.31
1.90
1.79
Note: abbreviations see Table 1.
I 80-85
8.5
8.6
8.6
8.1
3.5
5.9
10.8
6.4
4.5
3.2
4.9
9.5
14.2
12.6
22.7
20.6
37.1
45.1
D 80
95
96
94
96
94
92
86
95
92
91
92
88
88
78
86
80
43
55
32
-37
54
36
36
27
35
W 80
24
18
23
28
25
25
25
25
19
29
28
26
26
21
13
16
5
19
17
20
22
24
18
16
-
Q 75
37.3
37.0
38.6
40.0
39.8
39.4
39.2
45.2
46.4
46.5
45.2
49.1
58.6
41.5
33.4
30.9
Politico-Economic . . .
T h e mixed-capitalist regimes did n o t only d o
well on the political evaluation criteria which was
expected, but they also showed fairly reasonable
economic performance although certainly not do­
ing exceptionally well. T h e communist regimes
a p p e a r to begin to face severe economic problems
in t h e early 1980s which have since aggravated.
S o m e of t h e capitalist countries are plagued by
-hyperinflation, a p h e n o m e n o n w h i c h is expressed
- cueing - quite differently in t h e socialist sys­
tems. T h e level of income inequality tends to
rather low in E u r o p e , although d a t a are missing
for s o m e countries.
We may conclude this elementary geographical
overview by noting that there a p p e a r s t o exist a
systematic variation across t h e four continents.
E c o n o m i c performance tends to b e problematic
o n t h e Latin A m e r i c a n and African continents
whereas countries in the Asian and E u r o p e a n
sets tend t o d o fairly well. High scores o n t h e p o ­
litical performance criteria are to be found mainly
on t h e E u r o p e a n continent. However, such a geo­
graphical description is more misleading t h a n cla­
rifying as there are exceptions from t h e general
pattern within each continent. W h a t , t h e n , ac­
counts for the overall performance p a t t e r n of po­
litico-economic regimes? D o e s s o m e special type
of politico-economic regime matter for economic
and political system performance? Let us move t o
an analysis of variance of the s a m e information
reported on above.
Evaluation
Having m a d e a kind of geographical description
of politico-economic performance in a n u m b e r of
countries o n different continents, we now turn to
an analysis in o r d e r to find out w h e t h e r there is
s o m e pattern u n d e r n e a t h the surface uncovered.
Is it true that one kind of economic system or pol­
itico-economic regime - capitalism - performs
better than its main competitor - socialism? H o w
can we test this hypothesis? If it were true that
capitalism did better than socialism, t h e n per­
formance data - economic growth and inflation,
democracy and welfare effort and inequality would tend to differ between regimes with regard
t o average performance scores. Is this the case?
Since the dichotomy between capitalism and so­
cialism is too crude we c o m p a r e t h r e e types of
capitalist regimes with the socialist type of poli­
tico-economic system. Let us try a n analysis of
variance of the differences b e t w e e n and within
t h e four main categories of politico-economic re­
69
gimes in order t o test the hypothesis that all
brands of capitalism perform better than social­
ism.
Below we report on t h e findings from an analy­
sis of variance of t h e performance data o n these
four sets of regimes. S o m e statistics are rendered
for each of the evaluation criteria: mean values,
maxima and minima as well as CV-scores and the
Eta-squared statistic. W e are interested in how
these different g r o u p s of politico-economic re­
gimes perform in relation to each other as well as
how much variation t h e r e is within t h e various
groups of regimes. T h e basic question is this: Is
there more variation between the four sets of re­
gimes than within these four subsets themselves?
If the Eta-squared statistic shows scores that are
larger than . 5 , t h e n we may conclude that t h e dis­
tinctions between t h e four politico-economic re­
gimes are real. If, o n t h e contrary, t h e Etasquared statistic is lower than . 5 , then there is
more variation within these categories meaning
that the regime p r o p e r t y itself does not matter for
the variation in p e r f o r m a n c e .
Table 5 presents a tentative classification of
politico-economic t y p e s . Starting from t h e Gastil
framework we have d o n e s o m e changes when
classifying countries into sets of politico-econom­
ic regimes. O n t h e o n e h a n d , a few countries have
been classified s o m e w h a t differently; Italy, for
example, has b e e n placed a m o n g the mixed-cap­
italist systems and n o t as a capitalist-state system.
O n t h e other h a n d , t h e two categories of mixedsocialist and socialist have been collapsed to o n e
single category. W e h a v e reduced the n u m b e r of
countries ( N = 8 4 ) included in t h e analysis of var­
iance of the p e r f o r m a n c e scores, concentrating
mainly on large countries. T h e classification has
been checked with The Economist Atlas and Po­
litical Systems of the World.
A m o n g t h e capitalist systems we find both
O E C D countries a n d Third World countries.
This category is t o b e found on all the continents
as it includes t h e U S and C a n a d a , E c u a d o r and
Chile, Greece a n d Switzerland, Niger, Ivory
Coast and Kenya, J o r d a n , Thailand and Malaysia
as well as J a p a n , a n d finally Australia and New
Zealand. T h e capitalist-state type covers politicoeconomic regimes w h e r e the state plays a large
role within the framework of an extensive private
property system a n d m a r k e t allocation. This cate­
gory includes mainly Third World countries in
Latin America: A r g e n t i n a , Brazil, Mexico and
Venezuela, or in Africa: U g a n d a , Morocco and
70
Jan-Erik Lane & Svante Ersson
Table 5. Classification
of politico-economic
regimes about 1980
Capitalist
Capitalist-state
Mixed-capitalist
Socialist
USA
Canada
Dominican rep
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Guatemala
Honduras
Ecuador
Colombia
Chile
Switzerland
Greece
Niger
Kenya
Malawi
Liberia
Cameroon
Taiwan
Jordan
South Korea
Japan
Thailand
Singapore
Malaysia
Australia
New Zealand
Ivory Coast
Sierra Leone
Gabon
Chad
Mexico
Panama
Venezuela
Peru
Brazil
Bolivia
Paraguay
Argentina
Ghana
Nigeria
Zaire
Morocco
Iran
Portugal
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Phillippines
Indonesia
Uganda
Spain
Turkey
Ireland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
France
Italy
Austria
Germany DR
Yugoslavia
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Romania
Soviet Union
China
Zambia
Madagascar
Burkina Faso
Egypt
Sudan
Lybia
Burma
Tanzania
Algeria
Iraq
Benin
Afghanistan
North Korea
Poland
Germany FR
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Belgium
Note: This classification of politico-economic regimes follows Gastil's framework with some changes. The classifica­
tion of countries like Spain, Portugal or Singapore is debatable (Gastil, 1987).
Nigeria, as well as in in Asia: Taiwan, Philippines
and Indonesia. H o w t o apply this category o n t o
O E C D countries is d e b a t a b l e . Turkey is often
designated as capitalist-state, b u t how about
Spain and Portugal with r e g a r d t o their fascist
heritage?
T h e r e are several O E C D c o u n t r i e s in the set of
mixed-capitalist
systems. Actually, most of t h e
-West-European-nations-enter-this~categ©ry~be
cause of their welfare state o r i e n t a t i o n . W h e t h e r
we also find s o m e Third World countries in this
category is to b e d o u b t e d as welfare state spend­
ing is low a m o n g p o o r countries. T h e category of
mixed-socialist o r socialist c o u n t r i e s covers main­
ly T h i r d World socialist regimes besides the C o m ­
r
munist countries. T h u s , all politico-economic re­
gime types besides t h e mixed-capitalist category
include both rich and p o o r countries. A necessary
but not sufficiency condition for welfare state
spending o n a g r a n d scale - big government with­
out socialism - is a rich economy ( L a n e & E r s ­
son, 1990).
We will start with t h e economic dimension, including"indices t h a t m e a s u r e t h e level of affluence
and the average economic growth for various
time periods during the post World W a r Two pe­
riod as well as an indicator on the extent of in­
flation b e t w e e n 1980-85. T h e n we will take u p
the political evaluation criteria.
Politico-Economic...
71
finding is supported by the very high CV-scores
measuring the within g r o u p variation. T h e socia­
list regimes and t h e capitalist-state regimes tend
to have a lower level of affluence when m e a n va­
lues are focussed o n . W e also note that the maxi­
mum values in these two sets are high as well as
that there are low scoring countries in all four sets
of politico-economic regimes.
T h e prosperous time period-from-the fifties and
the sixties u p to the mid-seventies with tremen­
dous growth in o u t p u t as well as in trade bene­
fitted all four types of politico-economic regimes
about equally when w e focus on average income
per capita in various countries. T h e mean income
for all the countries included here grew. A similar
expansion took place in all the four sets taken
separately, although t h e increase in the maximum
values is much larger t h a n t h e increase in the
minimum values. Table 7 reports o n how t h e dif­
ferent regimes p e r f o r m e d when the world econo­
my moved into a lower level of activity, if not
some years of recession.
Level of affluence
It is often argued that capitalist systems have a
higher level of affluence than socialist ones. Is
this true once we m a k e the concepts of capitalism
and socialism more refined? Tables 6 a n d 7 partly
confirm t h e general impression that capitalism
performs better t h a n socialism in t e r m s of eco­
nomic prosperity, b u t we must take a closer took
at various kinds of capitalist regimes comparing
t h e m with socialist regimes. L e t us begin back in
1960 (Table 6).
Fifteen years after t h e end of t h e Second World
W a r the capitalist and mixed-capitalist regimes
had a higher level of affluence on an average t h a n
t h e socialist type of regimes. Since t h e mixedcapitalist type does not cover any T h i r d World
country t h e distance between t h e average score
for t h e mixed-capitalist regime is far higher than
t h e average affluence scores of t h e capitalist and
the socialist regimes. Yet, the average real G D P
per capita was higher in the capitalist set of coun­
tries than in t h e set of socialist countries. T h e dif­
ference was not striking or 1972 $ versus 1708 $ on
an average. T h e variation as m e a s u r e d by the
CV-scores was quite extensive a m o n g b o t h cap­
italist and socialist regimes as o p p o s e d to the fair­
ly h o m o g e n e o u s set of mixed-capitalist regimes
which are mainly welfare states in Western E u ­
rope.
During the 1970s a n d early 1980s the country
mean average income measures rose again, al­
though not as rapidly as during the 1950s and
1960s. T h e increase w a s , however, weak a m o n g
the capitalist-state regimes which had begun to
lag behind. Actually, t h e average level of af­
fluence among t h e capitalist-state regimes was re­
duced in the early 1980ies. T h e other major find­
ing is the poor d e v e l o p m e n t in the socialist group
of countries which n o longer keeps pace with the
group of capitalist o r mixed-capitalist regimes. It
seems as if the mixed-capitalist group managed
the economic crisis of the 1970ies a n d early
1980ies somewhat better than the set of capitalist
regimes.
However, t h e state-capitalist regimes display a
lower real G D P p e r capita than t h e socialist re­
gimes when average scores are considered. T h u s ,
we cannot say that generally capitalism is com­
bined with a higher level of affluence t h a n social­
ism. Moreover, the variation between a n d within
t h e four sets of politico-economic regimes is such
that it negates an overall generalization that capi­
talism always does better than socialism in terms
of country affluence. T h e E t a - s q u a r e d score in­
dicate that the variation within the groups is lar­
ger than the variation between the groups. This
T h e general finding is that the gap between the
capitalist and mixed-capitalist regimes on the o n e
hand and the socialist a n d state-capitalist sets of
regimes on the other h a n d has increased since the
Table 6. Real GDP per capita 1960 in regime sets.
Mean
Max
Min
CV
Capitalist (N=30)
Capitalist-state (N=22)
Mixed-capitalist (N=12)
Socialist (N=19)
1 872
1 319
4 427
1 708
7380
5308
5 490
4 516
237
314
2 545
208
1.11
.87
.20
.79
Total (N=83)
2 057
7 380
208
.89
Source: Summers & Heston, 1988.
Eta
2
72
Jan-Erik Lane & Svante Ersson
Table 7. Real GDP per capita in 1985 in regime sets.
Mean
Max
Min
CV
Capitalist (N=30)
Capitalist-state (N=22)
Mixed-capitalist (N=12)
Socialist (N=20)
3 811
2173
9 359
3 009
12 532
6 437
12 623
8 740
254
210
5 205
355
1.01
.73
.20
.90
Total (N=84)
3 984
12 623
210
.91
Source: Summers & Heston, 1988.
1960s. L o o k i n g at country m e a n values t h e
mixed-capitalist regimes in 1985 h a d a level of af­
fluence trice that of t h e capitalist-state regimes as
well as that of t h e socialist regimes whereas t h e
set of capitalist regimes displayed twice as high
average income values as t h e s e two politico-eco­
nomic regimes that lag b e h i n d . M o r e specifically,
it is found that politico-economic regimes that in­
volve t h e state or t h e public sector to a large ex­
tent in t h e actual o p e r a t i o n s of t h e economy d o
worse than politico-economic regimes which trust
markets m o r e .
Interestingly, t h e higher E t a - s q u a r e d statistic
for t h e 1985 d a t a indicate t h a t politico-economic
regime does m a t t e r s o m e w h a t . T h e within group
variation is only slighly larger t h a n t h e between
group variation. T h e mixed-capitalist d o much
better t h a n t h e p u r e capitalistic regimes and t h e
state-capitalist systems, simply because the wel­
fare state is to b e found a m o n g rich countries.
T h e socialist regimes have n o t d o n e well but also
not extremely badly, as they t e n d t o have a higher
level of affluence than t h e capitalist-state re­
gimes. However, they cannot c o m p e t e with the
capitalistic o n e s or t h e mixed-capitalist regimes.
T h u s , we may conclude t h a t t h e r e is some truth
to t h e claim that a socialist r e g i m e m e a n s less of
economic affluence t h a n a capitalist regime, b u t
also that t h e hypothesis implies an oversimplifica­
tion.
Tables 8. Economic
growth 1980-85
Economic growth and inflation
T h e gap b e t w e e n t h e set of socialist politico-eco­
nomic systems and two of t h e capitalist types of
systems has increased in terms of G D P p e r cap­
ita. May we conclude that t h e rate of economic
growth is higher a m o n g these two types of cap­
itahst regimes t h a n in t h e set of socialist regimes?
Yes, but only for a longer time period like 196085. T h e r e is t o o much variation between t h e
countries within all three sets with regard to dif­
ferent periods of time to permit any general con­
clusion that capitalism performs better than so­
cialism with regard to yearly economic growth
rates. Let us use m o r e refined concepts for poli­
tico-economic systems and look at t h e average
growth rates in t h e early 1980s. Table 8 has t h e
data.
A n y simple generalization about politico-eco­
nomic systems fails to d o justice to t h e real world
differences in average growth rates. D u r i n g t h e
five year p e r i o d between 1980 and 1985 when t h e
world e c o n o m y was characterized by a low level
of activity t h e r e a r e n o principal differences in ec­
onomic growth b e t w e e n the four sets of politicoeconomic regimes. All the variation is to b e
found within t h e four groups as t h e extremely low
Eta-squared m e a s u r e shows. T h e r e are examples
of very high average growth rates a m o n g capital­
ist, state-capitalist and socialist regimes just as
among regime sets.
Mean
Max
Min
Capitalist (N=30)
Capitalist-state (N=22)
Mixed-capitalist (N=12)
Socialist (N=20)
0.2
0.1
1.3
0.5
11.5
5.8
2.3
8.5
-4.7
-4.9
0.1
-6.0
Total (N=84)
0.4
11.5
-6.0
Source: Summers & Heston, 1988.
Eta
.02
2
Politico-Economic . . .
Table 9. Average rate of inflation
73
1980-85
Mean
Max
Min
CV
Capitalist (N=27)
Capitalist-state (N=20)
Mixed-capitalist (N=12)
Socialist ( N = l l )
11.2
75.7
7.7
15.5
36.4
569.1
14.2
45.1
1.2
3.7
3.2
2.4
.80
1.84
.41
.84
Total (N=70)
29.7
569.1
1.2
2.68
Eta
2
Source: World Bank, 1987.
there exist cases of very negative growth rates in
the same categories of politico-economic re­
gimes. W e cannot say that, generally speaking,
capitalism all t h e time and everywhere does bet­
ter t h a n socialism in terms of economic growth.
It is possible to b r o a d e n t h e evaluation of vari­
ous politico-economic regimes by bringing in ad­
ditional economic evaluation criteria. H e r e we
will look quickly at inflation. T h e yearly rate of
inflation has c o m e to be regarded as a m o r e and
m o r e important sign of stability in economic sys­
tems. T h e disruptive consequences of hyperinfla­
tion are feared all over the world. It seems as if
governments in rich countries p u t m o r e emphasis
o n t h e policy goal of a low average rate of in­
flation than on reducing u n e m p l o y m e n t . In any
case, a high level of inflation is looked u p o n as a
sign of fundamental economic instability. A r e
there any systematic differences tied to t h e vari­
ous types of politico-economic regimes in terms
of the average level of inflation in t h e early
1980s? Table 9 presents an overview of the sit­
uation.
T h e overall finding is that besides t h e capital­
ist-state type it is not possible t o trace a special
pattern of inflation a m o n g the four categories or
groups of politico-economic regimes. Although
t h e set of mixed-capitalist systems displays less
spread b e t w e e n t h e maximum a n d minimum
Table 10. Democracy
rates of inflation, t h e statistics reported on above
d o not differentiate b e t w e e n socialist regimes on
the one hand and capitalist regimes on t h e other.
Democratic rights
Since there is no s t a n d a r d measure of democracy
we have to rely o n s o m e indices that attempt to
rank countries on t h e basis of various legal and
political considerations. Allowing for the difficul­
ties involved in the construction of democracy in­
dices as well as t h e p r o b l e m of strictly comparing
these indices we may point to a few striking dif­
ferences between t h e four politico-economic re­
gimes. Not unexpectedly, the system variation
with regard to democracy is more tied to the be­
tween group variation t h a n what was true of the
economic evaluation criteria. T h e E t a squared
score is much higher t h a n noticed in the analysis
of economic evaluation criteria (Table 10).
In the mid 1980s d e m o c r a t i c political rights oc­
curred among t h e mixed-capitalist regime type.
H e r e , we have a n u m b e r of countries that scored
very high on t h e H u m a n a democracy index. T h e
m e a n value for the capitalist or capitalist-state is
consistently lower, although these regime cate­
gories include countries that score high o n the in­
dex: New Z e a l a n d , Australia, J a p a n a m o n g the
capitalist regimes a n d India in the category of
in 1980 among regime sets
Mean
Max
Min
CV
Capitalist (N=26)
Capitalist-state (N=22)
Mixed-capitalist (N=12)
Socialist (N=20)
67.8
59.5
92.3
42.7
96
89
96
64
30
30
86
22
.31
.30
.04
.32
Total (N=80)
62.9
96
22
.36
Eta
2
Note: The Humana index ranges from 0 to 100 and is based mainly on the occurrence of human rights, including po­
litical rights (Humana, 1983).
74
Jan-Erik lane & Svante Ersson
capitalist-state regimes. T h e democracy score
among the three types of capitalistic regimes is
higher than that of the socialist type of regime,
but there exist s o m e highly undemocratic regimes
also in the sets of capitalist and capitalist-state re­
gimes.
T h e major finding is t h a t this political eval­
uation criteria does descriminate between t h e
various politico-economic regimes. T h e capital­
ist-state and the socialist regime types display
much lower values than t h e mixed-capitalist. T h e
capitalist regime kind scores higher than t h e so­
cialist regime type on this m e a s u r e , but this type
also includes countries with very low democracy
scores: e. g. C h a d and Nigeria. Several socialist
systems scored very low in 1980: Bulgaria, U S S R ,
Czechoslovakia and G D R . However, there is o n e
more relevant political evaluation criterion, t h e
effort of the state at p r o m o t i n g social welfare by
m e a n s of various public p r o g r a m m e s .
Welfare effort
T h e Estes indicator on welfare effort in a country
may be employed to m a p differences between
politico-economic regimes. It t a k e s into account
for how many years a country has employed so­
cial legislation. It is believed that the capitalist
systems do the least in t e r m s of public pro­
g r a m m e s in o r d e r t o e n h a n c e social welfare.
Table 11 has s o m e d a t a that pertain to this hypo­
thesis about regime differences in welfare effort
by the government.
T h e welfare index m e a s u r i n g t h e effort at wel­
fare state policies distinguishes between the four
sets of politico-economic regimes. T h e Eta-squa­
red statistic is almost .50 as was also t h e case with
the democracy index. This m e a n s that half of t h e
country variation is to be found a m o n g the syste­
matic differences between t h e types of politicoeconomic regimes. A t the s a m e time the picture
is more complicated than what a simple dichoto­
my such as that between capitalism and socialism
would involve. We note that the highest m e a n
score is to be found among the mixed-capitalist
regimes. M o r e o v e r , the average country welfare
effort is hardly m o r e extensive a m o n g the socia­
list regimes than among the capitalist or capita­
list-state regimes. Welfare effort is not the same
as welfare results. Let us look at an indicator on
social o u t c o m e s , the distribution of the national
income between households.
Income inequality
There is a large n u m b e r of potentially relevant
outcome measures that may be employed for t h e
evaluation of politico-economic regimes. Perhaps
the extent of i n c o m e inequality is o n e of t h e most
sensitive evaluation criteria, because it has fig­
ured so promimently in the ideologies tied to t h e
distinction b e t w e e n capitalism and socialism
(Mahler, 1989). Is it true, may we ask, that vari­
ous politico-economic regimes p r o m o t e income
equality differently? Table 12 provides s o m e clues
t o the p r o b l e m of how and if politico-economic
systems are characterized by different structures
of income distribution. T h e d a t a available for so­
cialist regimes is meagre.
T h e E t a - s q u a r e d statistic being smaller than .5
indicates that t h e variation within t h e four funda­
mental categories is larger t h a n the variation b e ­
tween these four sets of systems. However, t h e r e
is one major finding: it is not t h e case that a so­
cialist regime m e a n s more of income inequality
per se. A s a m a t t e r of fact, t h e mixed-capitalist
regime type displays lower scores on all the statis­
tics employed h e r e . T h u s , the ideological com­
mitment of socialist regimes to equality is o n e
thing and m a t t e r s of fact a n o t h e r thing. In t h e
Table 11. Welfare effort in 1980 in regime sets
Mean
Capitalist (N=28)
J^pjtalist^tate_(N=22)
Mixed-capitalist (N= 12)
Socialist (N=18)
Total (N=80)
Max
Min
7.6
7^0
25.2
10.3
25
—21
29
24
-1
1
18
1
10.7
29
-1
Eta
2
—
.49
Note: The Estes index counts the number of years a country has had various types of social welfare legislation (Estes,
1984).
Politico-Economic . . .
75
Table 12. Income inequality circa 1975
Mean
Max
Min
CV
Capitalist (N=22)
Capitalist-state (N=16)
Mixed-capitalist (N=10)
Socialist (N=8)
52.7
56.2
40.9
45.7
72.0
66.6
46.5
61.1
39.2
44.5
37.0
30.7
.18
.13
.09
.22
Total (N=56)
50.6
72.0
30.7
.16
Note: A top quinlik index - income share of upper 20 % of the population - has been used to measurethe extent of in­
come inequality. A higher score implies more of inequality in the distribution of income (Muller, 1985; 1988; Taylor
& Jodice, 1983; Chan,1989; Musgrave & Jarrett, 1979).
mixed capitalist systems a combination of eco­
n o m i c affluence and political ambitions at redis­
tributing income has resulted in m u c h lower lev­
els of income inequality than in o t h e r types of
politico-economic regimes. Not very surprisingly,
t h e s t a n d a r d statistics for the capitalist-state type
of systems are worse than those of t h e socialist re­
gime t y p e .
Conclusion
M u c h m o r e remains to be done before t h e r e is a
theory about the performance of politico-eco­
nomic regimes. H e r e , we have r e p o r t e d o n a pre­
liminary analysis based on two evaluation dimen­
sions, economics and politics as it w e r e . Five
evaluation criteria using various indices were test­
ed with regard to their discriminatory power in
relation to four sets of regimes or systems. In or­
d e r to move ahead in comparative research in the
new field of political economy o t h e r evaluation
criteria would have to be included and a more re­
fined causal analysis be adopted in o r d e r to mea­
sure t h e partial impact of various factors. H o w ­
ever, there are s o m e novel findings in t h e empiri­
cal analysis conducted here.
. Firstly, we cannot reduce basic properties of
politico-economic systems like level of affluence,
e c o n o m i c growth, democracy a n d welfare state
effort to t h e standard crude dichotomy of capital­
ism versus socialism. A first step towards a re­
fined assessment of the politico-economic per­
formance of various countries is to employ cate­
gories like capitalist, mixed-capitalist, capital­
ist-state and socialist regimes on t h e basis of how
t h e state recognizes the institutions of private
property and of how much space t h e r e is for vol­
u n t a r y exchange in the allocation of resources.
W e simply cannot m a k e sense of all t h e variation
in t h e data about t h e performance of politico-
economic systems by using the dichotomy be­
tween capitalism and socialism. T h e political
evaluation criteria discriminate better than the
economic ones b e t w e e n t h e basic kinds of poli­
tico-economic regimes. A l t h o u g h there is consid­
erable within regime t y p e variation, we find some
conspicuous between regime differences.
Secondly, the mixed-capitalis systems tend to
perform better on all evaluation criteria than the
other regime types. T h e socialist regime type as
well as the capitalist-state regime type tend to lag
behind the other two types of capitalist regimes
on t h e evaluation criteria employed here, in parti­
cular the average level of affluence measured by
the GDP/capita indicator. Politico-economic sys­
tems where m a r k e t s are given a prominent role
tend to d o better than politico-economic systems
where the state is heavily involved in economy.
Thirdly, the failure of t h e socialist regime type
to k e e p pace with t h e development rate a m o n g
the two capitalist types of regimes is apparent al­
ready by 1970. H a d reliable data about t h e late
1980s been available, t h e misfortunes of the
planned economies would have been obvious. It
remains to be seen w h a t kind of politico-econom­
ic system will develop in Eastern E u r o p e follow­
ing t h e collapse of t h e communist regimes in the
fall of 1989.
Fourtly, one b r a n d of a capitalist regime - cap­
italist-state regimes - performs as badly as the so­
cialist kind of regime. T h e r e are straigthforward
examples of failures even a m o n g the decentral­
ized capitalist regimes. M o r e research needs to be
done on politico-economic regimes before we
know why politico-economic systems differ in
their overall p e r f o r m a n c e profile. Evidently, the
choice of a politico-economic regime matters but
so d o other factors.
76
Översikter och meddelanden
Appendix 1
Indicators:
Real G D P / c a p i t a 1960
Real G D P / c a p i t a 1985
Economic growth 1980-1985
Inflation rate 1980-1985
Democratic rights circa 1980
Welfare effort circa 1970-80
Income inequality circa 1970-80
Literature:
Boström, M (1989) personal communication.
Chan, S (1989) "Income distribution and war trauma: a
cross-national analysis." The Western Political Quar­
terly, 42, 263-281.
Derbyshire, J D & Derbyshire, J (1989) Political Sys­
tems of the World. Edinburgh: Chambers
Estes, R J (1984) The Social Progress of Nations. New
York: Praeger.
Gastil, R D (1987) Freedom in the World: political rights
and civil liberties 1986-1987. New York: Greenwood
Press.
Gregory, P R & Stuart, R C (1989) Comparative Eco­
nomic Systems. Boston: Houghton Miffin Co.
Humana, C (1983) World Human Rights Guide. Lon­
don: Hutchinson.
Lane, J E & Ersson, S (1990) Comparative Political
Economy. London: Belhaven Press and New York:
Columbia University Press.
Lindbeck, A (1977) The Political Economy of the New
Left. New York: Harper & Row.
Lipset, SM (1959) Political Man. Garden City, N Y :
Doubleday.
Sources:
Summers & H e s t o n (1988)
Summers & H e s t o n (1988)
Calculated from S u m m e r s & Heston (1988)
World Bank (1987)
H u m a n a (1983)
Estes (1984)
Muller (1988; 1985)
Taylor & Jodice (1983)
Chan (1989)
Musgrave & J a r r e t t (1979)
Mahler, V A (1989) "Income distribution within na­
tions: problems of cross-national comparison." Com­
parative Political Studies, 22, 3-32.
Muller, E N (1988) "Democracy, economic develop­
ment, and income inequality." American Sociolog­
ical Review, 53, 50-68.
Muller, E N (1985) "Income inequality, regime repres­
siveness, and political violence." American Sociolog­
ical Review, 50, 47-61.
Musgrave, R & Jarrett, P (1979) "International redis­
tribution." Kyklos, 32, 541-558.
O'Donnell, G (1973) Modernization and BureaucraticAuthoritarianism. Berkeley: Institute of Internation­
al Studies.
Summers, R & Heston, A (1988) "A new set of in­
ternational comparisons of real product and price lev­
els estimates for 130 countries, 1950-1985." Review
of Income and Wealth, 34, 1-25.
Taylor, C L & Jodice, D (1983) World Handbook of Po­
litical and Social Indicators. 3rd ed. New Haven:
Yale U.P.
The Economist Atlas (1989) London: Hutchinson.
World Bank (1987) World Development Report 1987.
New York: Oxford. U.P.