1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past 30 years, the world has experienced a profound transformation, becoming both more open and more prosperous. Whereas in 1985 more than half of the countries worldwide were under authoritarian rule, most countries today are considered electoral democracies (Economist Intelligence Unit 2017). Since 1990, more than a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty (World Bank 2016), while well-being indicators have improved dramatically on a global level, especially in terms of health and education (International Idea 2017).
Yet, for the most part, this prosperity has not been broadly shared. While inequality between countries has declined considerably since the 1980s (International Panel on Social Progress 2018), inequality within many countries is at a historic high (Piketty Reference Piketty2014). There are growing pockets of people who are consistently excluded, or left behind, on the basis of multiple and often intersecting inequalities. Such inequalities, grounded on both socioeconomic status and specific identities (such as gender, ethnicity, religion, geography, sexual orientation, age, etc.), and the kinds of exclusion they generate, have become a defining challenge of our time. As Chapters 9 and 14 of the Report compellingly argue, the widening chasm between those who have and those who don't is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
In effect, as I posit in this paper, inequality and exclusion confront democracy with a paradox. Building on the findings and arguments developed in these two chapters, this paper shows how and why growing inequality and exclusion undermine the quality of democratic governance across both the developed and the developing world. A crucial implication is that if democracy is to prove resilient over time, it needs to address – and redress – inequality and exclusion. Yet, while democracy is intended in principle to promote equality and a more even distribution of power, there is nothing about democracy that automatically reduces inequality and exclusion in actual practice. Policy outcomes depend on the informal institutions and power relations underpinning a political system (Hickey et al. Reference Hickey, Sen and Bukenya2014) – and these are often not aligned with efforts to promote greater equality and inclusion (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017). On the other hand, a variety of democracies have been able to tackle inequality and exclusion in different ways, and this paper outlines some of the factors that have enabled such progress.
2. WHY INEQUALITY MATTERS FOR THE QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY
As the Report makes clear, inequality, and the fears of social decline and exclusion it generates, are profoundly detrimental to the quality of democracy. As we can see from the rise or resurgence of populism and nationalist and anti-immigrant movements across countries and continents (Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc.), inequality and exclusion feed fragmentation, social polarization and the shrinking of a vital moderate centre. They also erode social cohesion (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017).
Among other things, this makes it difficult to achieve political consensus for policies intended to promote inclusion and redistribution. As the experiences of countries as diverse as Guatemala, South Africa, the USA, and the Philippines show, those with means, resources, power and/or the right status can wield outsized influence and political voice over policy- and decision-making, biasing processes and outcomes in their favour. As Chapter 9 argues in particular, inequality and exclusion thus claim the rule of law and the notion that all are equal before the law as a casualty.
Inequality and exclusion also skew the provision of essential services away from those who are most in need. Often, the effect is a dual system of social provision where elites opt out of public services. Prospects for substantive interactions and shared experiences across social groups thus become ever more elusive – even if people often live in close proximity to one another. The fire that engulfed the Grenfell Tower block of public housing in one of London's wealthiest boroughs is a particularly unsettling example of this (Hanley Reference Hanley2018). In the years preceding the fire, residents repeatedly warned that their building didn't have an adequate fire-alarm system or procedure for evacuation, to no avail. And they were not able to seek legal aid to challenge safety concerns because of extensive cuts to that service as part of austerity policies embedded in a neoliberal economic model that the authors of both chapters criticize precisely because they impose severe limitations on the kinds of reforms that can be put in place to tackle the roots of systemic inequality.
In short, the imbalances that inequality and exclusion create in voice, representation, opportunity, access and the applicability of the rule of law disenfranchise segments of the population especially among marginalized groups, generate social tensions, and undermine trust in democratic institutions. The Report suggests that this kind of alienation can also increase support for more radical political view-points and the potential for violent conflict, with an emerging body of evidence pointing in the same direction.
3. CHALLENGES TO REDISTRIBUTIVE REFORM
Policymaking is not only a technical, but perhaps more fundamentally, a profoundly political process. Who is included in making decisions, how they are included, and where the power lies all affect what kinds of policies are adopted and how they are implemented. Thus, a key challenge is how to harness collective action among elites, as well as between elites and broader social groups, to promote inclusive development. Since redistribution efforts are likely to face opposition from established elites, a broad coalition of societal support and determined, coherent state action are often necessary for success (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017). But while democracy may well foster more participatory and inclusive decision-making processes, this does not mean that they are automatically more effective. In fact, under a democratic regime, public authorities are expected to engage with a wider range of actors when deciding on and implementing policy. This proliferation of interests encourages fragmentation and can obstruct the emergence of a united front for progressive reform. Where formal institutions are weak and ineffective, or where they co-exist uneasily with informal institutions (and are thus often infiltrated by patronage and personalised interests), this can be even more difficult to achieve. The persistent failure to address the problems associated with the highly unequal distribution of land in Guatemala (which date back almost two centuries and were a cause of the country's 30-year internal conflict) is a stark example of how powerful interests can thwart reform.
Indeed, fascinating research by Walter Scheidel (Reference Scheidel2017) on the long-term struggle for greater equality illustrates the constraints embedded in democratic politics. Historically, some of the greatest strides against inequality and exclusion have been achieved not through democratic channels, but through much more controversial means – authoritarian coercion (land reforms that obliterated hierarchical social structures in Japan, Korea and Taiwan), mass violence and war (the disintegration of the Roman Empire, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and World War II) and lethal pandemics (the Black Death).
4. FACTORS THAT HELP PROMOTE INCLUSION IN DEMOCRACIES
The analysis above points to a democratic paradox: inequality undermines democracy's resilience, yet some of the most direct ways to address inequality are likely to prove extraordinarily difficult to undertake under a democratic framework, or would contradict key principles of democracy (Plattner Reference Plattner, Fukuyama, Diamond and Plattner2012). Of course, this does not mean that progressive change is impossible under democratic auspices. Indeed, both chapters highlight important innovations in participation and direct democracy, often harnessed by new information and communication technologies, that have become instrumental in helping people to articulate their voice and views more effectively, especially at the local level. But one essential implication from the discussion is that tackling inequality is not simply about ‘getting policies right’ from a technical perspective, but also about identifying policies that are politically viable, and seeking to influence interests and incentives in more progressive directions (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017).
So within democratic settings, what kinds of factors have facilitated more equitable and inclusive development? The Report emphasizes the centrality of political parties as one essential element. Where institutionalized political parties are in place, they can convey a programmatic policy stance, discipline party leaders and members, and facilitate collective citizen action (Keefer Reference Keefer2011). For instance, the Communist Party in Kerala, India, built its strategy on a concerted attack on rural poverty. Likewise, with its roots as a social movement committed to participation and inclusion, the Partido dos Trabalhadores in Brazil was until recently a coherent, well-organized vehicle for collective action that played a leading role in the adoption of policies to tackle inequality and exclusion (Paz Arauco et al. Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014).
Yet, where the basic parameters of the state remain contested – for example regarding who is a citizen, or who has the basic authority to allocate property rights – multiparty competition may exacerbate fragmentation and undermine the very foundations of the state rather than harness collective action. In addition, very often political parties are more preoccupied with winning elections to ensure their political survival than they are with the public good (Cheeseman et al. Reference Cheeseman, Luna, Kitschelt, Paget, Rosenblatt, Sample, Toro, Valladares Molleda, van der Staak and Wang2016). And as the current environment in the USA illustrates, strong programmatic parties can also lead to ideological polarization and reduce the potential for compromise between political actors (Galston Reference Galston2010).
Social mobilization and ideas are two other factors that the Chapters highlight as significant in helping to achieve greater inclusion and shared prosperity. In countries where social movements have been strong and broadly representative, as in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Nepal, for example, they have been crucial in driving political trajectories and policymaking processes that are more inclusive in nature (Paz Arauco et al. Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014). The power of ideas, for its part, is central to narratives about who is included or excluded in state- and nation-building processes, and in shaping public attitudes and behaviour around those narratives.
Lastly, the chapters point to the importance of regional and global drivers in influencing the incentives of domestic actors to tackle inequality – or not. For example, recent international mobilization and outrage about the chasm between those who have and those who don't – epitomized by movements like Occupy and international campaigns to put greater pressure on tax havens – have helped to place inequality at the centre of both domestic and international policymaking agendas. Global commitments like the Sustainable Development Goals, which have targets related to greater equality and inclusion, can also encourage reform at the domestic level. However, international factors can also undermine commitment to democratic governance and a more inclusive agenda within different countries. China in particular casts a long shadow as an alternative, non-democratic model for development, given its size, power and extraordinary developmental transformation (Reilly Reference Reilly2013). Meanwhile, a variety of international mechanisms and practices enable well-placed domestic actors to engage in tax avoidance, or to skew the benefits of economic growth (natural resource management is a particularly stark example of this) away from those who are most marginalized. Organized crime, for its part, has had a profoundly pernicious effect in heightening inequalities and warping the quality of democratic governance.
There are two other factors that neither of the chapters in the Report address but are nonetheless central in efforts to address inequality and exclusion: the state and committed elites. While it has become fashionable to underestimate the significance of the state in a context of growing globalization and decentralization, it remains an indispensable actor in reducing inequalities and anchoring democracy. The state is the most significant entity with the scale, mandate, capacity and legitimacy to redistribute wealth and resources. In effect, all successful post-World War II examples of long-term inclusive development have been in countries with high state capacity (Hickey et al. Reference Hickey, Sen and Bukenya2014). While many countries that have promoted greater equity and inclusion across the developing world have been authoritarian, Botswana, Brazil, Ghana, India and South Africa are more complex examples of the push and pull of progress and setbacks in both democracy and inequality, all while seeking to build more effective, capable states (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017).
Another factor that is overlooked in the chapters are elites within both state and society who are committed to combating inequality. Historically, elites have proven instrumental in organizing and mobilizing people, resources, and policies and harnessing coalitions in the pursuit of progressive change (see e.g. Paz Arauco et al.’s (Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014) analysis of intersecting inequalities in Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, India, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Nepal, and the role of political and other elites to bring about policies seeking to reduce poverty and exclusion).
However, even if we can identify some crucial factors that have helped to promote greater equality and inclusion in democratic settings, it is essential to keep in mind that we don't know how trajectories of change will pan out over time. Change processes are complex, contested and non-linear. As the case of Brazil powerfully illustrates, over the past two decades, the country has made tremendous strides in reducing inequalities (Paz Arauco et al. Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014), but corruption has thoroughly permeated the political system. Yet, as we learn from these two chapters in the IPSP Report, addressing the tensions between inequality and exclusion on the one hand and democracy on the other has never been more urgent. The resilience and even survival of democracies everywhere depend on it.
You have
Access
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the past 30 years, the world has experienced a profound transformation, becoming both more open and more prosperous. Whereas in 1985 more than half of the countries worldwide were under authoritarian rule, most countries today are considered electoral democracies (Economist Intelligence Unit 2017). Since 1990, more than a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty (World Bank 2016), while well-being indicators have improved dramatically on a global level, especially in terms of health and education (International Idea 2017).
Yet, for the most part, this prosperity has not been broadly shared. While inequality between countries has declined considerably since the 1980s (International Panel on Social Progress 2018), inequality within many countries is at a historic high (Piketty Reference Piketty2014). There are growing pockets of people who are consistently excluded, or left behind, on the basis of multiple and often intersecting inequalities. Such inequalities, grounded on both socioeconomic status and specific identities (such as gender, ethnicity, religion, geography, sexual orientation, age, etc.), and the kinds of exclusion they generate, have become a defining challenge of our time. As Chapters 9 and 14 of the Report compellingly argue, the widening chasm between those who have and those who don't is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
In effect, as I posit in this paper, inequality and exclusion confront democracy with a paradox. Building on the findings and arguments developed in these two chapters, this paper shows how and why growing inequality and exclusion undermine the quality of democratic governance across both the developed and the developing world. A crucial implication is that if democracy is to prove resilient over time, it needs to address – and redress – inequality and exclusion. Yet, while democracy is intended in principle to promote equality and a more even distribution of power, there is nothing about democracy that automatically reduces inequality and exclusion in actual practice. Policy outcomes depend on the informal institutions and power relations underpinning a political system (Hickey et al. Reference Hickey, Sen and Bukenya2014) – and these are often not aligned with efforts to promote greater equality and inclusion (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017). On the other hand, a variety of democracies have been able to tackle inequality and exclusion in different ways, and this paper outlines some of the factors that have enabled such progress.
2. WHY INEQUALITY MATTERS FOR THE QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY
As the Report makes clear, inequality, and the fears of social decline and exclusion it generates, are profoundly detrimental to the quality of democracy. As we can see from the rise or resurgence of populism and nationalist and anti-immigrant movements across countries and continents (Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc.), inequality and exclusion feed fragmentation, social polarization and the shrinking of a vital moderate centre. They also erode social cohesion (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017).
Among other things, this makes it difficult to achieve political consensus for policies intended to promote inclusion and redistribution. As the experiences of countries as diverse as Guatemala, South Africa, the USA, and the Philippines show, those with means, resources, power and/or the right status can wield outsized influence and political voice over policy- and decision-making, biasing processes and outcomes in their favour. As Chapter 9 argues in particular, inequality and exclusion thus claim the rule of law and the notion that all are equal before the law as a casualty.
Inequality and exclusion also skew the provision of essential services away from those who are most in need. Often, the effect is a dual system of social provision where elites opt out of public services. Prospects for substantive interactions and shared experiences across social groups thus become ever more elusive – even if people often live in close proximity to one another. The fire that engulfed the Grenfell Tower block of public housing in one of London's wealthiest boroughs is a particularly unsettling example of this (Hanley Reference Hanley2018). In the years preceding the fire, residents repeatedly warned that their building didn't have an adequate fire-alarm system or procedure for evacuation, to no avail. And they were not able to seek legal aid to challenge safety concerns because of extensive cuts to that service as part of austerity policies embedded in a neoliberal economic model that the authors of both chapters criticize precisely because they impose severe limitations on the kinds of reforms that can be put in place to tackle the roots of systemic inequality.
In short, the imbalances that inequality and exclusion create in voice, representation, opportunity, access and the applicability of the rule of law disenfranchise segments of the population especially among marginalized groups, generate social tensions, and undermine trust in democratic institutions. The Report suggests that this kind of alienation can also increase support for more radical political view-points and the potential for violent conflict, with an emerging body of evidence pointing in the same direction.
3. CHALLENGES TO REDISTRIBUTIVE REFORM
Policymaking is not only a technical, but perhaps more fundamentally, a profoundly political process. Who is included in making decisions, how they are included, and where the power lies all affect what kinds of policies are adopted and how they are implemented. Thus, a key challenge is how to harness collective action among elites, as well as between elites and broader social groups, to promote inclusive development. Since redistribution efforts are likely to face opposition from established elites, a broad coalition of societal support and determined, coherent state action are often necessary for success (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017). But while democracy may well foster more participatory and inclusive decision-making processes, this does not mean that they are automatically more effective. In fact, under a democratic regime, public authorities are expected to engage with a wider range of actors when deciding on and implementing policy. This proliferation of interests encourages fragmentation and can obstruct the emergence of a united front for progressive reform. Where formal institutions are weak and ineffective, or where they co-exist uneasily with informal institutions (and are thus often infiltrated by patronage and personalised interests), this can be even more difficult to achieve. The persistent failure to address the problems associated with the highly unequal distribution of land in Guatemala (which date back almost two centuries and were a cause of the country's 30-year internal conflict) is a stark example of how powerful interests can thwart reform.
Indeed, fascinating research by Walter Scheidel (Reference Scheidel2017) on the long-term struggle for greater equality illustrates the constraints embedded in democratic politics. Historically, some of the greatest strides against inequality and exclusion have been achieved not through democratic channels, but through much more controversial means – authoritarian coercion (land reforms that obliterated hierarchical social structures in Japan, Korea and Taiwan), mass violence and war (the disintegration of the Roman Empire, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, and World War II) and lethal pandemics (the Black Death).
4. FACTORS THAT HELP PROMOTE INCLUSION IN DEMOCRACIES
The analysis above points to a democratic paradox: inequality undermines democracy's resilience, yet some of the most direct ways to address inequality are likely to prove extraordinarily difficult to undertake under a democratic framework, or would contradict key principles of democracy (Plattner Reference Plattner, Fukuyama, Diamond and Plattner2012). Of course, this does not mean that progressive change is impossible under democratic auspices. Indeed, both chapters highlight important innovations in participation and direct democracy, often harnessed by new information and communication technologies, that have become instrumental in helping people to articulate their voice and views more effectively, especially at the local level. But one essential implication from the discussion is that tackling inequality is not simply about ‘getting policies right’ from a technical perspective, but also about identifying policies that are politically viable, and seeking to influence interests and incentives in more progressive directions (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017).
So within democratic settings, what kinds of factors have facilitated more equitable and inclusive development? The Report emphasizes the centrality of political parties as one essential element. Where institutionalized political parties are in place, they can convey a programmatic policy stance, discipline party leaders and members, and facilitate collective citizen action (Keefer Reference Keefer2011). For instance, the Communist Party in Kerala, India, built its strategy on a concerted attack on rural poverty. Likewise, with its roots as a social movement committed to participation and inclusion, the Partido dos Trabalhadores in Brazil was until recently a coherent, well-organized vehicle for collective action that played a leading role in the adoption of policies to tackle inequality and exclusion (Paz Arauco et al. Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014).
Yet, where the basic parameters of the state remain contested – for example regarding who is a citizen, or who has the basic authority to allocate property rights – multiparty competition may exacerbate fragmentation and undermine the very foundations of the state rather than harness collective action. In addition, very often political parties are more preoccupied with winning elections to ensure their political survival than they are with the public good (Cheeseman et al. Reference Cheeseman, Luna, Kitschelt, Paget, Rosenblatt, Sample, Toro, Valladares Molleda, van der Staak and Wang2016). And as the current environment in the USA illustrates, strong programmatic parties can also lead to ideological polarization and reduce the potential for compromise between political actors (Galston Reference Galston2010).
Social mobilization and ideas are two other factors that the Chapters highlight as significant in helping to achieve greater inclusion and shared prosperity. In countries where social movements have been strong and broadly representative, as in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Nepal, for example, they have been crucial in driving political trajectories and policymaking processes that are more inclusive in nature (Paz Arauco et al. Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014). The power of ideas, for its part, is central to narratives about who is included or excluded in state- and nation-building processes, and in shaping public attitudes and behaviour around those narratives.
Lastly, the chapters point to the importance of regional and global drivers in influencing the incentives of domestic actors to tackle inequality – or not. For example, recent international mobilization and outrage about the chasm between those who have and those who don't – epitomized by movements like Occupy and international campaigns to put greater pressure on tax havens – have helped to place inequality at the centre of both domestic and international policymaking agendas. Global commitments like the Sustainable Development Goals, which have targets related to greater equality and inclusion, can also encourage reform at the domestic level. However, international factors can also undermine commitment to democratic governance and a more inclusive agenda within different countries. China in particular casts a long shadow as an alternative, non-democratic model for development, given its size, power and extraordinary developmental transformation (Reilly Reference Reilly2013). Meanwhile, a variety of international mechanisms and practices enable well-placed domestic actors to engage in tax avoidance, or to skew the benefits of economic growth (natural resource management is a particularly stark example of this) away from those who are most marginalized. Organized crime, for its part, has had a profoundly pernicious effect in heightening inequalities and warping the quality of democratic governance.
There are two other factors that neither of the chapters in the Report address but are nonetheless central in efforts to address inequality and exclusion: the state and committed elites. While it has become fashionable to underestimate the significance of the state in a context of growing globalization and decentralization, it remains an indispensable actor in reducing inequalities and anchoring democracy. The state is the most significant entity with the scale, mandate, capacity and legitimacy to redistribute wealth and resources. In effect, all successful post-World War II examples of long-term inclusive development have been in countries with high state capacity (Hickey et al. Reference Hickey, Sen and Bukenya2014). While many countries that have promoted greater equity and inclusion across the developing world have been authoritarian, Botswana, Brazil, Ghana, India and South Africa are more complex examples of the push and pull of progress and setbacks in both democracy and inequality, all while seeking to build more effective, capable states (Rocha Menocal Reference Rocha Menocal2017).
Another factor that is overlooked in the chapters are elites within both state and society who are committed to combating inequality. Historically, elites have proven instrumental in organizing and mobilizing people, resources, and policies and harnessing coalitions in the pursuit of progressive change (see e.g. Paz Arauco et al.’s (Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014) analysis of intersecting inequalities in Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, India, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Nepal, and the role of political and other elites to bring about policies seeking to reduce poverty and exclusion).
However, even if we can identify some crucial factors that have helped to promote greater equality and inclusion in democratic settings, it is essential to keep in mind that we don't know how trajectories of change will pan out over time. Change processes are complex, contested and non-linear. As the case of Brazil powerfully illustrates, over the past two decades, the country has made tremendous strides in reducing inequalities (Paz Arauco et al. Reference Paz Arauco, Gazdar, Hevia-Pacheco, Kabeer, Lenhardt, Quratulain Masood, Naqvi, Nayak, Norton, Sadana Sabharwal, Scalise, Shepherd, Thapa, Thorat and Hien Tran2014), but corruption has thoroughly permeated the political system. Yet, as we learn from these two chapters in the IPSP Report, addressing the tensions between inequality and exclusion on the one hand and democracy on the other has never been more urgent. The resilience and even survival of democracies everywhere depend on it.