Essay on Democracy and Development

In the new modern and globalized world, it is normal to unearth democratic institutions in the most economically developed countries in the world. Many theorists argue that the role of the government important in translating growth into development and how the state does so, depends on the type of political system. Growth and development maintain a circular relationship: Growth is an economic term regarding how much an economy is growing, how the government spends this is how a country developed (for instance, social welfare expenditure). The aim of this essay is to decipher whether Democracy, a system of government that allows the citizens to cast vote and elect a government of their choice, is necessary for development. To judge whether more political rights influence growth and development I will draw upon both examples of both democratic (India) and Undemocratic (China) states. Without limiting the definition of development just to improvement of economics but broaden the scope to social and cultural impact also. The study of development should therefore be understood to relate to economic, social, and cultural progress alike.

There are a variety of approaches to exploring the relationship between democracy and development. Some Theorists claim that economic development and democracy have mutual influences on one another. For instance, Friedman (1992, p.21) acclaims that “the assurance of one’s political rights ultimately reinforces economic rights, therefore would prove valuable in increasing development”. Economic freedom nonetheless is predicated on a free, fair, and regulated economy. Furthermore, India can also be used as a paradox for the arguments which suggest a positive relationship between economic equality and democracy (Bardhan, 2010). India became a democratic state after its independence from the British rule in 1947 and exists as the largest democratic nation in the world. Despite India being known for its successful democratic system, its vast wealth inequality is one of the highest in the world. India inherited multiple forms of inequalities; casteism; communalism; feudalism and capitalist exploitation (Desai, 2006, p.103). In fact, today approximately 369 million people across the nation still live-in poverty. With many of their institutions being dominated by a group of educated, middle class men with social status, it is no surprise India suffers a growing disparity despite the presences of democracy. Lack of development because of such social inequality is illuminated by the fact that the governments social expenditure is the lowest at only 6%. Thus, directly challenging the practice and ideas of development; question the validity of a development programme that leaves out the experience and aspirations of the vast majority of Indian citizens.

However, one can does not ignore the fact that democracy when applied to the case of India has proved to have positive impacts on the country’s growth. This is supported by the work of Desai (2006, p.100) that the establishment of democracy and globalization saw India “modernise and liberalise on the economic front but become more secular and ethnically divided than before politically”. Thus, disproving Freidman’s theory of a positive link between democracy and development as for this to be the case one would have to look at development only from the perspective of economic growth, when in fact economic growth in isolation to social and cultural limitations does not convey a clear illustration of as a whole development within a country.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Moreover, the notion that democracy leads to economic development is based on empirical observation that democracies exceed non-democracies in terms of economic growth, standard of living, the quality of life (M. Olson, 1993, p.569). Theorists recommend that the developing countries firstly need to promote democracy before they accelerate economic development, such as the economic development we saw in India in the 1980s when the growth rate increased by 3.5% per capita following the restoration of Single Party Dominance (Desai,2006, p.100). Perhaps one could argue that this is due to democracy being a rather slow process, thus growth and development could be argued to be a slower process in democracies. Nevertheless, the prevalence of increasingly wealthy, fast-modernizing states which in theory should be more democratic than they are in practice acts as a challenge to the modernization theory. An example of such is the outrageously successful anomaly, China, which is the standout case. The nation’s wealth has grown at close to 10% each year since the 1980s. Unlike other East Asian countries, such as South Korea, China shows no indication of undergoing any democratic transition following its economic one.

The development in the undemocratic state of China, however, has proved to be much faster than democratic ones. China appears to be moving ever further away from democratic reform as it grows richer. To contrast, in 2020 the United States and China occupied the top two ranking in the world GDP ranking. China's GDP growth rate of 1.85%, proved much higher than that of USA at -4.27% (World GDP Ranking 2020 - StatisticsTimes.com, 2021). In addition, Sen and Dreze (2014) record that the GDP of India in 2011 was less than half of that of China. In 2010, only 34% of Indians had access to improved sanitation, in comparison to 64% of Chinese. Such statistics are evidence that in spite of gave differences in their political systems, China’s economic standing illustrates a state democracy is not a necessity to prosper in development. As contended by White (2002, p.79), Chinas developmental performance over years it is not independent of its non-democratic style of government.

In conclusion, it has prevailed through the cases of the development of both India and China that democracy is only necessary to bring development to an extent. As White (2002, p.235) argues, the nature of the political regime is not the dominant issue, but instead good governance and state power that would help the country to flourish. In India, while Globalization has indeed brought new opportunities and avenues for Indian citizens, not all are in a position to take advantage of such prospects, which undermines the very universalistic pillars of democracy. As a result, the level of development the country is able to achieve is limited as a whole. Whereas, with the example of China we illustrate the possibility of a fast-growing authoritarian state with far less inequalities present within society, without any need for democracy. Perhaps, one could argue that development is just a much slower process in a democratic state due to the process of the system, thus fourth we are unable to see such drastic improvement in development (economically and socially). Furthermore, it has been proven that economic growth itself has not been sufficient in bringing about development.