This study synthesizes and tests explanations of how public sector size and democracy affect income inequality. The results, based on unbalanced panel data for 64 developing and developed countries and a total of 341 observations from 1970 to 1994, show that a strong interaction between democracy and public sector development explains withincountry income inequality. Public sector expansion translates into worse distributional outcomes in nondemocracies or limited democracies because the state is more inclined to support the development of particular core industries or client populations in urban formal sectors through targeted taxation or transfer systems. On the other hand, the larger public sector size leads to better distributional outcomes in fully institutionalized democracies because the democratic political mechanisms enable the state institutions to be more responsive to the demands of lower classes and more committed to achieving better distributional outcomes. This study demonstrates that democracy is associated with inequality as an institutional background that converts the effects of public sector size on inequality from positive to negative by strengthening the hegemony of equity orientation within state institutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdseraAliciaBoixCharles2002. “Trade, Democracy, and the Size of the Public Sector: The Political Underpinnings of Openness.”International Organization56: 229–62.
2.
AlaviHamza1972. “The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh.”New Left Review74: 59–81.
3.
AldersonArthur S.NielsenFrançois1999. “Inequality, Development, and Dependence: A Reconsideration.”American Sociological Review64: 606–31.
4.
AldersonArthur S.2002. “Globalization and the Great U-Turn: Income Inequality Trends in 16 OECD Countries.”American Journal of Sociology107: 1244–99.
5.
AllisonPaul1978. “Measures of Inequality.”American Sociological Review43: 865–80.
6.
AmsdenAlice1989. Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization.London: Oxford University Press.
7.
AtkinsonAnthony B.1970. “On the Measurement of Inequality.”Journal of Economic Theory2: 244–63.
8.
Ballmer-Cao, Thanh-Huyen, and Jurg Scheidegger.1979. Compendium of Data for World System Analysis.Zurich, Switzerland: Soziologiscshe Institut der Universitat Zurich.
9.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.1995. “What To Do (and Not To Do) With Time-Series Cross-Section Data.”American Political Science Review89: 634–47.
10.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.1996. “Nuisance vs Substance: Specifiying and Estimating Time-Series Cross-Section Models.”Political Analysis6: 1–36.
11.
BelsleyDavid A.KuhEdwinWelschRoy E.1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Cases and Sources of Collinearity.New York: Wiley.
12.
BoixCarles2001. “Democracy, Development and the Public Sector.”American Journal of Political Science45: 1–17.
13.
BollenKenneth A.1980. “Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.”American Sociological Review45: 370–90.
14.
BollenKenneth A.1983. “World System Position, Dependency, and Democracy: The Cross-National Evidence.”American Sociological Review48: 468–79.
15.
BollenKenneth A.1995. “Apparent and Nonapparent Significance Tests.” Pp. 459–68 in Sociological Methodology 1995, edited by MarsdenP. M.. Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
16.
BollenKenneth A.1998. Cross-National Indicators of Liberal Democracy, 1950-1990.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
17.
BollenKenneth A.AppoldStephen J.1993. “National Industrial Structure and the Global System.”American Sociological Review58: 283–301.
18.
BollenKenneth A.JackmanRobert W.1985a. “Political Democracy and the Size Distribution of Income.”American Sociological Review13: 438–57.
19.
BollenKenneth A.1985b. “Regression Diagnostics: An Expository Treatment of Outliers and Influential Cases.”Sociological Methods and Research13: 510–42.
20.
BornschierVolkerBallmer-CaoThanh-Huyen1979. “Income Inequality: A Cross-National Study of the Relationship between MNC Penetration, Dimensions of the Power Structure and Income Distribution.”American Sociological Review44: 487–506.
21.
BradleyDavidHuberEvelyneMollerStephanieNielsenFrancoisStephensJohn D.2003. “Distribution and Redistribution in Postindustrial Democracies.”World Politics55: 193–228.
22.
CutrightPhillips1967. “Inequality: A Cross-National Analysis.”American Sociological Review32: 562–78.
23.
DeiningerKlausSquireLyn1996. “A New Data Set Measuring Income Inequality.”The World Bank Economic Review10: 565–91.
24.
DiamondLarryPlattnerMarc F.SchedlerAndreas1999. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–13. in The Self-Restraining State, edited by DiamondL.PlattnerM.F.SchedlerA.. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
25.
DixonWilliam J.BoswellTerry1996. “Dependency, Disarticulation, and Denominator Effects: Another Look at Foreign Capital Penetration.”American Journal of Sociology102: 543–62.
26.
Esping-AndersenG⊘sta1985. Politics against Markets.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Esping-AndersenG⊘sta1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
EvansPeter B.1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
EvansPeter B.RueschemeyerDietrichSkocpolTheda eds.1985. Bringing the State Back In.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
EvansPeter B.TimberlakeMichael1980. “Dependence, Inequality, and the Growth of the Tertiary: A Comparative Analysis of Less Developed Countries.”American Sociological Review45: 531–51.
31.
FirebaughGlenn1996. “Does Foreign Capital Harm Poor Nations? New Estimates Based on Dixon and Boswell's Measure of Capital Penetration.”American Journal of Sociology102: 563–75.
32.
GaltungJohan1971. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.”Journal of Peace Research8: 81–117.
33.
GarretGeoffrey1998. Partisan Politics in the Global Economy.New York: Cambridge University Press.
HarrisonBennettBluestoneBarry1988. The Great U-Turn. New York: Basic Books.
36.
HausmanJerry A.1978. “Specification Tests in Econometrics.”Econometrica46: 1251–71.
37.
HewittChristopher1977. “The Effect of Political Democracy and Social Democracy on Equality in Industrial Societies: A Cross-National Comparison.”American Sociological Review42: 450–64.
38.
HicksAlexander1999. Social Democracy and Welfare Capitalism: A Century of Income Security Policies.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
HicksAlexander1992. “Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending.”American Political Science Review86: 658–74.
41.
HsiaoCheng1986. Analysis of Panel Data.New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
HuberEvelyne2002. “Conclusion: Actors, Institutions, and Policies.” Pp. 439–79 in Models of Capitalism, edited by HuberE.. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
43.
HuberEvelyneStephensJohn D.2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets.Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
44.
ImmergutEllen1992. The Political Construction of Interests: National Health Insurance Politics in Switzerland, France and Sweden, 1930-70. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
JackmanRobert W.1974. “Political Democracy and Social Equality: A Comparative Analysis.”American Sociological Review39: 29–45.
46.
JaggersKeithGurrTed Robert1995. “Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data.”Journal of Peace Research32: 469–82.
47.
JohnsonChalmers1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
KorpiWalter1983. The Democratic Class Struggle.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
49.
KorpiWalterPalmeJoakim,1998. “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries.”American Sociological Review63: 661–87.
50.
KuznetsSimon1955. “Economic Growth and Income Inequality.”American Economic Review45: 1–28.
51.
LecaillonJacquesPaukertFelixMorrissonChristianGermidisDimitri1984. Income Distribution and Economic Development: An Analytical Survey.Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
52.
LenskiGerhard1966. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification.New York: McGraw-Hill.
53.
LipsetSeymour Martin1960. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics.London: Heinemann.
54.
LiptonMichael1977. Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
MaddalaG. S.1971. “The Use of Variance Components Models in Pooling Cross Section and Time Series Data.”Econometrica39: 341–58.
56.
MaddalaG. S.2001. Introduction to Econometrics.3rd edition.New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
57.
MalloyJames M.1979. Politics of Social Security in Brazil.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
58.
MarshallMonty G.JaggersKeith2000. “Polity IV: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-1999.”Data and Data Users Manual. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, College Park. Retrieved 2002 (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/inscr/polity).
59.
MullerEdward N.1985. “Income Inequality, Regime Repressiveness, and Political Violence.”American Sociological Review50: 47–61.
60.
MullerEdward N.1988. “Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality.”American Sociological Review53: 50–68.
NielsenFrançoisAldersonArthur S.1995. “Income Inequality, Development, and Dualism: Results from an Unbalanced Cross-National Panel.”American Sociological Review60: 674–701.
63.
O'DonnellGuillermo1993. “On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Postcommunist Countries.”World Development21: 1355–69.
64.
O'DonnellGuillermo1998. “Poverty and Inequality in Latin America.” Pp. 49–71 in Poverty and Inequality in Latin America: Issues and New Challenge, edited by TokmanV.O'DonnellG.. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
65.
PampelFredWilliamsonJohn1989. Age, Class, Politics and the Welfare State.New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
PrzeworskiAdamAlvarezMichaelCheibubJose AntonioLimongiFernando2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
RubinsonRichard1976. “The World-Economy and the Distribution of Income within States.”American Sociological Review41: 638–59.
68.
RueschemeyerDietrichStephensEvelyne HuberStephensJohn D.1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
69.
SimpsonMiles1990. “Political Rights and Income Inequality: A Cross-National Test.”American Sociological Review55: 682–93.
70.
STATA Corporation.1999. Stata Reference Manual Release 6.College Station, TX: STATA Press.
71.
StephensJohn D.1979. The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism.London: Macmillan.
72.
StimsonJames A.1985. “Regression in Time and Space: A Statistical Essay.”American Journal of Political Science29: 914–47.
73.
SwankDuane2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74.
TherbornGöran1977. “The Rule of Capital and the Rise of Democracy.”New Left Review103: 3–41.
75.
TsaiPan-Long1995. “Foreign Direct Investment and Income Inequality: Further Evidence.”World Development23: 469–83.
76.
United Nations.2001. Demographic Yearbook [CDROM]. New York: United Nations.
77.
United Nations. Various years. United Nations National Accounts.New York: United Nations.
78.
United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC).1985. Transnational Corporations in World Development: Third Survey.London, England: Graham and Troutman.
79.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).1995. World Investment Report 1995: Transnational Corporations and Competitiveness.New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
80.
VanhanenTatu1990. The Process of Democratization: A Comparative Study of 147 States, 1980-88.New York: Taylor & Francis.
81.
VanhanenTatu1997. Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries.London and New York: Routledge.
82.
VanhanenTatu2000. The Polyarchy Dataset 1.2.: Vanhanen's Index of Democracy.Trondheim, Norway: Institutt for Sosiologi og Statsvitenskap, Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Retrieved 2003 (http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/data/vanhanen).
83.
WadeRobert1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84.
WallersteinImmanuel1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century.New York: Academic Press.
85.
WeberMax1968. Economy and Society, edited by RothGuentherWittichClaus. New York: Bedminster Press.
86.
WeedeErich1989. “Democracy and Inequality Reconsidered.”American Sociological Review54: 865–68.
87.
WeedeErich1990. “Democracy, Party Government, and Rent-Seeking as Determinants of Distributional Inequality in Industrial Societies.”European Journal of Political Research18: 515–33.
88.
WeedeErich1993. “The Impact of Democracy or Repressiveness on the Quality of Life, Income Distribution and Economic Growth Rates.”International Sociology8: 177–95.
89.
WilenskyHarold1975. The Welfare State and Equality.Berkeley: University of California Press.
90.
WilliamsonJeffrey G.1991. Inequality, Poverty, and History.Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
91.
BankWorld2002. World Development Indicators [CD ROM]. Washington DC: World Bank.
92.
World Bank. Various years. World Tables.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
