The correlation between democracy and income inequality, as well as the direction of causation is still debated. In this paper, we conduct a dynamic panel data analysis for all 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states over the period 1960–2012 and illustrate a nonmonotonic relationship between inequality and democracy, as well as test the direction of causation by employing a noncausal homogeneity test in a panel Granger framework and the Dumitrescu and Hurlin noncausal heterogeneity test. We provide an explanation for the inverted U-shaped relation. In addition, we illustrate individual regression results for 12 exemplary Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and provide a concise illustration of the economic and political changes to which countries have been subjected while elaborating the effect of the underlying policies on democracy and income equality.
AcemogluDRobinsonJA (2000) Why did the west extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and growth in historical perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics115(4): 1167–1199.
3.
AcemogluDRobinsonJA (2001) A theory of political transitions. American Economic Review91: 938–963.
4.
AcemogluDRobinsonJA (2006) Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
AlemánJYangDD (2011) A duration analysis of democratic transitions and authoritarian backslides. Comparative Political Studies20(10): 1–29.
6.
ArellanoMBondS (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies58: 277–297.
7.
ArellanoMBoverO (1995) Another look at the instrumental-variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics68: 29–52.
8.
BarroRLeeJ (2012) A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics104: 184–198.
9.
Beetham D (1992) Liberal democracy and the limits of democratization. Political Studies Special Issue 40: 40–53.
10.
BlundellRBondS (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics87(1): 115–143.
11.
BoixC (2003) Democracy and Redistribution, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CampbellDE (2006) Why We Vote: How Schools and Communities Shape Our Civic Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
DahlRA (2013) A Preface to Democratic Theory, Expanded Edition – 50th Anniversary Edition, Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
DumitrescuEHurlinC (2012) Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling29: 1450–1460.
16.
DurkheimE (1951) Suicide. A Study in Sociology, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
17.
EpsteinDLBatesRGoldstoneJet al. (2006) Democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science50: 55169.
18.
FreemanJRQuinnDP (2012) The economic origins of democracy reconsidered. American Political Science Review106(1): 58–80.
19.
GradsteinMMilanovicB (2004) Does liberté = egalité? A survey of the empirical links between democracy and inequality with some evidence on the transition economics. Journal of Economic Surveys18(4): 515–537.
20.
Holtz-EakinD (1988) Testing for individual effects in autoregressive models. Journal of Econometrics39: 297–308.
21.
HouleC (2009) Inequality and democracy: Why inequality harms consolidation but does not affect democratization. World Politics61: 589622.
22.
HsiaoC (2003) Analysis of Panel Data, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HuntingtonSP (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
