Acemoglu And Robinson's Theory Of Democratization And Political Culture

The literatures on democratization and political culture contain key assumptions which weaken their ability to explain empirical patterns. Acemoglu and Robinson consider only one possible causal pathway from non-democratic regimes to democracy in their theory of democratization. Contrasting arguments advanced by Moore and Geddes undermine this assumption and provide justification for research on distinct causal pathways between regime types in which key variables, such as popular mobilization, have different levels of importance. Similarly, theories of political culture advanced by Inglehart and Putnam et al. assume a largely unmediated relationship between cultural factors and national regime type. By identifying weaknesses in Inglehart’s …show more content…
While these categories include a great amount of internal variation, they capture important tendencies across regime types. Democracy is representative of the majority population’s policy preferences, while non-democracies narrowly represent the preferences of social elites. The elites and the majority population are in conflict with one another as both groups use their political power in attempts to improve their current economic conditions and ability to influence policy decisions in the future (Acemoglu Robinson 2005:21). Democratization occurs when the majority threatens elites with revolution effectively enough that the elites not only make temporary concessions benefitting the majority but also implement institutions that durably transfer political power to the majority (Acemoglu and Robinson 2005:27). Several factors influence the likelihood of democratization, such as the development of the middle class and integration of elites into global markets, but Acemoglu and Robinson expect these factors to exert their influence through the same central mechanism. Their theory requires that such factors either make elites more amenable to transfers of political power or the majority more prone to effective …show more content…
Arguments advanced by Inglehart (1988) and Putnam et al (1993) assume that there is a primary cultural factor responsible for fair governance regardless of the context in which it is present. While these two theories conceptualize, measure, and apply this factor somewhat differently, both assume a mostly unmediated relationship between culture and governmental style. This assumption mirrors Acemoglu and Robinson’s attempt to identify a single process of democratization, making the case that popular mobilization is directly responsible for the implementation of representative institutions. Seligson’s criticism of Inglehart’s analysis (2002) provides both a strong critique of the assumption of causal heterogeneity and a basis for developing theories of democracy sensitive to multiple causal