| NSF.GOV |  |
SBE HOME | |
BCS HOME | |
SES HOME | |
NUGGETS | |
FASTLANE | |
|
Democratization A Strategic Plan for Global Research on the Transformation and Consolidation of Democracies
Acknowledgments This report is a synthesis of the papers and proceedings of a workshop on democratization, convened at the National Science Foundation on December 8, 1993. The purpose of the workshop was to convoke a multidisciplinary group of experts on processes of democratization in order to assess whether there is a need for an extraordinary NSF initiative on democratization. As will be clear from the pages that follow, the consensus of the group was that there is a burning need for additional research support on processes of transition to democracy, as well as on the consolidation and maintenance of democracy. The workshop members strongly believe that socio-political changes in the world have generated opportunities for research that is not only essential to the strategic interests of the United States, but is central to the basic science interests of the social scientific community. The members of the working group were:
This workshop would not have been possible without the enthusiastic encouragement and support of Allan Kornberg, Director of Social, Behavioral and Economic Research at NSF. Dr. Kornberg was largely responsible for sensing the opportunity for a democratization initiative to contribute to both the science and the strategic interests of the U.S. Frank Scioli, Program Director, Political Science, was instrumental in contributing to both the intellectual agenda of the workshop as well as its organizational structure. The workshop also profited from discussions with virtually all of the program directors with SBER. William Bainbridge, Program Director, Sociology, in particular, contributed to this workshop report. Finally, we are indebted to Cora B. Marrett, NSF Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, for her support and encouragement for the workshop. While it is likely that none of the workshop members endorses every assertion and conclusion of this report, our report was produced as a collaborative effort, based both on our discussions at the workshop and working papers prepared by the workshop members. We are all grateful for the opportunity to contribute to defining a research agenda within this most terribly important area of social scientific inquiry.
Executive Summary Around the world, nations are in turmoil. As some struggle against enormous odds to create democratic political institutions and market-oriented economies, others that have tasted the first fruits of liberty are in grave danger of falling back into dictatorship and poverty. In some of the most disquieting cases, ethnic and religious hostility and civil war have brought societies to the brink of ruin. In others, however, peoples long oppressed have joined the ranks of peaceful democracies and are working toward political stability and economic prosperity. In all cases, the political, social, and economic transformations currently under way in the world provide a veritable social-scientific laboratory for research on the dynamics and probable consequences of these global transformations. From a strategic perspective, if the United States and other mature democracies are to navigate successfully the ocean of problems and opportunities that lie ahead, we need complete and rigorous scientific understandings of the factors that facilitate or impede democracy. The social sciences are currently well positioned to generate the base of reliable, systematic knowledge that would both contribute very markedly to scientific understanding and also help guide policy makers charged with the maintenance of our strategic interests. (See Appendix A for examples of research projects recently funded by NSF that demonstrate the readiness of the social sciences to do this important work.) Since a more democratic world is also a more peaceful world, inquiry into the conditions facilitating democracy is of utmost importance to U. S. national interests. From a scientific perspective, the intellectual gains to be had from investigating the radical changes and powerful social forces unleashed in so many nations could be enormous. It is difficult to learn the essential conditions of democracy and prosperous and equitable markets by studying exclusively well established, stable societies in which these have long existed. Rather, by researching the struggles for freedom and stability in states experiencing rapid political and economic change, we can better understand which features of democratic political systems and flourishing economies are essential and which are merely incidental. Many theories have been proposed about the functions of various societal institutions, the sources of social order or consensus, and the dynamics of accommodation between and among competing groups. These theories can now be tested in the laboratory provided by the former Soviet Union and other metamorphosing nations. This work must be started immediately, while the changes are still in progress. If and when these societies complete their transition to stable democracy, or if they fall back into authoritarianism, the unparalleled opportunity to structure systematic studies to rigorously test hypotheses in transitional societies that until recently were closed to free inquiry will be lost. It is crucial that the social scientific community be immediately provided the resources necessary for the massive research effort required. We strongly urge the National Science Foundation to devote substantial resources to social scientific research on these supremely important questions. Under the sponsorship of the Division of Social, Behavioral and Economic Research of the National Science Foundation, a group of 13 scholars met on December 8, 1993, to consider the proper scientific response to the vast political, economic, and social changes occurring in the former Soviet Union and several other regions of the world. The group overwhelmingly and enthusiastically agreed that research in this crucial area must be greatly increased, and therefore that a special funding initiative should be launched. This report describes the deliberations of the group and outlines the scientific rationale for its conclusions. Introduction: The Need for An Initiative on Democratization Both scientific and strategic concerns require the National Science Foundation to target resources for the study of democratization processes throughout the world. The world is currently undergoing massive political change, much of which is toward increasing democratic freedom and experimentation with less command-oriented and more market-based economies. From the destruction of the Berlin wall to the recent free elections South Africa, many areas of the world are facing profound transformations of their political and economic systems. Consequently, much of the world has become a laboratory, allowing social scientists to test hypotheses of great general significance about the dynamics of political, legal, economic, cultural and social systems. Because the social sciences have become mature disciplines so recently, they have never had an opportunity like this for the advancement of scientific theory. Within this context, aggressive but well-designed research on the current massive, worldwide socio-political changes will undoubtedly generate unparalleled gains in scientific knowledge. The opportunity that currently exists is unlikely to be available for future generations of social scientists. Thus, the need for research on democratization is both urgent and immediate. At the same time, the strategic interests of the United States have come to mesh closely with our scientific interests. Successful development of democratic governments in the former Soviet Union and other key parts of the world would greatly enhance American security. America profits from democracy abroad -- historically, democracies have been highly unlikely to war on one another. In addition, the emergence of nascent free markets in China, as well as in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, opens tremendous commercial opportunities for American business, especially given American leadership in many areas of advanced technology. However, continued progress toward fully democratic institutions and processes in many countries -- including Russia and Ukraine -- is far from certain. Research on the factors that can constrain or facilitate democracy can help American leaders frame effective policies to deal with the crucial challenges of the coming years. It is in this sense that the interests of policy so nicely mesh with the interests of social scientists. Democracy is a dynamic and multifaceted concept. Consequently, the several fields of social science frequently employ somewhat different definitions and focus on different aspects of the concept. This is entirely appropriate, and indeed may be necessary. Workshop participants, who came from a number of different disciplines, found it easy to communicate without imposing a single conceptual definition on the group. In light of the great variation in political structures throughout the world, we believe that conceptual eclecticism is beneficial to the development of good science. However we define it, "democracy" is not a static end-state that polities achieve, and, once achieved, maintain forevermore. Instead, democratization is a dynamic process, involving numerous transformations. Democratization should not be taken to imply inevitable, onward and upward movement to a fully democratic system. Political transformations occur in erratic bits; freedom is won, but it is also lost. The workshop identified four stages in the democratization process, each of which is worthy of considerable research effort and attention: non-democratic regimes; transitional regimes; unstable democracies; and stable democracies. For each, research is required on processes that bear especially on the particular type of system, as outlined in the table below.
The dramatic changes in Central and Eastern Europe highlight the importance of democratization research, but it is essential to understand democratization as a process having varied manifestations in different parts of the world. Many countries in Africa are interesting, for instance, for either failing to democratize, or for experiencing the breakdown of democracy, or for undertaking a transition to democracy under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Many nations in South America and East Asia confront similar challenges. The cultural and economic variations across the developing world are so great that research is needed on a global basis, as well as on individual societies of particular scientific or policy interest. Even within nations commonly thought of as democratic, there are important opportunities to study the incomplete development of democratic institutions and values. For example, many countries emphasize the democratic norm that each person should have one vote, but have only weak commitments to political tolerance of minorities. The rights of minorities in democratic political systems should be an issue of great concern, and similar problems of advanced democratic development are a valid focus for research. Comprehensive Research Initiative Each of the sciences represented at the workshop has identified questions of the greatest intellectual and substantive importance that could be answered through timely research. The collapse of the Soviet Union has stimulated theory development to an unprecedented level, and challenging new hypotheses are being generated at a rapid rate. Therefore, it is important that the democratization research agenda be kept open to some extent, and that we be prepared to recognize creative new approaches as they arise. However, it is worth outlining a preliminary research agenda, both to illustrate the vast scientific potential of the work, and to highlight key questions that deserve high priority for prompt and vigorous research. The workshop identified five research areas that deserve special emphasis: the role of market transitions; the rule of law; the global system; alternative routes to democracy; and democratic political institutions and processes, and individual and group behavior. Each of these requires many specific research projects and attention from several scientific disciplines. I. The Role of Market Transitions During periods of political transformation, economic and political processes interact with particular force, and some of the most serious problems facing newly-emerging democracies are economic in origin. Some theories hold that a market economy is beneficial or even essential to democratization, although others do not. Thus a host of research questions connected to the interplay of economic and political factors require investigation, the following among them. Is democracy good for economic growth, and vice versa? This is an oft-stated relationships, but several hypotheses already in the literature should be examined through more rigorous research designs. Some Russians apparently believe their country needs an authoritarian government in order to create a market economy. The thinking goes that democracy can be developed later, after a market economy is in place. Similarly, the Chinese government has chosen to emphasize economic change over political change in its modernization efforts. A related hypothesis is that countries become democratic as they become richer, and that a dynamic relationship exists between economic performance and the political system. Other hypotheses suggest that cultural factors influence both the political and economic realms, perhaps in similar manner, although cultural dimensions of economic transformation are at present very poorly understood. What economic institutions are needed to sustain a market economy, and in what sequence do the institutions have to be created? Countries undergoing political transformation and economic change must create whole new institutional structures, including a financial system and a financial regulatory framework, a tax system, international trade mechanisms, and a social safety network. The interplay between economics and politics is far more than merely institutional. The demands of the mass public, and organized popular opposition to the government, may render politically impossible the economic policies that some economists think are not only desirable but, indeed, necessary. A case in point is the Russian political situation in the last months of 1993, in which the Russian people seemed to repudiate radical, market-based economic reform. Much more research must be focused on the politics of economic reform and the means by which the political process constrains economic policy. It is critical to learn who gains and who loses from reform, especially under different strategies of change, since different groups may win or lose under programs of industrial privatization, currency stabilization, land reform, or the organization of securities markets. Their capacities to act politically also vary. The assertion that reforms are uniformly painful may be false. Some reform programs can unintentionally strengthen anti-democratic forces, such as those that increase unemployment while ignoring safety net issues. To understand these policy-rich scientific problems, research attention should be invested in analytical and empirical work on the consequences of economic reform. These problems also have important psychological dimensions. In many Central and Eastern European countries, the free market has suddenly opened new opportunities and new risks. For example, the question arises how a population with a history of conservative decision-making views the unaccustomed perils of reform. How does the willingness to tolerate risk affect the stock market, investors, and savings in general? How does a population inured to scarcity and unused to making individual choices behave when suddenly a panoply of alternatives is available? The theory of "social helplessness" suggests that many people in transitional regimes fall into passivity, thereby suffering depression, confusion and poverty. But the same conditions are exploited by enterprising individuals. What are the implications of this contradictory situation for the emergence of a successfully functioning free market and democratic political system? In brief, the psychology of democratic and market transitions is a crucial area of inquiry. Creation and maintenance of democratic government requires the rule of law and the complex nexus of norms and roles associated with it. Three general legal topics are essential to any comprehensive understanding of democratic processes: 1) legal arrangements that empower non-state individuals and institutions; 2) legal conditions that protect the affairs of individuals; and 3) the decentralization of legal authority among a number of layers of government. The first two topics relate to the fundamental question of how legal arrangements facilitate or impede individual actions and, in turn, how individual and collective actions may alter such arrangements. The third dimension of the rule of law is cast at the level of social organization rather than at that of individuals, though it has vast consequences for how individuals conduct their affairs. 1. The rule of law includes legal arrangements that empower non-state actors (individuals, private corporations and the like) vis-a-vis state institutions. Within this broad area, several specific research topics stand out. First, there is the issue of an independent judiciary. What are the features of an independent judiciary, and how should we measure degrees of judicial independence? Does the degree of independence affect the type of democratic regime? Do states with low judicial autonomy operate democratic systems that focus on the interests of the majority as compared with minority rights? Judicial institutions can be, but are not always, powerful forces in favor of greater democratization, but we understand little about factors that encourage courts to act democratically. Second, there is the role of litigation and other forms of disputing in controlling the state and altering state decisions and policies. Litigiousness is often view unfavorably in developed democracies, but in fact it can be an important force for democratization in transitional regimes. Moreover, to the extent that citizens are willing to entrust state institutions with the management of their private conflicts, systemic legitimacy may be emerging. Third is the significance of property rights in the maintenance of democracy. The founders of the American democracy firmly believed that individual rights and property rights were inextricably intertwined (at least in principle). In contrast, countries such as Sweden have operated democratic systems while allowing the state to control a substantial percentage of the wealth. Some scholars have argued that the maldistribution of property ownership has impeded democratic regimes in Latin America. This topic is of special importance currently as countries of the former Soviet Union contemplate the re-privatization of portions of their societies and consider complete revisions of legal codes concerning property rights. 2. A crucial function of the rule of law is to allow individuals to arrange their own affairs with a fair degree of predictability and freedom of action. Some authoritarian legal regimes may provide predictability, because their systems are designed to control individuals and thus suppress many sources of unpredictability. But they do not facilitate free individual action. Often, as has been found in research on labor courts in the former East Germany, this predictability is merely consistent enforcement upon individuals of the will of the state. Two components are essential for understanding the rule of law at this level. First, there is the issue of formal law, which theoretically redefines all disputes in terms of a few formal legal concepts and resolves disputes solely on these concepts. The validity of a contract, for example, turns on questions of consideration, meeting of the minds, and similar formal requirements, not on the specific attributes of the litigants. Such a system creates the unique balance of predictability and equal treatment that is the ideal of Western legal orders. A second important component is adjective law: that is the set of evidentiary and procedural rules that tell the legal system how to proceed. Considerable work has been done on the perception of procedural justice, and this research suggests that the legitimacy of democratic regimes depends in part on perceptions individuals have that they have been treated fairly and equitably in their legal encounters. Numerous other questions concerning the origins of institutional legitimacy, however, remain unanswered. The legitimacy of legal institutions in turn affects compliance -- the degree to which individuals arrange their affairs either to comply with or to avoid legal mandates. It is believed by some that democratic systems achieve higher levels of compliance with legal rules, due to the legitimacy of law, but the issue is complex, as indicated by the work on tax compliance. The democratization of the former Soviet Union and much of Central and Eastern Europe will make possible a great improvement in our understanding of general processes connecting democratic institutions with regime legitimacy and individual compliance. 3. The issue of "layered law," a key form of jurisdictional decentralization and division of labor in decision-making, concerns vital aspects of the rule of law on the level of group organization rather than individuals. With its federalism, the American legal system is particularly complex because of the interaction between federal, state and local law. In developing countries, very different kinds of legal layers may exist, notably a coexistence of formal westernized codes with traditional legal arrangements. In the past, many developing societies have borrowed large parts of the legal regimes of other societies. Sometimes this was done by the developing state itself, as when the Turks and the Japanese borrowed Western legal codes near the beginning of this century. At other times, it has been imposed by colonial powers. Today, a substantial amount of imposition is occurring at the transnational level. For instance, the European Union is slowly forcing member states to alter legal arrangements to be compatible with EU directives. Perhaps more important, Western economic institutions impose legal changes on all societies that wish to participate in an integrated world economy. The layering of law itself raises important questions of legitimacy and compliance. How do institutions that transcend the nation state acquire legitimacy, especially since many of these institutions suffer from a "democracy deficit"? Short of coercive force, how can compliance be assured? The growing importance of transnational institutions raises a series of difficult questions for theories that have for so long been focused on the nation-state. The nature of legal layers is particularly important for the creation of democratic regimes. To provide but one example, a serious impediment to democratic arrangements in much of Eastern Europe and Africa is the existence of ethnic and tribal cleavages that create large amounts of distrust within society. Research is needed to learn what layered legal arrangements might facilitate the emergence of democratic institutions and processes. Moreover, can the universalism implied by the rule of law overcome the particularism of tribalism? These are issues of tremendous importance for many parts of the democratizing world. A scientific understanding of the global system of developed and developing nations requires comparative analysis and the recognition that some defining features of advanced industrial societies have particular historical roots and may not be duplicated by other societies. In this context, anthropologists can bring the distinctive strengths of their discipline to democratization research. This is because: 1) Anthropologists typically adopt a "decentered" cross-cultural approach that does not necessarily take the Western democratic experience as normative or exemplary; 2) Anthropologists are concerned with locating data to answer large questions within the parochial understandings that come from studying everyday life; 3) They have a special interest in and experience with studying ethnic, sectarian and other ascriptive groups as they form and operate on the society; and 4) Their long-standing disciplinary practice is to contextualize political behavior and political institutions within a larger framework of cultural beliefs. The experience of developing nations with the construction and maintenance of democratic institutions and procedures is neither peripheral to nor derivative of the advanced industrial nations. Instead, this experience may anticipate developments in industrial societies. The lived experience of postcolonial nations has long included factors comparable to the global economy, the transnational society, and the postmodern consciousness that Europe and the United States now recognize pose new problems for maintaining or building democracy. Therefore, the means by which nations such as India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have sought to create a democratic state may be instructive across the globe. Among the many general topics that can be illuminated by research in developing nations, three stand out: cultural minority rights, opposition movements, and world ideological trends. 1. A crucial research question is the extent to which the introduction of electoral politics and other democratic reforms have given rise to "cultural fundamentalism." That is the use of cultural (rather than racial) arguments by a majority population to resist immigration and to deny democratic rights to minority groups. Such culturalist arguments have been used to rationalize violence against Turks in Germany, and some echoes of them can be heard even in the United Kingdom and the United States. 2. Opposition movements and public protest are essential aspects of democracy, and it is crucial to learn how protest gets socially organized and then legitimized in emergent democracies. Questions arise such as: What types of movements have been most and least effective in bringing about democratic transitions? How consequential for democratic transitions have been social movements that are class specific versus multiclass, restorative versus transformative, or political versus non-political? Do women's movements have a special role in these processes? Does the continuation of movements under newly emerged democracies help or impede institutionalization of democracy and influence new regime politics? How and why do macro-economic and political conditions influence the emergence and effects of social movements? An extensive literature exists on social movements and collective behavior that could inform studies of the relationships linking them to democratic transitions. 3. Our century has seen global shifts in ideological currents. In the 1930s, Fascism was the ideology of choice for aspiring young intellectual elites throughout much of the world, especially in Latin America, Continental Western and Central Europe, and East Asia. Its only real rival was Marxism. After World War II, Marxism became the dominant paradigm among intellectuals throughout most of the world, especially in colonial and former "Third World" countries, but also in much of Western Europe. In the 1970s and 1980s this began to shift, and has now changed dramatically. Various kinds of religious fundamentalism have gained the upper hand among intellectuals in West, South and Southeast Asia, for instance. Is this a trend for the future that will now spread to the former Communist societies looking for new ideologies? What are the causes and consequences of such massive ideological currents, and how do they affect the prospects for democratization? The question of how ideologies spread can now be addressed in light of the development of new non-linear dynamic models. For example, psychologists have developed a neural network model based on the "spin glass" approach which is appropriate for the systematic study of the spread of ideas, beliefs and ideologies. This computer model has been applied to the method of social influence generally, and can now be applied to a range of specific questions, such as the varying ways in which a democratic ideology is diffused among populations characterized by different demographics, economic interests, or historical backgrounds. Good candidates for intensive empirical study include the influence of West Germany on East Germany (and vice versa) and the spread of democratic ideas within the Polish farm population. IV. Alternative Routes to Democracy It is clear that democracy is a process rather than a state, but a great deal of new research is needed on the alternative pathways to democracy. The prospects and nature of democratic transitions appear to be influenced not only by the general form of the pre-democratic regime (Communist versus bureaucratic-authoritarian) but also by specific characteristics of those regimes. For example, if in the pre-democratic stage power was concentrated and personalized, the political transformation may be especially violent and short lived, and the resulting regime democratic only in form, rather than substance. Comparative in-depth studies that systematically consider the characteristics of the polity, society, and culture in the period preceding democratic transitions should provide a better understanding both of the weight of historical forces and of how forces that impede democratic processes might be countered. Longitudinal research on these issues is, of course, imperative. Research designs must take note of the distinctiveness of the various stages of democratization. Factors that are important during periods of initial transition to democracy may be less important during periods of democratic consolidation. Economic failure, for instance, may be a stimulus to democratization under non-democratic regimes, whereas it may also be a major threat to the maintenance of democracy under established democratic systems. Because it is inappropriate to assume that the factors affecting democratization are similar at different stages of the process, it is essential to conduct multiple tests of any major theory using data from societies at different stages. A related issue is the question of how reform varies when it is carried out gradually or rapidly. Conventional wisdom holds that the prolonged histories of political-economic development that brought the older democracies to their current prosperous stability are unavailable luxuries in new democracies that must undertake such development in relatively short periods of time. V. Democratic Political Institutions Whether the conventional wisdom is supported by systematic study of appropriate cases can help illuminate the pace, as well as the conditions, under which transitions to democracy are likely to occur and be sustained. Regarding conditions, one scholar has identified fully 27 explanatory variables. Generally, however, the several theories categorize the important factors in three groups: cultural, economic, and ethnic. A. Political Culture. Nearly all agree that political culture is somehow connected with democracy, and there are fairly coherent and well-understood notions about the attitudinal and behavioral attributes conducive to democratization. The general hypothesis is that democracy is likely to flourish when a sizable segment of elites and the mass public endorses majoritarianism as a basic decision rule for politics, supports the rights of all groups to contest for political power, is willing to tolerate the expression of nearly all ideas including potentially dangerous ones, and is committed to the rule of law. A legion of studies has investigated political culture from this perspective, but a host of unanswered questions remains, including: 1. What is the relative influence of mass and elite political cultures? Most agree that the attitudes, values, and actions of elites are crucial to the development of democratic polities. There is some debate, however, about the importance of the political culture of the mass public. It cannot be utterly insignificant -- as we have so recently re-learned from the experiences of the Russians -- but further research is necessary to specify the relative contributions of masses and elites to democratization. It is also important to consider how elites affect the values of the mass public. 2. How rapidly can cultures change under the influence of various sources of change? An important source of rapid cultural change is the importation of ideas, so the study of worldwide diffusion processes and communication linkages is of great importance. Further research on attitude and value change at the individual level and among age cohorts is also necessary. 3. What is the nature of the causal connection between cultures and institutions? Some argue that culture causes institutional performance; others, that institutions cause cultural beliefs, and still others believe that reciprocal processes are involved. Key issues for research are thus whether there is a causal connection between institutional and cultural democratization, and if so, the degree and direction of the relationship. 4. Political transformations are played out within a broader cultural context, and subcultural pluralism has received a great deal of attention in previous research. Some theorists have argued that the existence of distinctive subcultures makes the development of democratic institutions and processes more difficult. Most scholars recognize that the nefarious effects of subcultural pluralism can be mitigated through such schemes as consociational democracy, and few argue that cultural homogeneity is a necessary condition for democracy. However, the fact that bargaining and compromise are key elements of democracy causes many political scientists to fear that the existence of strong and distinctive subcultural minorities in a society will weigh heavily against democratization. This could be avoided if alternative pathways and institutional schemes for democratic development could be found. Thus, one of the most important areas for future inquiry concerns the complex interactions between nationalism, ethnic relations, and democratic development. Other cultural issues are important as well, notably the connection between religion and democratization. At the macro-level, why is there a dearth of democracies in Islamic countries? The failure of democracy in many Moslem countries cannot be entirely attributed to radical and virulently anti-democratic fundamentalist forces (as those gaining power in Egypt and Algeria), but may also be connected to belief and value patterns encouraged and sustained by religious teachings. At the microlevel, how do religious values shape democratic values such as political tolerance and attitudes toward authority? Studies of the interaction of political and religious values should shed light on how democracies emerge and consolidate. B. Economic Development and Success. Since the earliest systematic studies of democratization, there has been great concern with the role of economic factors. Few today believe that economics has nothing to do with democratic transitions, but beyond this simple proposition, little concordance can be found. Theorists disagree about the connection between economics and politics in part because so many discrete processes link the two sets of variables. Socioeconomic development may contribute to democracy via several distinct pathways, such as through: 1) changes in the social structure such as the emergence of new social strata; 2) the emergence of a civil society; 3) the development of a political culture that emphasizes inclusiveness, participation, restraint, and accommodation; 4) the facilitation of a government that permits significant economic and social autonomy. These various pathways mix micro-level and macro-level processes. At the micro-level, there is growing concern about the influence of economic experiences, including self interest, on economic and political attitudes. Especially important in periods of rapid economic and political change is whether citizen attitudes toward the political system are a function of retrospective or prospective economic attitudes. Indeed, while there is a large body of theoretical literature connecting economic malaise with the failure of democracy, empirical tests of this hypothesis at the micro-level are virtually non-existent. Finally, the workshop devoted considerable attention to research design and methodology. This was true in part because many methodologies can contribute to understanding the development and maintenance of democracy. But it also stems from the fact that existing research on democratization has suffered from underdeveloped research designs, such as using cross-sectional designs that collect data at only one point in time to assess dynamic hypotheses. This important deficiency in previous research was largely due to inadequate funding for research in the field. The most important methodological issue is the need to support longitudinal research, collecting data at several points in time to measure change. Democratization is a longitudinal, dynamic process, so the fact that funding limitations frequently dictated cross-sectional design severely compromised the ability of social scientists to assess many processes of change and many causal interconnections among key variables. The scope and rapidity of current political changes provide opportunities for testing dynamic hypotheses that have never been available before. The development of new measurement techniques and methods of statistical analysis, of special relevance for research on democratization, is particularly important. Rigorous measurement is at the heart of all scientific inquiry, and research on democratization is no exception. Among the vexing problems of comparative international research is the difficulty of developing equivalent measures that are reliable and valid in different cultures. Another difficulty is that the number of variables under analysis often outnumbers the number of nations for which one can obtain good data. Thus, a methodological component is a key part of a democratization initiative. Quantitative analysis comparing nation states is only one of many approaches and a variety of scientific techniques appropriate for different kinds of projects need to be developed and supported. This brief survey of potential research topics and methodologies perforce ignores many areas that need to be included in a comprehensive research program. It should be clear that democratization is a broad and important field for scientific study. It is crucial both to basic science and to the strategic needs of the United States. Understanding democracy raises fundamental scientific questions in all fields of social science. In recent decades, social scientists have developed theoretical analyses and techniques of empirical research that have prepared them to answer these questions in ways that will be highly useful for our society. The tremendous policy implications of this research program are obvious; any knowledge that can improve the chances for democracy around the world will greatly enhance the security and prosperity of American citizens. But the scientific gains will also be great. In the natural laboratory offered by a radically changing world, it will be possible to test key hypotheses about the nature of large-scale social change, the functions of societal institutions, and the very forces that bind a society together. This research is of great urgency. Changes are occurring so rapidly researchers must move quickly before opportunities are lost. In addition, American leaders need prompt and authoritative advice on how to respond effectively to the unparalleled events of our decade. On the basis of the expertise developed in recent years by our scientific disciplines, and in awareness of the massive changes currently in progress around the world, we therefore most strongly urge the National Science Foundation to invest substantial resources in research on democratization. Examples of Research on Democratization and Market Transition Recently Supported by the Division of Social and Economic Sciences Research Problems Pertaining to Democratization and Transition to Market-Oriented Economies Go to the NSF Political Science
Program Go to the NSF Law and Social
Science Program
|
