The relationship between regime type and economic inequality has been extensively studied in both comparative politics and political economy literature. Classic studies posit that democracy is associated with lower levels of income inequality and that transition from autocracy to democracy leads to more redistributive policies. Yet, scholars do not agree on the determinants and mechanisms of such relationship and empirical findings do not unequivocally support classic theoretical assumptions. In addition, the majority of studies has been primarily focused on the processes of democratisation, and thus, has erroneously treated autocracies as a homogenous group of countries. However, recent academic contributions have shed light on the authoritarian heterogeneity and on the extensive variation in institutional settings among autocracies. Built on the evidence that autocracies differ among themselves as much as they differ from democracy, we examine whether democratic institutions or quality of government account for variation in redistributive policies in authoritarian contexts. Using a comparative quantitative approach to test our hypotheses, we conduct a longitudinal analysis on over 80 autocracies around the world. Recent improvements in country and year coverage of data on income inequality allow us to reduce the limitations related to the lack of available data, upon which most of the existing studies on the issue are affected. Preliminary results show that democratic institutions and quality of government play a pivotal role in influencing redistributive policies and determining the level of income inequality in autocratic countries.

Explaining Income Inequality in Authoritarian Regimes: A Comparative Institutional Perspective / Panaro, Angelo; Vaccaro, Andrea. - (2019). ((Intervento presentato al convegno Italian Political Science Association National Conference, 2019 tenutosi a Lecce; Italy.

Explaining Income Inequality in Authoritarian Regimes: A Comparative Institutional Perspective

Andrea Vaccaro
2019

Abstract

The relationship between regime type and economic inequality has been extensively studied in both comparative politics and political economy literature. Classic studies posit that democracy is associated with lower levels of income inequality and that transition from autocracy to democracy leads to more redistributive policies. Yet, scholars do not agree on the determinants and mechanisms of such relationship and empirical findings do not unequivocally support classic theoretical assumptions. In addition, the majority of studies has been primarily focused on the processes of democratisation, and thus, has erroneously treated autocracies as a homogenous group of countries. However, recent academic contributions have shed light on the authoritarian heterogeneity and on the extensive variation in institutional settings among autocracies. Built on the evidence that autocracies differ among themselves as much as they differ from democracy, we examine whether democratic institutions or quality of government account for variation in redistributive policies in authoritarian contexts. Using a comparative quantitative approach to test our hypotheses, we conduct a longitudinal analysis on over 80 autocracies around the world. Recent improvements in country and year coverage of data on income inequality allow us to reduce the limitations related to the lack of available data, upon which most of the existing studies on the issue are affected. Preliminary results show that democratic institutions and quality of government play a pivotal role in influencing redistributive policies and determining the level of income inequality in autocratic countries.
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11573/1349851
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact