Baklouti, Nedra and Boujelbene, Younes 2016. The Nexus Between Democracy and Economic Growth: Evidence from Dynamic Simultaneous-Equations Models. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,
Balcázar, Carlos Felipe 2016. Long-run effects of democracy on income inequality in Latin America. The Journal of Economic Inequality, Vol. 14, Issue. 3, p. 289.
Bang, James T. and Mitra, Aniruddha 2016. Institutions, information, and commitment: the role of democracy in conflict. Defence and Peace Economics, p. 1.
Capuno, Joseph J. 2016. An Oaxaca-decomposition analysis of popular support for democracy in Southeast Asian countries: are the middle classes different from the rest?. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, p. 1.
Carbone, Giovanni Marco Memoli, Vincenzo and Quartapelle, Lia 2016. Are lions democrats? The impact of democratization on economic growth in Africa, 1980–2010. Democratization, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, p. 27.
Cassani, Andrea and Carbone, Giovanni 2016. Citizen wellbeing in African competitive authoritarian regimes. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 10, Issue. S1, p. 191.
de Kadt, Daniel and Wittels, Stephen B. 2016. Democratization and Economic Output in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Science Research and Methods, p. 1.
Dietrich, Simone and Bernhard, Michael 2016. State or Regime? The Impact of Institutions on Welfare Outcomes. The European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 28, Issue. 2, p. 252.
Dilli, Selin 2016. Family Systems and the Historical Roots of Global Gaps in Democracy. Economic History of Developing Regions, Vol. 31, Issue. 1, p. 82.
Gründler, Klaus and Krieger, Tommy 2016. Democracy and growth: Evidence from a machine learning indicator. European Journal of Political Economy,
Ma, Tay-Cheng and Ouyang, Lishu 2016. DEMOCRACY AND GROWTH: A PERSPECTIVE FROM DEMOCRATIC EXPERIENCE. Economic Inquiry, p. n/a.
Nili, Shmuel 2016. Rethinking Economic “Sanctions”. International Studies Review, p. viv008.
NILI, SHMUEL 2016. Liberal global justice and social science. Review of International Studies, Vol. 42, Issue. 01, p. 136.
Patterson, Andrew C. and Veenstra, Gerry 2016. Politics and population health: Testing the impact of electoral democracy. Health & Place, Vol. 40, p. 66.
Shahbaz, Muhammad Loganathan, Nanthakumar Mujahid, Nooreen Ali, Amjad and Nawaz, Ahmed 2016. Determinants of Life Expectancy and its Prospects Under the Role of Economic Misery: A Case of Pakistan. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 126, Issue. 3, p. 1299.
Welzel, Christian Inglehart, Ronald and Kruse, Stefan 2016. Pitfalls in the Study of Democratization: Testing the Emancipatory Theory of Democracy. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
Wong, Mathew Y. H. 2016. Democratic Persistence and Inequality: the Role of Foreign Direct Investments. Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 51, Issue. 2, p. 103.
Balalaeva, Dina 2015. Political Competition, Agenda Power, and Incentives to Innovate: An Empirical Examination of Vested-Interest Theory. Review of Policy Research, Vol. 32, Issue. 4, p. 413.
Bangura, Yusuf 2015. Developmental Pathways to Poverty Reduction.
Berthold, Norbert and Gründler, Klaus 2015. The Growth Crisis of Germany: A Blueprint of the Developed Economies. International Economic Journal, Vol. 29, Issue. 2, p. 195.
Recent studies appear to show that democracy has no robust association with economic growth. Yet all such work assumes that the causal effect of democracy can be measured by a country's regime status in a particular year (T), which is correlated with its growth performance in a subsequent period (T+l). The authors argue that democracy must be understood as a stock, rather than a level, measure. That is, a country's growth performance is affected by the number of years it has been democratic, in addition to the degree of democracy experienced during that period. In this fashion, democracy is reconceptualized as a historical, rather than a contemporary, variable—with the assumption that long-run historical patterns may help scholars to understand present trends. The authors speculate that these secular-historical influences operate through four causal pathways, each of which may be understood as a type of capital: physical capital, human capital, social capital, and political capital. This argument is tested in a crosscountry analysis and is shown to be robust in a wide variety of specifications and formats.
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.