Assaults on capitalism and democratic backsliding: Evidence from Asia
| Date | 01 September 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891120938463 |
| Published date | 01 September 2021 |
| Author | Bruce Gilley |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Research article
Assaults on capitalism
and democratic backsliding:
Evidence from Asia
Bruce Gilley
Portland State University, USA
Abstract
It is generally assumed that stable democracies depend on sufficient economic freedoms that
support ideas of individual independence and that shift resources from state to society. The growth
and consolidation of economic freedoms under capitalism has been empirically linked to the
growth and consolidation of democracy. Asia as a region has generally conformed to this theory,
albeit with delayed democratic transitions due to the state-directed nature of development. This
article revisits the capitalism/democracy relationship in East and Southeast Asia with a particular
focus on contemporary concerns with global democratic backsliding. It shows the enduring analytic
and empirical utility of capitalism to explain structural pressures on democratic development. It
also shows how assaults on capitalism have predictive and descriptive value as indicators of
authoritarian repression and democratic backsliding. The article highlights the continued relevance
of capitalism for understanding democratic development, and underscores the significance of Asia
to broader debates on democratic backsliding.
Keywords
authoritarianism, capitalism, democracy, democratic backsliding, democratic transitions
Capitalism has often been assumed to play a pivotal role in creating positive conditions for
democratic development and in consolidating democratic rule. Under that assumption, one key
reason for the persistence of authoritarian regimes is the ability of those regimes to prevent the
emergence of a robust capitalist economy and associated market society. In recent years, the focus
of research on democracy has put greater emphasis on democratic reversals or backsliding. The
question has arisen about whether these reverse movements can also be understood by studying the
role of capitalism. Is democratic backsliding caused by assaults on capitalism?
Corresponding author:
Bruce Gilley, Portland State University, Urban Center, 650 N Portland, OR Oregon 97207-0751, USA.
Email: gilleyb@pdx.edu
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2057891120938463
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
2021, Vol. 6(3) 293–309
As a region with a wide variety of regime types, Asia is unmatched in its value for comparative
research. It is thus useful to periodically revisit the capitalism/democracy relationship with regard
to evidence from contemporary Asia in light of new research questions. What do we learn about
Asia, and how might this inform global comparative research into the state of democracy?
This article proceeds in four parts. The first section revisits the theory and evidence linking
capitalism and democracy, with a particular focus on Asia and on recent concerns with democratic
backsliding. The second section introduces quantitative measures of capitalism and democracy in
Asia as a framework for analysis of democratic development in the region. Th e third section
provides brief interpretive explanations of the state of democracy in 15 Asian countries, paying
particular attention to the linkages between assaults on capitalism and cases of democratic back-
sliding and repression. The conclusion applies the insights to broader global debates and suggests
directions for future research.
Linking capitalism and democracy
Capitalism refers to a system of economic organization “in which a class of entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurial institutions provide the capital with which businesses produce goods and services
and employ workers” (Blackburn, 2016: 70). The capitalist system is “based on private ownership of
property and private enterprise ...All, or a major proportion of, economic activity is undertaken by
private profit-seeking individuals or organizations, and land and other material means of production
are largely privately owned” (Hashimzade et al., 2017: 50). Under capitalism, the means of produc-
tion is protected from state control, free and competitive markets allocate labor, capital, and infor-
mation, and income and wealth are protected from arbitrary state plunder. The role of the state as an
economic actor is confined to the provision of public goods, meaning goods that are produced sub-
optimally under market conditions or whose production by the state limits negative unintended
consequences.
A political regime, meanwhile, can be said to be democratic, following Beetham, “to the extent
that it is subject to control by all members of the relevant association, or all those under its authority,
considered as equals” (Beetham, 1999: 4). Both definitions are essentially procedural: they make no
substantive claims that the outcomes are “just” or “fair,” only that they are problem-solving mechan-
isms for the creation and allocation of economic and political goods that disperse decision-making
power widely among the population compared to feasible alternatives.
The logical mechanisms linking capitalism to democracy are both ideational and material. Idea-
tionally, capitalism encourages social principles such as equality (“market prices”), accountability
(“customer service”), and self-rule (“free labor”). It also assumes that a freely organizing society is
the best judge of its own economic needs, an ontological assumption closely relating to the self-
governing ideal of democracy. In a more prosaic argument, Mueller pointed out that democracy and
capitalism share an essential non-utopian approach to questions of social and political life (Mueller,
1999). Novak made the same ideational point but in explicitly theological terms, pointing to the
elective affinity between voluntary care for others and voluntar y rule (Novak, 1982). Almond,
noting both the positive and negative influences of capitalism and democracy on one another,
concluded that by and large the historical record showed a positive relationship since they were
both better problem-solving mechanisms than available alternatives (Almond, 1991).
In terms of material mechanisms, capitalism disperses power away from traditional ruling elites
through property rights and working class and middle class resources (Rueschemeyer et al., 1992).
Since governments must therefore rely on broad taxation, the need for broad legitimation through
294 Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 6(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial