Finally, I'd like to have us return to 
the original theory of Seymour Martin 
Lipset, about the relationship between 
economic development and democracy. 
And subsequent writings, including my 
own, about the reasons why economic 
development. 
Might result in, more stable and 
sustainable democracy. 
So, what are the different intervening 
variables between economic development 
and democracy that might account for 
this. 
Well, first we have, Political Culture. 
That is that with economic development, 
we'd see greater participation. 
Knowledge on the part of citizens. 
A sense as I've said of, personal 
efficacy, that people who have, higher 
levels of income an education, would be 
more confident, aware participatory 
active citizens. 
And the argument goes, people with higher 
levels of education and who live in and 
are socialized in periods and nations of 
greater prosperity would be more 
tolerant, more likely to support 
democracy and more like to oppose 
authoritarianism. 
Second is something related not to the 
subjective dimension but to the class 
structure. 
That economic development gives rise to 
an independent bourgeoisie. 
That is a class of entrepreneurs and 
property owners. 
Who have resources of their own and are 
able to potentially contain the power of 
the state and provide alternative 
resources for different political parties 
civil societies organisations, social 
movements. 
to compete and express their interest. 
In other words, that a society of a large 
middle class. 
A society of people who have some control 
over the means of production. 
Where economic resources are dispersed. 
Should be a society that's more 
supportive of democracy, and so with this 
goes a very naturally the idea that with 
economic development, the structure of 
the economy is transformed from one in 
which resources are mainly in control of 
the state. 
To one in which resources lie to a very 
considerable degree outside the state in 
the hands of entrepreneurs and 
individuals who are not employees of the 
state and are, are not at the direction 
of the state. 
This can also help us understand why. 
Oil rich countries many not be well 
positioned to develop and sustain 
democracy even if they have high, high 
levels of per capita income. 
If one of the intervening variables 
that's crucial. 
In between economic development and 
democracy and helping economic 
development bring about democracy is the 
transformation of economic structure, so 
that wealth resides mainly outside the 
state. 
Then this might not and frequently is not 
achieved in oil rich countries, like, 
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab 
Emirates, Brunei and so on, where the 
state really controls the oil wealth. 
The oil wealth across to the state and 
you don't have this dispersion, this 
democratization in a sense of economic 
resources and control. 
This then leads to the fourth factor 
which Seymour Martin Lipset emphasize the 
quite strongly in his writings that with 
economic development we get a 
transformation of the class structure. 
In traditional societies, and generally, 
in relatively poor countries, the class 
structure looks like a pyramid. 
there's a small number of people at the 
top who are able to control most of the 
wealth of the country. 
And we see that here at the top of the 
pyramid then there's a somewhat larger 
middle class but still these two groups 
or social groups that are relatively 
resourceful well above. 
Minimum means of living, well above the 
poverty line are greatly outnumbered by 
the poor and the near-poor, who form the 
massive base at the bottom of the 
pyramid. 
That Lipset argued, is the traditional 
familiar type of class structure you 
would expect to see in a very poor 
country. 
However, in a as economic development 
occurs, we see a transformation of the 
class structure from a pyramid to a 
diamond. 
Now what's crucial about a diamond is 
that the majority of the people, the 
broad bulk of the population, are now 
middle class. 
We've had a transformation from the, the 
model economic status of citizens being 
poverty to the model economic status 
being middle class. 
And that means that in this situation, 
most people in the country are not poor, 
they have some access to resources, most 
of them are not employed by the state. 
They have reasonable levels of education. 
So, they are able, to mobilize and 
organize, political participation that is 
informed, that is self-confident. 
And that is autonomous, from the state 
and therefore able to check the state. 
This is a much happier class structure 
one that is suitable for and much better 
able to sustain or even give rise to a 
democracy and even a liberal democracy. 
When there's a small underclass the 
relations between citizens are less 
polarized around the class. 
When you have a large middle class and in 
particular some significant social 
mobility class lines are not rigid. 
People are able to move back and forth 
and rise up from poverty to either wealth 
or at least reasonable and 
self-supporting middle-class status. 
By contrast, in some of the countries of 
the world, particularly traditionally in 
Latin America. 
Which have the highest levels of 
inequality. 
You have a situation of extreme 
polarization along class lines. 
This may infect the political party 
system and lead to the rise of parties, 
populus parties representing the lower 
class. 
Who say, the way to level these 
inequalities and acheive social justice 
is to re-distribute the wealth. 
Historiacally, in Latin America, this has 
at times led to a reaction among the 
upper classes and even the military 
supporting them. 
and the establishment if you will, 
reacting with even military coups to 
suppress this lower class mobilization. 
Or it might lead to right wing parties 
representing the privileged to lead the 
land owners, those who control by far, a 
vastly disproportionate share, of the 
wealth of the country, of the land and 
the means of production. 
organizing right-wing populous parties in 
which citizens are not really citizens 
but rather patrons serving clients in 
order to, kind of lock, them, socially, 
into place. 
This is not a healthy relationship. 
it's not a social structure that's really 
very conducive to stable democracy. 
It's one that's very inclined. 
To ideological polarization, very 
inclined to not mutual insecurity, not 
mutual security among competing political 
forces, but something closer to mutual 
insecurity and it's no surprise then that 
Latin America has seen so much political 
party polarization and instability. 
So many instances, in the 20th century of 
military coups and democratic 
disruptions[UNKNOWN] like the one of 
Alberto Fujimori in Peru in the early 
1990's and even during the third wave of 
democracy interrupted presidencies. 
And now in South Africa since the 
transition from Apartheid, we still have 
a situation of extreme inequality. 
With a modest middle class and a very 
rich upper-class now not merely white 
it's been made a multi racial phenomenon 
and so there's been the emergence in 
South Africa as a black bush wazi . 
But still very slow progress in South 
Africa in diminishing poverty and so very 
deep sense of impatience and resentment 
among, racial majorities in South Africa, 
who still feel excluded. 
And deprived and are wondering if 
democracy is working for them. 
and this may help us to understand why, 
the support for democracy in South 
Africa, is not higher than we would 
expect it to be. 
At least not on a par, quite, with some 
of the other sub-Saharan African 
countries in the Afrobarometer. 
There is a deep sense of exclusion and 
still a legacy from the Apartheid years 
of extreme inequality and relatively 
rigid class boundaries with large numbers 
of people, trapped physically and 
socially in concentrated situations of,of 
poverty. 
Now economic development that Lipset 
argued, should transform the social 
structure in a variety of ways. 
That would be conducive to democracy. 
First of all as people get higher levels 
of income and education, more awareness, 
more,more social mobility, more physical 
mobility. 
As people move out of the country side 
into the city this should disrupt. 
Traditional clientalistic, hierarchical 
ties between say rich land-owning elites 
and the constituencies that they[COUGH] 
mobilize in hierarchical patron-client 
relations. 
So people in the language of Samuel 
Huntington, in the famous book he wrote 
with Joan Nelson called, No Easy Choice 
are freed up in the middle stages of 
economic development from these 
hierarchical relations. 
And they move from a situation[SOUND] of 
mobilized participation which is really 
participation through client holistic 
parties that often reproduce these 
relations of inequality. 
To a situation of autonomous 
participation where they're trully free 
citizens who are thinking for themselves 
and are better able to represent their 
own interest. 
In addition, the transformation of social 
structure leads to more social capital, 
as citizens who are autonomous in the way 
they can participate are also more 
inclined to come together along 
horizontal lines. 
Keeping in mind, as I will explain in my 
nest, next lecture, that when citizens 
are on an equal plane and come together 
on horizontal lines, they are more able 
to hold political leaders accountable. 
And represent an defend their interests. 
In addition Lipset argued, that with 
economic development, should come, a 
phenomenon called cross-cutting 
cleavages. 
Cleavage cross cut when there are 
multiple divisions in society and people 
are coming together in a variety of 
different settings, meeting different 
people, depending on what their identity 
interest orientation may be. 
in a particular social moment. 
So they are not just identifying on the 
basis of their religion or ethnicity but 
for example occupation becomes[COUGH] an 
important identity or their statuses as 
students. 
Or as someone, who is concerned about 
their gender rights, coming together with 
other women in the society. 
And so when an individual can, walk into 
a, a church. 
And see people from different classes as 
members of their church all praying 
together and then they walk into a trade 
union meeting and see members of the same 
economic status and the same. 
union membership coming together across 
reg, religion, across ethnicity, this 
pulls them in different directions and 
the same would go for a political party 
that may draw people together. 
On ideological lines but bring people 
from different regions, different 
ethnicities. 
Lipset argued and it's been a major theme 
in the sociological writings that if 
people are interacting. 
With others who are different from them 
in their class standing or their 
ethnicity or if they are coming together 
in some kind of social or religious 
setting where they are interacting with 
people from different political parties. 
They're more likely to be moderate more 
likely to be tolerant because they're 
interacting with people who are different 
from them, and they see that those people 
who are different from them in one sense 
are similar to them in another sense. 
So crosscutting cleavages should breed 
moderation and tolerance, which are two 
very important dimensions of a healthy 
democracy. 
Then two, with economic development comes 
the growth of an independent, vigorous 
civil society. 
Keep in mind, what does economic 
development do? 
It generates more wealth, more resources, 
more education, more activity in a 
society. 
More capacity to organize, and in 
particular, to organize on horizontal 
lines. 
This means that people are more able. 
They have more time, first of all; 
they're not struggling to survive. 
They have more resources, what Inglehart 
and Welzel called action resources. 
They have more knowledge. 
They have more skills. 
So they're more able to form and join 
organizations, actual organizations where 
people are coming together, and in the 
contemporary era, virtual networks as 
well. 
Classically this meant the rise of 
independent trade unions, which have 
played a very important role in the 
transition to democracy in a number of, 
countries around the world from Latin 
America and before that Europe to more 
recently Asia and Africa. 
And also very recently in the Arab Middle 
East where independent trade unions in 
countries like Egypt have been a major 
source of protest against authoritarian 
rule and mobilization for democracy. 
[COUGH] So, economic development taking a 
country from extreme poverty to the 
beginnings of the rise of the industrial 
sector, the service sector gives rise to 
a more complex pluralistic civil society. 
Finally, economic development. 
Inserts countries more into the rest of 
the world. 
It fosters globalization and interactions 
in terms of trade, in terms of movement 
of people. 
Students studying abroad, visitors coming 
to the country, foreign investment coming 
to the country, people mixing it up 
countries becoming more interacting, 
economically, socially and politically 
with the rest of the world. 
Development rising levels of income and 
education promote physical mobility and 
what the grade social scientists of the 
post World War two era Daniel Lerner 
called psychic mobility a kind of like 
awareness of the rest of the world and 
engagement with it. 
So, we come then to, back to this very 
complicated slide but, one that we will 
return to repeatedly over the course of 
this class. 
And we see that the level of human 
development here, can be shaped by 
economic performance. 
Obviously economic performance of a 
political system if it's successful 
raises the overall level of economic 
development of education of public health 
and so on. 
But also countries that have higher 
levels of human development are better 
poised to perform well. 
to have strong and effective states, and 
to have social and economic systems that 
promote economic growth, more dispersion 
of resources; more equity and social 
justice. 
We see here also that a diversified 
economic structure should, diminish 
inequality. 
That's what the negative sign here is and 
that should help to reduce ideological 
polarization. 
And give rise to more moderate political 
parties. 
And then, of course, if we have effective 
performance, we will get a more 
legitimate political system. 
Economic development also promotes the 
rise of education. 
And helps to socialize citizens into the 
values and attitudes that sustained 
democracy, this gives rise to a political 
culture of democracy which promotes 
legitimacy and moderate politics. 
So there are great many ways, I haven't 
had time here to explore all of them. 
That economic development leads to a more 
horizontal society, a, a more egalitarian 
society reducing levels of inequality, 
empowering people to be autonomous 
thinking effective citizens. 
And creating both the participatory 
element of democracy and the element of 
restraint, tolerance, moderation and 
cooperation that creates an effective 
liberal democracy.