Regime Type and Performance

Abstract

Taking issue with the conclusion reached in several studies that economic variables best explain variation in economic performance among nations, this article reasserts the explanatory power of regime type and political characteristics for performance. If performance is evaluated in terms of material equality and welfare rather than growth, and is examined diachronically over the past decade and within differentiated population groups (rural, landless, and nearlandless), democratic-type regimes (Malaysia, Sri Lanka) have performed better than bureaucratic-authoritarian ones (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand). Where bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes have not perpetuated or increased poverty and inequality, e.g., South Korea, these “deviant” outcomes are due more to the peculiarities of the context and historical experience than to regime policies.