Government and Development
While authoritarian governments and democracies mainly differ by way of rule I believe that the differences do not stop there. Upon further examination, one would see that the differences in the foundations of each government type permeate various aspects of the country. But when and where do the differences stop? Through the analyzation of data, I plan to explore whether or not human development in a country is affected by the form of government that is present within that country. Are democratic countries more fully developed because there is input from citizen constituents or are authoritarian countries more developed as a way to ensure that the leader retains power and control. To answer the question of whether human development is affected by the type of government present in a society I will analyze data pertaining to human development from two countries on each multinational continent (Africa, Americas, Asia, and Europe), one country possessing a democratic government and the other possessing an authoritarian government. Through comparison and analyzation, I hope to uncover what affect if any does the type of government have on human development.
To analyze human development in various countries I will be relying on the data collected by The United Nations Human Development Program (UNHDP). The United Nations Human Development Program calculates human development by taking into account a nation’s longevity, Education and income among other things. The Human Development Program defines human development as “…a country's overall achievement in its social and economic dimensions.” After measuring the amount of human development in each country the UNHDP then produces a score for each country known as the Human Development Index (HDI). The human development index is on a scale from 0 to 1 with 1 being the most developed and 0 being the least developed. To further enhance the context of the HDI scores I will also be providing the Freedom House scores for each country. Every year Freedom House conducts research and delivers a report regarding the state of freedom in each of the world’s countries, scores range from 0-100 with 0 being completely unfree and 100 being completely free.
For the continent of North America, I have decided to analyze and compare human development between the countries of Canada and Cuba. Canada’s government is a Parliamentary democracy and the country as a whole has a Freedom House score of ninety-nine out of a possible one hundred points meaning the country is very free. On the other hand, Cuba’s government is a single party authoritarian government and the country of Cuba has a Freedom House score of fourteen out of a possible one hundred points meaning that freedom is heavily restricted within the country. The United Nations Human Development Program which rates the development in each country gave Canada a human development index (HDI) of .92 out of a possible 1.00 in their 2016 report, which implies that Canada is a very highly developed Country. Cuba earned an HDI score of .775 out of a possible 1 point meaning that the country is only classified as a highly developed country. Given the vastly different political conditions and situations that are present in each of these countries there is only a minimal difference between the amount and degree of human development occurring in these two countries which is very surprising.
For the continent of South America, I chose to look at the countries of Brazil and Bolivia. At the moment Bolivia has a hybrid authoritarian regime in government head by President Evo Morales who is on his third presidential term and who just recently abolished term limits within his country. Because of its hybrid authoritarian government Bolivia’s most recent Freedom House score measured in at 67/100 and is classified by freedom house as a partly free country. The country of Brazil has a representative democratic republic for its government though it has encountered its own share of upsets and scandals. Brazil has a Freedom House score of 78/100 and is classified as a free country. Brazil received a Human Development Index score of .754/1 and is classified as a highly developed country while Bolivia received a score of .675 and was classified as a medium development country. We again see with these two countries that share a border a very small difference in human development despite large differences in government type and structure.
For the continent of Africa, I have chosen to analyze and compare the countries of Angola and Namibia located in sub-Saharan Africa. Currently the country of Angola is classified as not free and has a Freedom House rating of 26/100. Angola possesses a hybrid authoritarian regime with President José Eduardo dos Santos and his party, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) retaining absolute control over the country’s political system. Namibia located just south of Angola has a stable Parliamentary Democracy with a Freedom House rating of 77/100 and is classified as a free country. The UNHDP most recently gave the country of Angola a human development index of .533/1 meaning that the country has had low human development. Namibia received a human development index of .64/1 from the UNHDP which means there is medium human development within the country. Again, we see that large differences between Freedom house scores do not equate to large differences in HDI scores suggesting that there is some other variable that has a greater responsibility for determining human development within countries.
The two countries in Europe I have chosen to analyze and compare are Latvia and Russia. The country of Latvia borders Russia to the west and is classified as a free country with a Freedom House score of 87/100. Latvia has a parliamentary republic with a unicameral legislature in place. Russia which lies just east to Latvia is a fully authoritarian country classified as not free by Freedom House and has a freedom score of 20/100. In Russia, most all political power lies exclusively with the president Vladimir Putin who has used and abused his power by stifling opposition, rigging elections, and censoring the media. Latvia has a human development index of .83/1 and is classified as a very highly developed country. Similarly, Russia is classified as a very highly developed country as well with a human development index of .804/100. Again, data shows that authoritarian governments are not destined to possess low levels of human development and that there are obviously other factors in play here.
The last Continent I focused on was Asia and for this continent I focused on the countries of India and Kazakhstan. India has a Parliamentary Democracy and Freedom House classifies India as a free country with a freedom rating of 77/100. Kazakhstan’s government is a hybrid authoritarian regime ruled by President Nursultan Nazarbayev who has been in power since the country’s independence. Freedom house rates Kazakhstan as an unfree country and gives it a freedom rating of 22/100. The UNHDP classified India as a country with medium human development with a human development index of .624/1. On the other hand, the UNHDP classifies Kazakhstan as a highly developed country with a human development index of .691.
In the case of Kazakhstan and India we see that the country with an authoritarian government actually has a higher rate of human development than the country with a fully democratic government.
After analyzing and comparing various countries from around the world it can be concluded the type of government present within a country plays a very limited role in determining how much human development is present within that country. So, if the form of government does not significantly influence human development within a country, what does?
When looking more closely at the various components of human development, one begins to see what things can boost or hinder human development within different countries. Human Development has six main parts also known as the pillars of human development, these pieces are equity, sustainability, productivity, empowerment, cooperation, and security. Each of the components of human development themselves are comprised of many parts and can be affected by a wide variety of things, though overall a few main characteristics of a society are responsible for the presence or absence of human development. The main factors that determine the size and scope of human development within a society are geographic location, climate, natural resources, economic conditions, and political conditions. When it comes to human development the location and climate of a society can be extremely important, the location and conditions of a society can drastically alter the growth or deterioration of human development within a society. Another important factor that can greatly affect human development is natural resources, societies with an abundance of natural resources are more likely to succeed than society who have scarce resources. Lastly the economic and political conditions of society play a very influential role in the human development of that society. Societies with stable governments whether they be democratic or authoritarian are more likely to develop than societies with fragile or variable governments. Also, societies with strong, reliable economies are far more likely to develop than those societies with feeble, unstable economies.
In conclusion, the type of government a society has does effect human development within that society though only to a certain extent. There are many other factors and variables that have more significance in determining human development within a society.