Economic Growth and Development

mobilization by the poor promising political radicalism, high taxes and redis-
tribution (for example, Chile in the early1970s). In this view, the emergence of
democracy depended on whether economic growth strengthens the working
classes at the expense of landlords. Whether this process was supported by
middle classes depended on factors specific to the historical experience of
every country. The emergence of political parties led by middle classes that
could incorporate the lower classes without an excess of radical redistribution
has often been associated with middle-class support for democracy.

Democracy causes development: the new orthodoxy

During the Cold War the US was happy to support dictators. From Mobuto in
the Congo to Marcos in the Philippines and General Zia in Pakistan, when
dictators were pro-American they usually received financial and military back-
ing. The rhetoric suggested such dictators were both politically useful to the
US and good for development. Freed from the compromises of democratic
demands, they could take the unpopular long-term decisions necessary to
promote rapid economic growth. In terms of the Lipset hypothesis: urbaniza-
tion, industrialization and literacy had to come first and democracy would
follow later. Today, from the US to donors more generally we see a very differ-
ent orthodoxy. Democracy is increasingly seen as the best means to promote
growth and development, regardless of the country’s geographical location or
level of development (see Box 10.1).

Institutions 209

Box 10.1 The cost of democracy: US aid in Iraq

Media reports have estimated the democracy programme over the last few years

in Iraq to have cost the US more than $2 billion. Concerning their efforts to

promote democracy in Iraq the US government donor organization USAID

proclaims on its website:

In the northern Iraq provinces of Diyala, Kirkuk, Ninawa, and Salah ad Din,

USAID has initiated new channels of communication and cooperation between

communities and government. A series of meetings, conferences, and initiatives

that took place in April and May 2011 brought together elected representatives,

government officials, and ordinary Iraqis in a forum where local government

and citizen groups could meet directly with provincial-level officials. The

process allowed governors, line ministry officials, and provincial council

members to learn what communities see as their top priorities and to exchange

ideas on how they can improve outreach to their constituents.

As a result of the popularity and success of this initiative, the four provinces

are now improving official accountability and public participation by adopting

public meetings for proposed projects and budgets as official standard proce-

dure. For the first time, constituents have an opportunity to support or oppose a

measure and to propose solutions of their own.