DEMOCRACYmaintain a state and military administrative struc-
ture capable of that task (Downing 1992). Friedman
has shown that former British colonies tend to be
democratic, whereas countries ruled by Leninist
parties tend to remain autocratic (Friedman 1998).
Students of social movements have tended to
argue that social movements are significant sourc-
es of democracy (Giugni, McAdam, and Tilly 1998).
There is evidence that social movements can push
the transition to democracy faster (Hipsher 1998;
Sandoval 1998). Certainly this is consistent with
Tilly’s theoretical model of democratization, in
which he argues that social conflict, as embodied
in social movements, and where mediated by third
parties, can lead to the creation of rights essential
for democracy (Tilly 1998). But surely the effects
of social movements on democracy are contingent
on many factors, and sociologists must be careful
not to assume that the outcome of social protest
will be democratization (Melucci and Lyyra 1998).
Clearly this has not always been the case.
The sources of democracy in organizations is
an understudied area. Two findings are worth
noting. Knoke has argued that in the present-day
United States, a minimum level of democratic
procedure is just a part of the institutional build-
ing blocks from which organizations are construct-
ed; in short, organizations such as unions may
have democratic procedures simply because every-
body expects them to have those procedures (Knoke
1990). And, returning to the tension between
democracy and effectiveness identified by Michels,
Jarley has found that the causes of democratic
procedures in unions are independent of those
which drive bureaucratization (Jarley, Fiorito, and
Delaney 1997). Yet much more systematic work
needs to be done in this area.
The other side of the coin in the study of
democracy is the question of the relationship be-
tween democracy and other core subjects of socio-
logical interest. The relationship between democ-
racy and equality is a central issue and has been a
focus of research since de Tocqueville (Tocqueville
1969). In recent years, research has centered around
this specific question: Does democracy promote
or retard income inequality in nation-states? There is
some evidence that democracy does not increase
inequality, at least directly, and it might lead to
increased equality (Bollen and Jackman 1985; Mul-
ler 1988).Another question is whether democracies can
be effective. The central issue, echoing Michels, is
whether or not organizations, such as unions or
parties or, for that matter, businesses, can be
successful in competitive environments against
organizations that are autocratically run. The evi-
dence is conflicting. Some argue that democracy
and effectiveness are in conflict in the context of
unions (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman 1959; Piven
and Cloward 1977). Others argue that democracy
leads to effectiveness in achieving goals (Stepan-
Norris and Zeitlin 1994). As yet, there seems to be
no definitive answer, and the issue certainly merits
more research.Finally, the subject of democracy has been
intimately tied in the 1990s to two related subjects.The first is the subject of globalization. As the
world has become more closely connected, as
communications technologies radically change
again, and as the world economy has grown larger,
some have raised questions about the implications
of this trend for democracy. Held, for example,
has argued that decisions that affect citizens are
increasingly being made at a level beyond that of
the nation-state; in supra-national organizations
and in the international economy. As a conse-
quence of this globalization, the extent of demo-
cratic control over decisions is seen to have weak-
ened (Held 1995). Others have criticized this
argument, and the subject is still very much subject
to research and debate (Hirst and Thompson 1996).The second related subject is civil society. A
focus of scholarly attention in part because of the
demands for it from those who have emerged
from socialist rule, civil society is commonly con-
ceived as space for associational activity between
the state and the individual (Gellner 1994). Many
now see organizations and associations, indepen-
dent of the state, as crucial to democracy, consti-
tuting a critical element of democratic society
(Streeck and Schmitter 1985). Certainly, they are
not the same: as Hall puts it, ‘‘Democracy can be