Ceris-Cnr, W.P. N° 6 /2008

3

Waves of Democratization

→

Technological Waves

1

→

Higher economic growth

2

FIGURE 2: INTERACTION AMONG DEMOCRATIZATION, TECHNOLOGICAL WAVES AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH BOOST

The political regime, like all social bodies, is
a living entity, adaptive and responsive to
external
environment
changes.
Several
researches have showed that political regimes
based on democracy have been increasing over
time (Modelski and Perry III, 2002; Norris,
2008). In fact, by a Darwinian process of natural
selection, democracy is the best political regime
suited to absorb socio-economic-technological
changes in face of an accelerating environmental
3
turbulence (Kauffman, 1995; 2001) . Modelski
and
Perry
III
(2002)
consider
the
democratization as a long-run process of social
innovation that has taken 120 years to travel
from 10% saturation to 50% (roughly in year
2000),
whereas
90%
of
institutional
democratization will be achieved in the 2110s or
thereabouts. Linstone (2007) argues that
although the number of electoral democracies is
increasing, such democracies may elect on
authoritarian leadership that undermines
democratic institutions. Democratization is not a
continuous, smooth process but rather it moves
forward in discrete increments that could be
subject to shocks due to, for instance, terrorist,
nuclear and spatial warfare (Linstone, 2007).
Although there is a heated debate concerning
the
relationship
between
wealth
and
democratization, this research shows that
democracy is the determinant of technical
change as well as of technological progress.
An essential aspect of democratization must
be considered:
Why does democratization have positive
effects on technological innovation? Which are
the underlying elements within democratic
countries that boost the technological
3
“Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy,
and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out
of the most extreme liberty” Plato, Greek Philosopher
427BC-347 BC.

18

innovation production and diffusion?
The determinant of this effect of
democratization on technological innovation and
in general technical change is due to higher
levels of literacy, schooling, education and
media access, broadening the middle classes and
reducing the extremes of poverty, as theorized
by Lipset (1959). As a matter of fact, Lipset
emphasizes that more egalitarian conditions, and
in particular the expansion of the educated
middle class, facilitate mass participation.
Norris (2008) states that wealth is positively
associated with each measure of democracy.
This hypothesis is confirmed by Barro (1999),
Przeworski et al. (2000) as well as by Lipset and
Lakin (2004). To sum up, the underlying causes
of this relationship can be based on the
hypothesis by Lipset who places considerable
emphasis on the role of human capital in the
democratization
process.
In
fact,
democratization and technological innovation
have a common denominator represented by
growing levels of literacy, schooling and
education. Norris (2008) suggests that each of
these factors proves a significant predictor of
democratization and – I add – of technological
change. Several studies confirm that societies
that invest in the human capital of their
population are more likely to sustain
democratization because literacy and education
help
generate
access
to
information.
Furthermore, these factors are important
determinants of technological innovation and
economic growth. In fact, the new growth
theory in the Romer (1990) version introduces
endogenous technological change (as a function
of the level of human capital) into the Solow
model.
Therefore, what is needed now for countries
to improve democratization is to increase the
education of human capital and, as a
consequence,
the
intangible
capital