Expert board:

• Scientific Council of RAS on economic history;
• Research and Educational Center «The economic history of Central Russia and the Middle Volga region» of Ogarev Mordovia State University;
• Center of Economic History of  Lomonosov Moscow State University

Certificate of registration

ISSN 2409-630X (Print), ISSN 2618-916X (Online)

DOI: 10.15507/2409-630X.049.016.202002.193-202

Sergey I. Malozemov1, Roman S. Tarasov2

1 National Research Ogarev Mordovia State University (Saransk, Russia),

e-mail: semalozemov@yandex.ru

2 National Research Ogarev Mordovia State University (Saransk, Russia),

e-mail: 9023060@mail.ru

 

Determining the Level of Economic Development as the Most Important Variable of Society’s Democratization in System Theories

 

Introduction. The question of the relationship between economic development and democracy is one of the key and most studied, directly affecting the reform of economic and political institutions. Early modernization theory offered a universal recipe for transforming social institutions in order to accelerate socio-economic and political development. Economic development leads to the emergence of a qualitatively new social structure, the formation of a broad layer of a prosperous middle class, which becomes difficult to manage under an autocratic regime, and thus at a certain point the dictatorship is replaced by democracy. Therefore, we are talking about a causal relationship between economic growth and the democratization of society. However, different researchers have different attitudes to this connection and its nature. Currently, we can distinguish such a theoretical direction in the theory and empirical research of transformation as system theories, in which the search for the causes, successes and failures of democratization depends on specific social subsystems: the economy and society, the state and social groups, and politics. The purpose of the article is to analyze the theoretical provisions of the system theory that can determine the relationship between the economic and democratic development of society. Materials and Methods. The solution of research tasks was carried out on the basis of general scientific research approaches and methods. The authors used a systematic approach, a structural and functional approaches, a comparative method, as well as the principles of scientific objectivity, historicism and systematicity. Results. Based on the analysis of the early sociological system theory in the tradition of T. Parsons, modern sociological system theory, as well as the theory of modernization, reflected in research on democracy, the relationship between the degree of socio-economic development of a society and its ability to democracy was revealed. Discussion and Conclusions. Modernization theories demonstrate a causal relationship between market modernization of the economy and the process of democratization. The transition state of an economy showing dynamic growth not only destabilizes the autocratic regime, but also contributes to the consolidation of democracy and the growth of a politically mature middle class. However, the classical theory of modernization is not able to determine the level of development of society to determine the probability of transition to democracy, as well as the reasons for the democratization of undeveloped societies and the crisis of democracy in developed societies in certain periods. Identifying the shortcomings of the modernization theory encourages the testing of theories that can fill these gaps.

Keywords: system theory, theories of transformation, transformation of society, differentiation of subsystems, political system, economic subsystem, democratization, autocracy, prerequisites of democracy, the problem of poverty, the problem of income equalization.

For citation: Malozemov S. I., Tarasov R. S. Determining the level of economic development as the most important variable of society’s democratization in system theories. Ekonomicheskaya istoriya = Russian Journal of Economic History. 2020; 16(2): 193–202. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.15507/2409-630X.049.016.202002.193-202

 

Download article in PDF