Book Description

How do political institutions affect wealth redistribution initiatives and their efficacy? While influential current theory holds that redistribution should be both higher and more targeted at the poor under democracy, many newly democratic states have failed to implement redistributive policies that would benefit the majority of newly enfranchised voters. Using original data, primarily though not exclusively on land reform and bank and natural resource expropriations in Latin America, I find that redistribution has actually been greatest during periods of autocratic rule. I demonstrate empirically that where institutional constraints to rule are higher, as in democracy, large-scale redistribution is more difficult to implement. But why do some autocratic rulers choose to redistribute while others do not? I argue that when there is a split between a dictator's support coalition and elites out of government that can pose a threat to his rule, the dictator may choose to expropriate rival elites. Simultaneously redistributing much of the assets of those elites to the poor can gain the support of lower classes and reduce potentially destabilizing pressure from below. One important consequence is that dictators who have expropriated tend to survive longer in office than those that do not. Although redistribution is often more likely under autocracy, there are nonetheless cases of redistribution under democracy. When elites are politically weak during the democratic transition process, as during revolution, there is a long-run relationship between democracy and redistribution. So although democracy may sometimes be a credible commitment to redistribution, it is more often captured by elites and does not induce redistribution.