 Authoritarian Developmental (AD)  Economic development  Improving citizen capability (human development)  Elite coalitions with local capitalists  Coherent, effective bureaucracies

 1950s: Land reform, key success  Military coup (1961) start of authoritarian, developmental regime  Military support base; alliance with capitalists  Industrialization, economic development  Unions repressed; anti-communist propaganda  Elections rigged  Military rule ended (1987) with pro-democracy protests/demonstrations by students, workers, and middle class (product of regime’s developmental policies)

 Industrial policy  State-led industrialization Control over banks and assistance to particular industries/firms Did not lead to inefficient firms, theft of state funds  Social policy  Social spending aimed at advancing industrialization agenda (e.g., education) and legitimation

 Military (and Korean Central Intelligence Agency) – suppression, indoctrination  Economic institutions  Economic planning board; 5-year plans  Political parties (electoral machines; not programmatic)  Façade of democracy

 Democratic transition (1987)  Authoritarian developmental regime left mixed legacy  New political cleavages  Expansion of social spending  Strengthened democratic institutions

 Authoritarian Predatory (AP)  No economic/human development  Elites rely on narrow coalitions Policies enrich themselves and narrow network of supporters  Bureaucracies ineffective Widespread corruption and patronage

 British colonial legacy  4 th Republic (long periods of military rule)  Characterized by patron-client relations  Ruler  Big men  military/business people/regional leaders  clients (typically of same ethnic group)  Patronage/spoils = oil revenues, budget, contracts  Divide and rule/repression

 Policies  Leaders main goal to accumulate wealth, not promote human development  Economic development enriches elite  Institutions  Government bureaucracies staffed through patronage appointments

 Transition to electoral democracy (1999)  Obstacles to democratic consolidation, human development Ethnic/religious cleavages Patron-client politics Weak institutions Struggle over balance of power between central government and states division of oil revenues secular vs. shari’a law

 Democratic Developmental (DD)  Commitment to improving capabilities of poor  Economic growth/development through market-oriented policies  Political parties build broad coalitions of support Policies appeal to large groups of voters  Effective/professional (merit-based) bureaucracies

 Post-Pinochet (1990)  Class cleavage is central  Leaders balance interests of classes, promote capabilities of poorest groups  Gradual reforms, consultation with opposition  Programmatic parties, business and labor federations  Highly competent civil service  Broad appeal among middle and working classes

 Policies  Economic growth, education and health care for the poor  Strengthened democracy  High income inequality high; business class remains powerful  Institutions  Designed to ensure conservative control over legislature  Although legislature and judiciary increasingly independent relative to executive

 Democratic Fragmented (DF)  Coalitions dominated by large farmers, big business, parts of middle class  Political parities = electoral machines patronage, populism, identity politics  Civil service (bureaucracy) mixed Competent officials Highly politicized agencies headed by patronage appointments

 Developments post-WWII  Rapid industrialization, increasing conflict between social classes  Military seized power ( )  State-led industrialization  Social class most important political cleavage  Fragmented political organizations

 Recent presidents’ (Cardoso, Lula) policies aimed at promoting capabilities of poorest citizens  Movement toward market system  Increased social spending aimed at promoting citizens’ capabilities (health care, education) and affirmative action  Challenges  Significant room for improvement in citizens’ capabilities

 Fragmented party system  Fragmented bureaucracy (ineffective, not autonomous)  Fragmented legislature  Federal system  Difficult for social democratic presidents to make significant strides in promoting Democratic Developmental regime