Staatstätigkeit in Demokratien und Autokratien: Befunde des internationalen Vergleichs

Can democracies really pride themselves on having a comparative advantage over autocracies in their political performance? A review of the literature and an analysis of small- N- and large N-cross-national comparative data on public policy in democratic and autocratic states suggest six main findings. Conventional comparisons within a bivariate framework, such as the “democracy advantage” hypothesis, support the view that the level of political performance in democracies is in general superior to that in autocracies. Above all, major differences emerge in the comparison of extreme cases, such as “hard line-autocracies” and advanced constitutional democracies. However, studies based on more sophisticated, multivariate research designs suggest that the comparative advantage in public policy of democratic countries is at least partly attributable to factors other than democracy per se, such as rule of law and a higher level of wealth. According to the findings of the literature, performance levels vary within both democracies and autocracies. The causes of the variation reside at least partly in differences between “defective democracies” and advanced constitutional democracies, which benefit to a significant extent from the “democracy advantage”. Divisions between types of autocracies also play a role, with divisions between authoritarian and totalitarian rule, between civilian autocracies and military regimes, between “communist welfare states” and other autocracies, and between oil-exporting states and other countries as examples.