onegoodmove

Fascinating idea, which makes perfect sense once you think about it.

Thanks for the link, Norm.

Thanks for the credit Scott, but it was dende who provided the commentary and link see posted by.

It seems to me that it would follow that the source of the wealth is less important than the concentration of wealth in a few hands. I would like to see a study of our country, as wealth has become more and more concentrated in the hands of a few has democracy suffered. It is my gut feeling that it has and will continue to do so as the gap between rich and poor increases.

Norm--scholars are still debating whether inequality tends to reduce a country's chances for democracy. I tend to think that it does, but Bollen and Jackman (1996 I think) have a good explanation why not. In many oil countries have a better distribution of wealth than say Brazil, but are less democratic. The argument is that for democracy you need a certain kind of class structure. Modernization theorists generally say you need a large middle class, political economoy theorists say it is the working class that most supports democracy. In oil states, non-elites may have a certain degree of economic power, but they do not have the consciousness or the relationship to the social system that 'modern' classes do. That's the argument anyhow.

You could incorporate your point in the following way: if economic power were very equal, democracy could develop no matter what. But given unequal distribution, capitalism tends to beunable to resist democratization since it creates a mobilized and urbanized working class. Oil economies can keep the lower classes rural, unmobilized, and bought off, hence resisting the 'natural' democratization pressure that inequality brings. I would acknowledge something like that story as plausible.

Thanks again norm. JWJ

Scott's confusion over the identity of the author of this post leads me to ask a question that has kept me up at night: just who are you people?

There's a Norm, a dende, a Chris, and even -- I swear I saw it, once -- a Crazy Eddie.

Are you a family of Jenson's? Are you rabble-rousers hiding in the hills? Am I asking too many questions? Will the government boys nab me next?

Yep your next :) I'm happy to identify Chris as a Jenson my son. Crazy Eddie, I've never allowed to post here. There has been a post or two by 42 which will remain a mystery. As to dende I'll leave that to him, but will verify that he is not a Jenson.

And I'm just someone who found Norm's blog last year, who happens to agree with what he says.

Oh, Scott, you sound like trouble, through and through.

I had meant to tell Norm to use my real name, since I was actually posting rather than just spouting off remarks in the comments. My name is Jeremiah John, I go to grad school at Notre Dame, studying political theory.

I found Norm's site through a testimonial he gave on cornernhost. I've known the Jensons since the early 1980s, but the content of the site and the quality of the conversations is the reason I've continued to hang around.

I think the economical argument is not convincing. The way of world perception is important. Scholars are afraid to tell the truth. The biological factor is the reason. This is clear reflected in the local religions.