Politics, the State, and Basic Human Needs: A Cross-National Study

This study examines ways that political processes influence the provision of basic human needs once the effects of aggregate national wealth are removed. Three general explanatory approaches are examined. These are based on the size or strength of the national government, the achievement ofdemocratic processes, and the ideological orientation ofruling elites along a left-right dimension. These three approaches are analyzed by regressing an index of physical well-being, the PQLI, on measures drawn from each perspective for a sample of 1 16 contemporary nations. The findings indicate that political attributes do indeed have an impact on the provision of basic needs even when controlling for aggregate social wealth. Democratic processes are related to positive welfare outcomes irrespective of state strength and ideological norms. For regimes with a roughly centrist ideology, state strength appears to make little noticeable difference one way or another; for those on the left, state strength promotes welfare performance; for those on the right, state strength is found to inhibit the provision of basic needs. How do political processes affect the welfare of individuals? This question in countless variants has motivated students of political economy at least since the advent of the modern nation-state. In its simplest form, the empirical question becomes What kind of state achieves the highest level of welfare for its citizens? Although it may seem that there are as many answers as possible dimensions of states, most analyses have centered on one (or more) of three general explanatory approaches. The first focuses on the size or strength of the state apparatus as the essential ingredient in translating productive potential into welfare outcomes. Successful welfare performance hinges on the capability of the state, because the state is considered the one social institution concerned with the material needs of the population as a whole. A second model highlights procedural aspects of the political system rather than the budgetary strength of the state by linking successful welfare outcomes to the relatively even distribution of political power brought about by political democracy. The third approach is distinguished from the other two by its emphasis on the ideological orientation (usually on a left-right continuum) of ruling elites. This model posits welfare