Democracy and ethnic inequality: a comparative case study

Figures & data

Table 1. Case overview.

	Bolivia	South Africa	Nepal I and II	Guatemala
Year of transition	1982	1994	1991 and 2006	1986
Level of ethnic inequality at transition	High	High	High and High	High
Reduction of ethnic inequality*	High	High	Low and Medium	Low
Major groups’ population share** (Previously excluded in bold)	Indigenous (∼60%) White/Mestizo (∼40%)	Black (76.4%) White (9.1%) Colored (8.9%) Indians (5.6%)	Indigenous (∼36%) Caste hill Hindu elite (∼31%) Madhesis (17%) Dalits (∼15%)	Ladino (∼60%) Indigenous (∼40%)
Autocratic interlude	2019–2020	–	2002–2006	–
Level of development in year of transition***	USD 3816	USD 6173	USD 1361 and USD 1884	USD 5136
Political history: colonial status and previous regime****	Settler colony Military dictatorship	Settler colony Ethnic oligarchy	Never colonized Hindu monarchy	Settler colony Military dictatorship
Politico-geographic region	Latin America	Sub-Saharan Africa	South Asia	Latin America

Notes: *Based on Online Appendix B (cross-national data) and country-specific sources presented in the case studies. If cross-national data and country-specific sources are not in agreement regarding the magnitude of the inequality reduction, country-specific sources have been given more weight. This was the case for Nepal. **Important nuances to these group categories are discussed for each given case below. Population data are contemporary yet reflect the patterns at the time of transition. ***GDP per capita in USD 2011 ****This refers to the regime just prior to the democratic transition. Historically, Bolivia and Guatemala are characterized by more regime instability than the other cases, with prior spells as exclusive democracies and multiparty autocracies.

Table 2. Theorized mechanism and empirical manifestations (successful reduction in inequality).

	Cause	Link 1	Link 2	Link 3	Outcome
Theorized mechanism	Democratic transition	Democratic transitions allow previously excluded groups to participate politically	Disadvantaged groups gain political influence directly or indirectly	Egalitarian policies are implemented	Reduced levels of socioeconomic inequality between ethnic groups
Empirical manifestations	Change in political regime type as indicated by foundational free elections	– Formation of new parties – (Increased) voter participation among previously excluded groups – Greater representation of previously excluded groups in existing parties	Parties representing disadvantaged groups (1) secure government or parliamentary seats or (2) promote inclusion by pressuring dominant parties to become more inclusive	Implementation of policies: universal or targeted policies; discriminatory policies are curbed	Reductions in measures of ethnic inequality attributable to policy changes

Scope condition: Significant socioeconomic disparities between relatively clearly defined ethnic groups.

Table 3. Summary of findings.

	Cause	Link 1	Link 2	Link 3	Outcome
Theorized mechanism	Democratic transition	Democratic transitions allow previously excluded groups to participate politically	Disadvantaged groups gain political influence directly or indirectly	Egalitarian policies are implemented	Reduced levels of socioeconomic inequality between ethnic groups
Bolivia	1982	– MAS forms and Indigenous voters are mobilized by MAS	– MAS in power 2005–2019 and 2020– – Existing parties pressured to address Indigenous demands	Universal, targeted, and anti-discrimination policies implemented	High
South Africa	1994	– Black-supported ANC already mobilized strong support prior to transition	– ANC in power 1994–	Universal, targeted, and anti-discrimination policies implemented	High
Nepal II	2006	– More effective mobilization after 2006	– Better rep. and more influence after 2006 – New and existing parties	Universal, targeted, and anti-discrimination policies implemented	Moderate
Nepal I	1991	– Some level of mobilization in 1990s	– Disadvantaged groups not well-represented in 1990s – Continued dominance of traditional elite	Limited policy change (e.g. cash transfers)	Low
Guatemala	1986	– Limited Indigenous mobilization	– Indigenous movement unable to influence national politics – Effective counter-mobilization by traditional elite	Limited policy change	Low