英语论文网

strong political determination (UNDP 2002). Otherwise, with political powers concentrated on their hands (Nelson 2007), they would be more likely to make policies in the interests of themselves and the associated groups (Lenski 1966), which would sharpen socioeconomic inequalities only.

Conclusion 结论
As shown by the above discussion, both democratic and autocratic have their advantages and disadvantages in reducing socioeconomic inequalities. As for those democracies (e.g. Rica Costa, Canada and Denmark) witnessing success in socioeconomic inequalities reduction, Lenski (1966) and Sen (1999) attribute such success to franchising political rights to people and that regular elections give incentive and pressure to democratic rulers to satisfy the needs of their people. However, there are democracies (e.g. US and Brazil) that fail to reduce these inequalities. Nelson (2007) explains that it is because the pro-poor policies from the government that usually are for the sake of elections, and will be suspended soon thereafter, are of little help in reducing socioeconomic inequalities in the long run. Nevertheless, Adam Przeworski suggests that it is because political reform cannot address problems in other sectors (Bermeo 2009). Moreover, contractarianists believe that the fundamental concept of democracy (protecting individual's property rights) does not support egalitarian policies to redistribute resources from the rich to the poor (Ansell and Samuels 2010). More extremely, Pareto (Lenski 1966) suggests that democratic regime would increase socioeconomic inequalities, because in democracy the elite class still take the advantage to influence policies to bias their interests. Also, the relationship between democracy and socioeconomic inequalities is considered as U-shape (Crawford and Abdulai 2011), but it still fails to explain the why some older and more established democracies have poor performance with respect to reducing socioeconomic inequalities.

In terms of autocracy, the discussion is also divided. Lewis (2008) presents autocracies (e.g. Congo and Central African Republic) with poor performance in reducing socioeconomic inequalities, inferring them as the consequences of lack of elections and political power concentration which cause the absence of incentive for autocrats to serve their people. However, this argument is challenged by some autocracies' sound performance in socioeconomic inequalities reduction. Hayek (1976) and other scholars believe that autocracies could be more efficient in coming up with pro-poor economic and social policies due to little objection in the decision-making process, therefore the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities is possible in autocracies as long as their rulers are determined to serve their people, while this assumption needs to base on the precondition that rulers aware the importance of inequalities reduction to their ruling.

In conclusion, the theories on democracy and autocracy's impacts on socioeconomic inequalities are as divergent as states performances and therefore hitherto ad there is no unambiguous evidence suggesting which political regimes, democratic or autocratic, is best suited to the prospect of economic and social inequalities reduction. Democracy's advantage is its franchised political power to people that gives incentive to rulers to improve their policies for their people, while in contrast autocracy's