Page 60 - kpi20756

0 การประชุมวิชาการ
สถาบันพระปกเกล้า ครั้งที่ 21
ลดช่องว่างความเหลื่อมล้ำ สร้างคุณภาพประชาธิปไตย

As presented in Table 1, (as of 2015) East Asia exhibits variations in
regime type, economic development, income inequality, and quality of

governance. First, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Mongolia, and the
Philippines are electoral democracies while Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand,

non-democracies. Second, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are high-
income countries while Indonesia, Mongolia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and
Thailand, middle-income countries (more precisely, Malaysia and Thailand are

upper middle-income countries, whereas Indonesia, Mongolia, and the Philippines
are lower middle-income countries). Third, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are

relatively equal societies while Indonesia, Mongolia, the Philippines, Malaysia,
Singapore, and Thailand are unequal societies. Fourth, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan,
South Korea, and Malaysia perform good governance in the rule of law and

control of corruption while Indonesia, Mongolia, the Philippines, and Thailand
show middling or poor governance.

The sample cases from East Asia display varying political and economic
performance: three affluent and equal democracies with good governance

(Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan); three less affluent and unequal democracies
with poor governance (Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mongolia); one affluent
and unequal non-democracy with good governance (Singapore); one less

affluent and unequal non-democracy with good governance (Malaysia); and one
less affluent and unequal non-democracy with poor governance (Thailand).

These cases also exhibit different trajectories of political evolution since the
1990s: six cases of democratic transition (Indonesia, Mongolia, the Philippines,
South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand); one case of democratic reversion
เอกสารประกอบการอภิปรายร่วมระหว่างผู้แทนจากต่างประเทศ
(Thailand); and two cases of no democratic transition (Malaysia and Singapore).
In view of democratic transition and rising inequality across much of the region,

it is important to know how democratic politics affect inequality and how
inequality shapes democratic politics.

Glaeser (2006) distinguishes three different ways in which inequality
4
affect politics and political institutions. First, higher inequality might increase
redistribution because of the median voter’s preference for redistribution.

4 For a survey of the theoretical and empirical literature on the effect of inequality on
institutions, see Savoia, Easaw and MaKay (2010).