Do we have a winner? What the China-India paradox may reveal about regime type and human security

• Main Author: JOSHI, Devin K.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2009
• Subjects: Human Security; China; India; Regime Type; Democracy; Authoritarianism; Asian Studies; Political Science; Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3298; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4560/viewcontent/Do_We_Have_Winner_2009_pvoa.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

As the concept of human security spreads in the pose-Cold War period it is often presumed chat non-democracies have worse human security than democracies. But the national human security (NHS) siruation in weak or failed democracies can be even worse than in some non-democracies. So how exactly do the NHS records of stares with different regime types like non-democratic China and democratic India compare? To address this question the paper assesses and compares NH S in terms of "freedom from want" (anti-poverty security) and "freedom from fear" (anti-violence securiry). Ir develops a theory of how different regime types might impact NHS based on how regimes differ along the I) democratic-authoritarian and 2) predarory-developmental dimensions. It then conducts empirical testing of the theory through a global analysis of 178 countries and case studies of contemporary China and Jndia. The study finds that while democracies and developmental states generally have higher NHS than autocracies and predatory states, developmental authoritarian states like China on average have slightly higher human security than predatory democracies like India.