Notes and summary

Surname 1

Surname 2

Full name

Instructor’s name

Course name

Date

Wealth inequality and democracy

Summary

The article addresses the relationship between democracy and wealth equality. In an ideal situation, democracy is expected to eliminate wealth disparity. However, the essay suggests otherwise, the democratic deficit does not necessarily translate to unequal distribution of wealth because there is little information on wealth inequality to prove notion. The government, in an attempt to salvage the situation, may enact public policies that advocate for equality of wealth. Nonetheless, this approach may be ineffective for a scenario where the regional divide is caused by factors social factors. Similarly, the procedure may yield insignificant benefits for individuals possessing inadequate wealth. The policies responsible for bridging the gap may not be implemented if the wheels of democracy are governed by the rich. Taxation on investment returns is highlighted as an ideally good approach for the government to regulate wealth acquisition.

Historical comparison between United States (US) and Latin speaking countries is used to explain the impact of democracy on wealth equality. Research work based on the census conducted in both South and North America reveals that in both regions inequality in wealth is more predominant in US urban cities despite it being considered to be more democratic than Latin America during the era of the Atlantic world (Kenneth and David). However, wealth disparity is more prominent in the rural areas in South America than it is in the US. This evidence proves that democratic rule has some significant impact on wealth distribution. The article also addresses the effect of land ownership on democracy sustainability.

Main Points

In many regions, land property is considered to be a measure of great wealth. Therefore, land inequality is rendered a hindrance to democracy. However, research conducted on land redistribution reveals that countries under autocratic rule have managed to implement reform policies that support land equality more than democratic nations. This discovery contradicts the fact that democracy is capable of eradicating wealth inequality. Researchers also used the top one percent shares data for ten countries to compare the status of wealth inequality before and after the development of democratic regimes. The evidence indicates that wealth inequality was at its peak in the nineteenth century and the status has considerably decreased over the years. This is another proof that democracy can be used to minimize wealth inequality.

Quotes

There was a negative correlation between land inequality (p.456)

France’s experience with democracy during the Second Republic was short lived, and this might support the idea that wealth inequality impeded democracy (p.458)

There is little evidence of an automatic link between democracy and wealth inequality (p.465)

Works Cited Kenneth, Scheve and Stasavage David. “Wealth Inequality and Democracy.” Annual review of political science (2017): 451-468. Document.