The ideas expressed in both Francis Fukuyama’s article Democracy and the Quality of the State and Terry Lynn Karl’s Economics Inequality and Democratic Instability belong to the same broad school of thought, the domestic failure school, when it comes to analyzing democratic decline. However, these two articles capture a key division within that school of thought between those scholars, like Fukuyama, who emphasize state capacity to provide public services[1] and other scholars, like Karl, who emphasize the state’s inability to effectively combat economic inequality.[2]
In Democracy and the Quality of the State, Fukuyama emphasizes the essentiality of a state’s ability to provide public goods to its citizens to the legitimacy of that state’s form of government.[3] Throughout his article, he explores the role of an efficient bureaucracy in providing essential public goods and whether democracy is conducive to the development of just such a bureaucracy in a series of case studies.[4] Meanwhile, Karl focuses on the various ways that high levels of inequality can undermine democracy. More specifically, she emphasizes the tendency of citizens of highly unequal countries to have lower amounts of satisfaction with democracy and increased openness to authoritarianism.[5] She mainly explores this tendency in the context of Latin America, which is the most unequal continent in the world and also has seen its fair share of democratic backsliding over the years.
Both Fukuyama’s focus on state capacity and Karl’s focus on inequality inform my research by providing me with potential variables to focus in on my research. While both Karl and Fukuyama’s articles are essentially a mix of theory and case study, it is possible to look at the factors they bring up in a more systematic way. For example, I could potentially explore the relationship between the perceptions of corruption index and democratic backsliding as a way of testing the degree to which state capacity effects democratic governance. Regardless of whether I end up focusing on either of these segments of the domestic failure school of thought, they are important arguments to keep in mind as I continue my research.
Bibliography:
Fukuyama, Francis. “Democracy and the Quality of the State.” Journal of Democracy 24, no. 4 (October 10, 2013): 5–16.
Karl, Terry Lynn. “Economic Inequality and Democratic Instability.” Journal of Democracy 11, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 149–156.
[1] Francis Fukuyama, “Democracy and the Quality of the State,” Journal of Democracy 24, no. 4 (October 10, 2013): 5–16.
[2] Terry Lynn Karl, “Economic Inequality and Democratic Instability,” Journal of Democracy 11, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 149–156.
[3] Fukuyama, “Democracy and the Quality of the State.” 6.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Karl, “Economic Inequality and Democratic Instability.” 156.
Noah — both of these articles are relevant to your research, and you’ve done a good job in identifying the key variables that each highlights as important (and thus important for you to consider in your own research). It makes sense to place both of these articles into a school of thought that focuses on domestic factors/failures. Keep reading and researching, as it appears that you are on the right track!
Formatting note: No need to include full article titles in the text body (this information is in your citations and bibliography). Referring to works by author last name is standard/sufficient. If you do include article titles in the text, they are placed in quotation marks (not italicized).