Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

6-2009

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Human Security, China, India, Regime Type, Democracy, Authoritarianism

Discipline

Asian Studies | Political Science | Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration

Research Areas

Political Science

Publication

International Studies Review

Volume

10

Issue

1

First Page

73

Last Page

98

ISSN

1521-9488

Publisher

Wiley: 24 months / Oxford University Press (OUP): Policy F - Oxford Open Option D

Embargo Period

4-29-2021

Copyright Owner and License

Authors

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1163/2667078X-01001004

Download

Share

COinS