In recent years we have seen an increase in the number of countries turning to authoritarianism. Previous waves of democratization have turned into a “third wave of ‘autocratisation’”.
How can we expect this authoritarian turn to impact social protection and redistribution, and by extension poverty and inequality?
In this new Working Paper, August Studstrup and Inés Furtado provides an overview of relevant perspectives for researchers and activists seeking to understand the potential impact of autocratisation on social protection policies.
While there is no clear-cut or universal connection, the literature shows several potential linkages:
First, when states become increasingly authoritarian we can expect the political settlement to become less inclusive, with power becoming more centralized. This is likely to deepen the divide between ruling elites and the population and make bottom-up approaches to welfare reforms more difficult.
Second, an authoritarian turn may also change who is considered deserving of social protection benefits and who are excluded. The particular in- and out-groups will likely differ from country to country, depending on who the ruling elite depends on for support. Welfare reforms are likely to happen along ethnic, religious or gender lines, and often authoritarianism is linked with neoliberalism, to the detriment of rights-based social protection.
Third, autocrats often undermine formal institutions and rely instead on informal institutions for redistribution. As such, there is a risk that social protection will become less rights-based, and instead will be distributed through clientelist relationships to supporters of the regime.
Fourth, in the cases where increasing authoritarianism also leads to less electoral competition, this may further diminish incentives for expanding social protection systems.
Finally, authoritarianism is usually accompanied by shrinking space for civil society. For social protection this means fewer opportunities for mobilizing people, less opportunities for advocating for expansion of social protection and diminished ability of civil society to monitor and hold governments accountable for the implementation of social protection programmes.
Altogether, we can expect that the recent authoritarian turn will have negative consequences for social protection programmes in the affected countries, and thereby also for poverty and inequality. The exact consequences and mechanisms will vary between countries, but we hope that the Working Paper can be a useful starting point for researchers and activists wishing to understand the potential risks in their own countries.