What would be your verdict on democracy if you had to base it purely on economic performance of democratic regimes in terms of growth and equal distribution?
If we base our verdict on democracy purely on economic performance, the results are not entirely favorable.
In terms of economic growth, democracies have a slightly lower growth rate (3.95%) compared to dictatorial regimes (4.42%). However, when comparing only poor countries, the difference is negligible (4.28% for democracies vs 4.34% for dictatorships). Thus, democracy is not a guarantee of economic development, but it does not lag behind dictatorships in this respect.
Regarding equal distribution, democracies show concerning results. Countries like South Africa and Brazil have high inequalities, where the top 20% take away more than 60% of national income, leaving less than 3% for the bottom 20%. However, democracies like Denmark and Hungary perform better in this regard.
Overall, democracy cannot be judged superior purely on economic grounds, as it neither guarantees higher growth nor ensures equal distribution of wealth.
Explanation
This answer draws directly from Tables 1 and 2 in the textbook. Table 1 shows dictatorial regimes have slightly higher growth (4.42 vs 3.95), but the difference is negligible in poor countries. Table 2 demonstrates that democracies can have very high inequalities (South Africa, Brazil) though some perform better (Denmark, Hungary). The textbook explicitly states 'we cannot say that democracy is a guarantee of economic development' and notes that 'within democracies there can be very high degree of inequalities.'