Given the arguments that institutions and property rights do matter, the issue f the quality f democracy becomes especially salient when assessing the relative advantages f democracies and autocracies. Lumping together all democracies as one type f regime in empirical analyses, therefore, is bound to yield misleading, or at best null, results.
(Barnhill 91-92) Moreover, a neglected side f democracy and growth is the question f what facilitates flexible, consensual responses to rapidly changing economic situations and the qualitative aspects f responses by governments to the day-to-day policy matters demanded by a democratic polity.
More often than not, institutions are viewed as static and inanimate, devoid f political content. The standard views are that institutions provide security from intrusive government and insure the effective functioning f markets. Property rights are secure where institutions prevent arbitrary acts by government, providing a system f checks and balances, or a system f multiple veto points so that political power remains checked. Efficiency is a question f how well institutions perform and the extent to which rent seeking is prevented. Much f the discussion around differing forms f democracy has centered around presidentialism versus parliamentarism, focusing heavily on the developed countries. As some find, there is little heterogeneity among the richer countries where the presidential and parliamentary forms share many features in common and where outcomes may in fact be similar despite different organizational form. (Moltedo 30-31)
Moreover, others have s ...