A Religion-Democracy Link?

There might be something about the way different religions operate, and more specifically the way the financing works, that might help or hinder democracy. From an abstract of a paper by Bo Rothstein & Rasmus Broms. 

The absence of democracy in the Arab–Muslim world is a ‘striking anomaly’ for democratization scholars. This cannot be seen as caused by religion as such, as there are now several democratic Muslim-majority states. Popular explanations such as values, culture, economic development, natural resources, or colonial legacy have been refuted. Based on Ostrom's approach regarding local groups’ ability to establish institutions for ‘governing the commons’, we present a novel explanation for this puzzle, based on historical variations in institutions for financing religion. In Northwestern Europe, religion and secular services managed by local religious institutions have been financed ‘from below’, creating local systems for semi-democratic representation, transparency, and accountability. In the Arab–Muslim region, religion and local secular services have been financed ‘from above’, by private foundations lacking systems for representation and accountability. It is thus not religion, but how religion has been financed, that explains lacking successful democratization in the Arab–Muslim world. 

Alas, I did not find an ungated draft.  

Hindu-Muslim Differences

In South Asia, Muslims made the transition to modern economic life more slowly than Hindus. In the first half of the twentieth century, they were less likely to use large-scale and perpetual commercial organizations and less likely to serve on corporate boards. Providing evidence, this article also explores the institutional roots of the difference in communal trajectories. Whereas Hindu inheritance practices favored capital accumulation within families and the preservation of family fortunes across generations, the Islamic inheritance system, which the British helped to enforce, tended to fragment family wealth. The family trusts (waqfs) that Muslims used to preserve assets across generations hindered capital pooling among families; they were also ill suited to profit-seeking business. Another key difference is that while Hindus generally pooled capital within durable joint-family enterprises, Muslims tended to use transitory Islamic partnerships. Hindu family businesses facilitated the transition to modern corporate life by imparting skills useful in large and durable organizations.

That is from a new published paper by Kuran & Singh (Economic Development and Cultural Change, April 2013). The title is "Economic Modernization in Late British India: Hindu-Muslim Differences." A draft (December 2010) is here. 

Graphs of the day

They are from the paper "Fertility Decline in the Muslim World: A Veritable Sea-Change, Still Curiously Unnoticed" by Nicholas Eberstadt and Apoorva Shah (December 2011).