Understanding the Democratic Transition in South Africa
South Africa's transition from apartheid to democracy stands as one of the past century's most important political events. The transition has been successful to this point because the new constitution adopted a form of federal governance that has been able to provide protection for the economic elite from maximal redistributive taxation. Appropriately structured, federal governance creates a "hostage game" in which the majority central government controls the tax rate but elite run province(s) control the provision of important redistributive services to a significant fraction of lower income households. At least to today, the political economy of South Africa has found a stable equilibrium with less than maximal redistributive taxation. Moreover, the move to a democratic federalist system has improved the economic welfare of both the white minority and the black majority. Whether the federal structure can continue to check maximal taxation depends crucially upon the rate of time preference of the majority and their demands for redistributive public services. A new, impatient and more radical majority (ANC) party threatens the current equilibrium.
|Date of creation:||Feb 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as R. P. Inman & D. L. Rubinfeld, 2013. "Understanding the Democratic Transition in South Africa," American Law and Economics Review, vol 15(1), pages 1-38.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Jeffrey J. Schott & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 1990. "Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: 2nd Edition," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 82, January.
- Ritva Reinikka & Jakob Svensson, 2004. "Local Capture: Evidence from a Central Government Transfer Program in Uganda," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(2), pages 679-705.
- Jing Jin & Chunli Shen & Qian Wang & Heng-fu Zou, 2012. "Decentralization in China," CEMA Working Papers 546, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
- Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2010.
"Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth?: evidence from the OECD countries,"
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics
30796, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2011. "Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 619-643, July.
- Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ezcurra, 2010. "Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries," Working Papers 2010-09, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
- Roberto Ezcurra & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2010. "Is Fiscal Decentralization Harmful for Economic Growth? Evidence from the OECD Countries," SERC Discussion Papers 0051, Spatial Economics Research Centre, LSE.
- Roberto Ezcurra & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2010. "Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33518, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.