Citation

Karstedt S. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2006; 605(1): 50-81.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0002716206288248

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Democracies represent an institutional framework and a way of life that is, almost by definition, nonviolent. Contrasting with this ideal are two simultaneous global trends: an extension of democratic regimes and rising levels of violent crime. This article explores this seeming gap between democracy's ideal and reality. The author identifies comparative advantages and disadvantages for both democracy and autocracy in restraining violent crime. Comparative advantages of two core democratic values--individualism and egalitarianism--are examined with data from a sample of twenty-six countries. Results show that compared to collectivistic and authoritarian patterns, individualistic and egalitarian values reduce levels of violence. Societies with high levels of violent crime are concentrated among autocracies, which mostly have collectivistic and authoritarian values. In contrast, democratic societies are mostly characterized by individualistic and egalitarian values and have lower levels of violent crime. Democratic values have comparative advantages if they are fostered by democratic practices and institutions.