The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:29 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
Monarchy and Inequality, Corruption

One of the most common arguments against monarchic forms of government is that they promote inequality. I was curious as to what actual, like, data might say as to this subject, so I decided to divide the nations of the world into a number of data sets to compare monarchies and non-monarchies with respect to two measures of inequality, namely the Coefficient of Human Inequality (which is a wide-based measure that attempts to take account of not only income/wealth inequality, but also inequality in education and health) and the Gini Coefficient (which focuses primarily on income/wealth inequality). I also figured that it might be worthwhile to look at corruption data, seeing as corruption can be intimately related to inequality (as it can both cause and be caused by it).

It should be noted that none of the data sets in application contain all of the countries that I've assigned to the respective data sets in principle, and there is some inconsistency between the different measures, and in some cases the number of states included in each data set might be insufficient to create a reliably representative statistic.

The CHI and Gini data I've used is taken from the United Nations, while the measure of corruption I've used is taken from Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index data. In order to create a comparison, I calculated the mean for each set from the data presented. For the CHI and Gini data, lower coefficients mean less inequality. For the CPI data, higher indices mean less corruption (100 being absolutely no corruption, 0 being the most corruption that could theoretically be possible).

Coefficient of Human Inequality
  • Monarchies, Generally (22): 13.9
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally (130): 20.6
  • Constitutional Monarchies (21): 13.2
  • Constitutional Republics (126): 20.4
  • Absolute Monarchies (1): 29.4
  • One-Party States (3): 22.7
  • Transitional States (1): 30.9
  • G20 Monarchies (4): 7.1
  • G20 Non-Monarchies (14): 16.4
  • EU Monarchies (8): 9.1
  • EU Non-Monarchies (21): 9.0
  • Arab League Monarchies (1): 16.0
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies (10): 28.2
  • ASEAN Monarchies (2): 17.4
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies (6): 20.0
Gini Coefficient
  • Monarchies, Generally (22): 36.5
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally (132): 38.5
  • Constitutional Monarchies (21): 35.7
  • Constitutional Republics (128): 38.5
  • Absolute Monarchies (1): 51.5
  • One-Party States (3): 37.8
  • Transitional States (1): 36.7
  • G20 Monarchies (4): 33.5
  • G20 Non-Monarchies (14): 40.6
  • EU Monarchies (7): 30.7
  • EU Non-Monarchies (22): 31.3
  • Arab League Monarchies (2): 37.2
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies (11): 35.0
  • ASEAN Monarchies (2): 42.1
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies (5): 37.8
Corruption Perceptions Index
  • Monarchies, Generally (34): 60
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally (142): 39
  • Constitutional Monarchies (30): 61
  • Constitutional Republics (134): 40
  • Absolute Monarchies (4): 57
  • One-Party States (6): 31
  • Transitional States (2): 16
  • G20 Monarchies (5): 72
  • G20 Non-Monarchies (14): 48
  • EU Monarchies (7): 78
  • EU Non-Monarchies (22): 61
  • Arab League Monarchies (8): 50
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies (13): 24
  • ASEAN Monarchies (4): 42
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies (6): 42
In conclusion, there does not appear to be a statistically significant difference, with respect to measures of inequality, between monarchies and non-monarchies of similar circumstance, but monarchies appear to be significantly more resistant to corruption.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:31 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
Coefficient of Human Inequality Data Sets
  • Monarchies, Generally = Australia (8.0), Barbados (15.4), Belgium (8.7), Belize (21.3), Bhutan (26.4), Cambodia (19.2), Canada (7.7), Denmark (7.4), Eswatini (29.4), Jamaica (16.2), Japan (3.6), Jordan (16.0), Lesotho (30.5), Luxembourg (10.1), Netherlands (7.8), New Zealand (7.5), Norway (7.9), Saint Lucia (16.3), Spain (14.9), Sweden (7.2), Thailand (15.5), United Kingdom (9.1)
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally = Afghanistan (28.2), Albania (10.0), Algeria (20.1), Angola (32.3), Argentina (13.9), Armenia (9.8), Austria (7.8), Azerbaijan (9.9), Bangladesh (23.4), Belarus (6.5), Benin (36.3), Bolivia (25.7), Bosnia and Herzegovina (15.3), Brazil (23.2), Bulgaria (12.3), Burkina Faso (31.8), Burundi (32.8), Cameroon (34.2), Central African Republic (41.8), Chad (37.9), Chile (14.9), China (14.9), Colombia (22.9), Comoros (44.2), Congo-Brazzaville (22.6), Congo-Kinshasa (30.2), Costa Rica (17.3), Croatia (8.8), Cyprus (11.3), Czechia (5.2), Côte d'Ivoire (36.3), Djibouti (35.2), Dominican Republic (20.9), Ecuador (19.4), Egypt (28.3), El Salvador (21.9), Estonia (8.5), Ethiopia (27.3), Finland (5.5), France (10.1), Gabon (22.3), Gambia (36.4), Georgia (12.0), Germany (7.8), Ghana (28.8), Greece (13.1), Guatemala (27.7), Guinea (32.2), Guinea-Bissau (39.4), Guyana (18.4), Haiti (38.4), Honduras (25.2), Hong Kong (12.7), Hungary (7.7), Iceland (5.9), India (26.3), Indonesia (18.7), Iran (11.2), Iraq (20.2), Ireland (8.6), Israel (12.2), Italy (11.9), Kazakhstan (7.9), Kyrgyzstan (9.8), Laos (35.8), Latvia (10.1), Liberia (31.0), Lithuania (11.3), Madagascar (25.6), Malawi (30.4), Maldives (22.0), Mali (32.8), Malta (8.2), Mauritania (32.7), Mauritius (13.4), Mexico (20.8), Moldova (10.3), Mongolia (13.7), Montenegro (8.8), Mozambique (32.6), Myanmar (18.9), Namibia (32.9), Nepal (24.6), Nicaragua (22.6), Niger (28.8), Nigeria (34.6), North Macedonia (12.4), Pakistan (29.6), Palestine (14.9), Panama (20.2), Paraguay (24.8), Peru (18.9), Philippines (17.6), Poland (8.8), Portugal (13.2), Romania (11.4), Russia (9.3), Rwanda (29.8), Sao Tome and Principe (19.7), Senegal (31.7), Serbia (14.6), Sierra Leone (35.4), Singapore (11.9), Slovakia (6.7), Slovenia (5.5), South Africa (30.3), South Korea (14.0), South Sudan (36.3), Sri Lanka (13.6), Sudan (34.5), Suriname (21.8), Switzerland (7.5), Tajikistan (13.4), Tanzania (24.8), Timor-Leste (26.4), Togo (31.5), Trinidad and Tobago (14.7), Tunisia (21.4), Turkey (15.3), Turkmenistan (17.9), Uganda (28.2), Ukraine (6.5), United States (13.1), Uruguay (13.9), Vanuatu (17.1), Venezuela (16.2), Vietnam (17.3), Yemen (30.9), Zambia (33.0), Zimbabwe (23.5)
  • Constitutional Monarchies = Australia (8.0), Barbados (15.4), Belgium (8.7), Belize (21.3), Bhutan (26.4), Cambodia (19.2), Canada (7.7), Denmark (7.4), Jamaica (16.2), Japan (3.6), Jordan (16.0), Lesotho (30.5), Luxembourg (10.1), Netherlands (7.8), New Zealand (7.5), Norway (7.9), Saint Lucia (16.3), Spain (14.9), Sweden (7.2), Thailand (15.5), United Kingdom (9.1)
  • Constitutional Republics = Afghanistan (28.2), Albania (10.0), Algeria (20.1), Angola (32.3), Argentina (13.9), Armenia (9.8), Austria (7.8), Azerbaijan (9.9), Bangladesh (23.4), Belarus (6.5), Benin (36.3), Bolivia (25.7), Bosnia and Herzegovina (15.3), Brazil (23.2), Bulgaria (12.3), Burkina Faso (31.8), Burundi (32.8), Cameroon (34.2), Central African Republic (41.8), Chad (37.9), Chile (14.9), Colombia (22.9), Comoros (44.2), Congo-Brazzaville (22.6), Congo-Kinshasa (30.2), Costa Rica (17.3), Croatia (8.8), Cyprus (11.3), Czechia (5.2), Côte d'Ivoire (36.3), Djibouti (35.2), Dominican Republic (20.9), Ecuador (19.4), Egypt (28.3), El Salvador (21.9), Estonia (8.5), Ethiopia (27.3), Finland (5.5), France (10.1), Gabon (22.3), Gambia (36.4), Georgia (12.0), Germany (7.8), Ghana (28.8), Greece (13.1), Guatemala (27.7), Guinea (32.2), Guinea-Bissau (39.4), Guyana (18.4), Haiti (38.4), Honduras (25.2), Hong Kong (12.7), Hungary (7.7), Iceland (5.9), India (26.3), Indonesia (18.7), Iran (11.2), Iraq (20.2), Ireland (8.6), Israel (12.2), Italy (11.9), Kazakhstan (7.9), Kyrgyzstan (9.8), Latvia (10.1), Liberia (31.0), Lithuania (11.3), Madagascar (25.6), Malawi (30.4), Maldives (22.0), Mali (32.8), Malta (8.2), Mauritania (32.7), Mauritius (13.4), Mexico (20.8), Moldova (10.3), Mongolia (13.7), Montenegro (8.8), Mozambique (32.6), Myanmar (18.9), Namibia (32.9), Nepal (24.6), Nicaragua (22.6), Niger (28.8), Nigeria (34.6), North Macedonia (12.4), Pakistan (29.6), Palestine (14.9), Panama (20.2), Paraguay (24.8), Peru (18.9), Philippines (17.6), Poland (8.8), Portugal (13.2), Romania (11.4), Russia (9.3), Rwanda (29.8), Sao Tome and Principe (19.7), Senegal (31.7), Serbia (14.6), Sierra Leone (35.4), Singapore (11.9), Slovakia (6.7), Slovenia (5.5), South Africa (30.3), South Korea (14.0), South Sudan (36.3), Sri Lanka (13.6), Sudan (34.5), Suriname (21.8), Switzerland (7.5), Tajikistan (13.4), Tanzania (24.8), Timor-Leste (26.4), Togo (31.5), Trinidad and Tobago (14.7), Tunisia (21.4), Turkey (15.3), Turkmenistan (17.9), Uganda (28.2), Ukraine (6.5), United States (13.1), Uruguay (13.9), Vanuatu (17.1), Venezuela (16.2), Zambia (33.0), Zimbabwe (23.5)
  • Absolute Monarchies = Eswatini (29.4)
  • One-Party States = China (14.9), Laos (35.8), Vietnam (17.3)
  • Transitional States = Yemen (30.9)
  • G20 Monarchies = Australia (8.0), Canada (7.7), Japan (3.6), United Kingdom (9.1)
  • G20 Non-Monarchies = Argentina (13.9), Brazil (23.2), China (14.9), France (10.1), Germany (7.8), India (26.3), Indonesia (18.7), Italy (11.9), Mexico (20.8), Russia (9.3), South Africa (30.3), South Korea (14.0), Turkey (15.3), United States (13.1)
  • EU Monarchies = Belgium (8.7), Denmark (7.4), Luxembourg (10.1), Netherlands (7.8), Norway (7.9), Spain (14.9), Sweden (7.2), United Kingdom (9.1)
  • EU Non-Monarchies = Austria (7.8), Bulgaria (12.3), Croatia (8.8), Czechia (5.2), Estonia (8.5), Finland (5.5), France (10.1), Germany (7.8), Greece (13.1), Hungary (7.7), Iceland (5.9), Ireland (8.6), Italy (11.9), Latvia (10.1), Lithuania (11.3), Malta (8.2), Poland (8.8), Portugal (13.2), Romania (11.4), Slovakia (6.7), Slovenia (5.5)
  • Arab League Monarchies = Jordan (16.0)
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies = Algeria (20.1), Comoros (44.2), Djibouti (35.2), Egypt (28.3), Iraq (20.2), Mauritania (32.7), Palestine (14.9), Sudan (34.5), Tunisia (21.4), Yemen (30.9)
  • ASEAN Monarchies = Cambodia (19.2), Thailand (15.5)
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies = Indonesia (18.7), Laos (35.8), Myanmar (18.9), Philippines (17.6), Singapore (11.9), Vietnam (17.3)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:32 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
Gini Coefficient Data Sets
  • Monarchies, Generally = Australia (34.7), Belgium (27.7), Bhutan (38.8), Canada (34.0), Denmark (28.2), Eswatini (51.5), Japan (32.1), Jordan (33.7), Lesotho (54.2), Luxembourg (31.2), Malaysia (46.3), Morocco (40.7), Netherlands (29.3), Norway (27.5), Papua New Guinea (41.9), Solomon Islands (37.1), Spain (36.2), Sweden (29.2), Thailand (37.8), Tonga (37.5), Tuvalu (39.1), United Kingdom (33.2)
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally = Albania (29.0), Algeria (27.6), Angola (42.7), Argentina (42.4), Armenia (32.5), Austria (30.5), Azerbaijan (16.6), Bangladesh (32.4), Belarus (27.0), Benin (47.8), Bolivia (44.6), Bosnia and Hezegovina (32.7), Botswana (60.5), Brazil (51.3), Bulgaria (37.4), Burkina Faso (35.3), Burundi (38.6), Cabo Verde (47.2), Cameroon (46.6), Central African Republic (56.2), Chad (43.3), Chile (47.7), China (42.2), Colombia (50.8), Comoros (45.3), Congo-Brazzaville (48.9), Congo-Kinshasa (42.1), Costa Rica (48.7), Croatia (30.8), Cyprus (34.0), Czechia (25.9), Côte d'Ivoire (41.5), Djibouti (44.1), Dominican Republic (45.3), Ecuador (45.0), Egypt (31.8), El Salvador (40.0), Estonia (32.7), Ethiopia (39.1), Fiji (36.4), Finland (27.1), France (32.7), Gabon (42.2), Gambia (35.9), Georgia (36.5), Germany (31.7), Ghana (42.4), Greece (36.0), Guatemala (48.3), Guinea (33.7), Guinea-Bissau (50.7), Haiti (41.1), Honduras (50.0), Hungary (30.4), Iceland (25.6), India (35.1), Indonesia (39.5), Iran (38.8), Iraq (29.5), Ireland (31.9), Israel (41.4), Italy (34.7), Kazakhstan (26.9), Kenya (48.5), Kiribati (37.0), Kyrgyzstan (26.8), Laos (36.4), Latvia (34.2), Lebanon (31.8), Liberia (33.2), Lithuania (37.4), Madagascar (42.6), Malawi (45.5), Maldives (38.4), Mali (33.0), Malta (29.0), Mauritania (32.6), Mauritius (35.8), Mexico (43.4), Micronesia (40.1), Moldova (26.3), Mongolia (32.2), Montenegro (31.9), Mozambique (54.0), Myanmar (38.1), Namibia (61.0), Nepal (32.8), Nicaragua (46.2), Niger (34.3), Nigeria (43.0), North Macedonia (35.6), Pakistan (30.7), Palestine (34.4), Panama (50.4), Paraguay (47.9), Peru (43.8), Philippines (40.1), Poland (31.8), Portugal (35.5), Romania (28.3), Russia (37.7), Rwanda (50.4), Samoa (42.0), Sao Tome and Principe (30.8), Senegal (40.3), Serbia (28.5), Seychelles (46.8), Sierra Leone (34.0), Slovakia (26.5), Slovenia (25.4), South Africa (63.0), South Korea (31.6), South Sudan (46.3), Sri Lanka (39.8), Sudan (35.4), Switzerland (32.5), Tajikistan (34.0), Tanzania (37.8), Timor-Leste (28.7), Togo (43.1), Tunisia (35.8), Turkey (41.9), Uganda (41.0), Ukraine (25.0), United States (41.5), Uruguay (39.7), Vanuatu (37.6), Venezuela (46.9), Vietnam (34.8), Yemen (36.7), Zambia (57.1), Zimbabwe (43.2)
  • Constitutional Monarchies = Australia (34.7), Belgium (27.7), Bhutan (38.8), Canada (34.0), Denmark (28.2), Japan (32.1), Jordan (33.7), Lesotho (54.2), Luxembourg (31.2), Malaysia (46.3), Morocco (40.7), Netherlands (29.3), Norway (27.5), Papua New Guinea (41.9), Solomon Islands (37.1), Spain (36.2), Sweden (29.2), Thailand (37.8), Tonga (37.5), Tuvalu (39.1), United Kingdom (33.2)
  • Constitutional Republics = Albania (29.0), Algeria (27.6), Angola (42.7), Argentina (42.4), Armenia (32.5), Austria (30.5), Azerbaijan (16.6), Bangladesh (32.4), Belarus (27.0), Benin (47.8), Bolivia (44.6), Bosnia and Hezegovina (32.7), Botswana (60.5), Brazil (51.3), Bulgaria (37.4), Burkina Faso (35.3), Burundi (38.6), Cabo Verde (47.2), Cameroon (46.6), Central African Republic (56.2), Chad (43.3), Chile (47.7), Colombia (50.8), Comoros (45.3), Congo-Brazzaville (48.9), Congo-Kinshasa (42.1), Costa Rica (48.7), Croatia (30.8), Cyprus (34.0), Czechia (25.9), Côte d'Ivoire (41.5), Djibouti (44.1), Dominican Republic (45.3), Ecuador (45.0), Egypt (31.8), El Salvador (40.0), Estonia (32.7), Ethiopia (39.1), Fiji (36.4), Finland (27.1), France (32.7), Gabon (42.2), Gambia (35.9), Georgia (36.5), Germany (31.7), Ghana (42.4), Greece (36.0), Guatemala (48.3), Guinea (33.7), Guinea-Bissau (50.7), Haiti (41.1), Honduras (50.0), Hungary (30.4), Iceland (25.6), India (35.1), Indonesia (39.5), Iran (38.8), Iraq (29.5), Ireland (31.9), Israel (41.4), Italy (34.7), Kazakhstan (26.9), Kenya (48.5), Kiribati (37.0), Kyrgyzstan (26.8), Latvia (34.2), Lebanon (31.8), Liberia (33.2), Lithuania (37.4), Madagascar (42.6), Malawi (45.5), Maldives (38.4), Mali (33.0), Malta (29.0), Mauritania (32.6), Mauritius (35.8), Mexico (43.4), Micronesia (40.1), Moldova (26.3), Mongolia (32.2), Montenegro (31.9), Mozambique (54.0), Myanmar (38.1), Namibia (61.0), Nepal (32.8), Nicaragua (46.2), Niger (34.3), Nigeria (43.0), North Macedonia (35.6), Pakistan (30.7), Palestine (34.4), Panama (50.4), Paraguay (47.9), Peru (43.8), Philippines (40.1), Poland (31.8), Portugal (35.5), Romania (28.3), Russia (37.7), Rwanda (50.4), Samoa (42.0), Sao Tome and Principe (30.8), Senegal (40.3), Serbia (28.5), Seychelles (46.8), Sierra Leone (34.0), Slovakia (26.5), Slovenia (25.4), South Africa (63.0), South Korea (31.6), South Sudan (46.3), Sri Lanka (39.8), Sudan (35.4), Switzerland (32.5), Tajikistan (34.0), Tanzania (37.8), Timor-Leste (28.7), Togo (43.1), Tunisia (35.8), Turkey (41.9), Uganda (41.0), Ukraine (25.0), United States (41.5), Uruguay (39.7), Vanuatu (37.6), Venezuela (46.9), Zambia (57.1), Zimbabwe (43.2)
  • Absolute Monarchies = Eswatini (51.5)
  • One-Party States = China (42.2), Laos (36.4), Vietnam (34.8)
  • Transitional States = Yemen (36.7)
  • G20 Monarchies = Australia (34.7), Canada (34.0), Japan (32.1), United Kingdom (33.2)
  • G20 Non-Monarchies = Argentina (42.4), Brazil (51.3), China (42.2), France (32.7), Germany (31.7), India (35.1), Indonesia (39.5), Italy (34.7), Mexico (43.4), Russia (37.7), South Africa (63.0), South Korea (31.6), Turkey (41.9), United States (41.5)
  • EU Monarchies = Belgium (27.7), Denmark (28.2), Luxembourg (31.2), Netherlands (29.3), Spain (36.2), Sweden (29.2), United Kingdom (33.2)
  • EU Non-Monarchies = Austria (30.5), Bulgaria (37.4), Croatia (30.8), Cyprus (34.0), Czechia (25.9), Estonia (32.7), Finland (27.1), France (32.7), Germany (31.7), Greece (36.0), Hungary (30.4), Iceland (25.6), Ireland (31.9), Italy (34.7), Latvia (34.2), Lithuania (37.4), Malta (29.0), Poland (31.8), Portugal (35.5), Romania (28.3), Slovakia (26.5), Slovenia (25.4)
  • Arab League Monarchies = Jordan (33.7), Morocco (40.7)
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies = Algeria (27.6), Comoros (45.3), Djibouti (44.1), Egypt (31.8), Iraq (29.5), Lebanon (31.8), Mauritania (32.6), Palestine (34.4), Sudan (35.4), Tunisia (35.8), Yemen (36.7)
  • ASEAN Monarchies = Malaysia (46.3), Thailand (37.8)
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies = Indonesia (39.5), Laos (36.4), Myanmar (38.1), Philippines (40.1), Vietnam (34.8)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:32 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
Corruption Perceptions Index Data Sets
  • Monarchies, Generally = Australia (77), Bahamas (65), Bahrain (36), Barbados (68), Belgium (75), Bhutan (68), Brunei (63), Cambodia (20), Canada (81), Denmark (88), Grenada (52), Jamaica (44), Japan (73), Jordan (49), Kuwait (41), Lesotho (41), Luxembourg (81), Malaysia (47), Morocco (43), Netherlands (82), New Zealand (87), Norway (84), Oman (52), Papua New Guinea (28), Qatar (62), Saint Lucia (55), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (58), Saudi Arabia (49), Solomon Islands (44), Spain (58), Sweden (85), Thailand (36), United Arab Emirates (70), United Kingdom (80)
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally = Afghanistan (16), Albania (36), Algeria (35), Angola (19), Argentina (40), Armenia (35), Austria (76), Azerbaijan (25), Bangladesh (26), Belarus (44), Benin (40), Bolivia (29), Bosnia and Herzegovina (38), Botswana (61), Brazil (35), Bulgaria (42), Burkina Faso (41), Burundi (17), Cameroon (25), Cape Verde (57), Central African Republic (26), Chad (19), Chile (67), China (39), Colombia (36), Comoros (27), Costa Rica (56), Croatia (48), Cuba (47), Cyprus (59), Czechia (59), Congo-Brazzaville (19), Congo-Kinshasa (19), Djibouti (31), Dominica (57), Dominican Republic (30), Ecuador (34), Egypt (35), El Salvador (35), Eritrea (24), Estonia (73), Ethiopia (34), Finland (85), France (72), Gabon (31), Gambia (37), Georgia (58), Germany (80), Ghana (41), Greece (45), Guatemala (27), Guinea (28), Guinea-Bissau (28), Guyana (37), Haiti (20), Honduras (29), Hong Kong (76), Hungary (46), Iceland (76), India (41), Indonesia (38), Iran (28), Iraq (18), Ireland (73), Israel (61), Italy (52), Ivory Coast (35), Kazakhstan (31), Kenya (27), Kosovo (37), Kyrgyzstan (29), Laos (29), Latvia (58), Lebanon (28), Liberia (32), Libya (17), Lithuania (59), Madagascar (25), Malawi (32), Maldives (31), Mali (32), Malta (54), Mauritania (27), Mauritius (51), Mexico (28), Moldova (33), Mongolia (37), Montenegro (45), Mozambique (23), Myanmar (29), Namibia (53), Nepal (31), Nicaragua (25), Niger (34), Nigeria (27), North Korea (14), North Macedonia (37), Pakistan (33), Panama (37), Paraguay (29), Peru (35), Philippines (36), Poland (60), Portugal (64), Romania (47), Russia (28), Rwanda (56), Senegal (45), Serbia (39), Sierra Leone (30), Singapore (85), Slovakia (50), Slovenia (60), Somalia (10), South Africa (43), South Korea (57), South Sudan (13), Sri Lanka (38), Sudan (16), Suriname (43), Switzerland (85), Syria (13), São Tomé and Príncipe (46), Taiwan (63), Tajikistan (25), Tanzania (36), Timor-Leste (35), Togo (30), Trinidad and Tobago (41), Tunisia (43), Turkey (41), Turkmenistan (20), Uganda (26), Ukraine (32), United States (71), Uruguay (70), Uzbekistan (23), Venezuela (18), Vietnam (33), Yemen (14), Zambia (35), Zimbabwe (22)
  • Constitutional Monarchies = Australia (77), Bahamas (65), Bahrain (36), Barbados (68), Belgium (75), Bhutan (68), Cambodia (20), Canada (81), Denmark (88), Grenada (52), Jamaica (44), Japan (73), Jordan (49), Kuwait (41), Lesotho (41), Luxembourg (81), Malaysia (47), Morocco (43), Netherlands (82), New Zealand (87), Norway (84), Papua New Guinea (28), Saint Lucia (55), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (58), Solomon Islands (44), Spain (58), Sweden (85), Thailand (36), United Arab Emirates (70), United Kingdom (80)
  • Constitutional Republics = Afghanistan (16), Albania (36), Algeria (35), Angola (19), Argentina (40), Armenia (35), Austria (76), Azerbaijan (25), Bangladesh (26), Belarus (44), Benin (40), Bolivia (29), Bosnia and Herzegovina (38), Botswana (61), Brazil (35), Bulgaria (42), Burkina Faso (41), Burundi (17), Cameroon (25), Cape Verde (57), Central African Republic (26), Chad (19), Chile (67), Colombia (36), Comoros (27), Costa Rica (56), Croatia (48), Cyprus (59), Czechia (59), Congo-Brazzaville (19), Congo-Kinshasa (19), Djibouti (31), Dominica (57), Dominican Republic (30), Ecuador (34), Egypt (35), El Salvador (35), Estonia (73), Ethiopia (34), Finland (85), France (72), Gabon (31), Gambia (37), Georgia (58), Germany (80), Ghana (41), Greece (45), Guatemala (27), Guinea (28), Guinea-Bissau (28), Guyana (37), Haiti (20), Honduras (29), Hong Kong (76), Hungary (46), Iceland (76), India (41), Indonesia (38), Iran (28), Iraq (18), Ireland (73), Israel (61), Italy (52), Ivory Coast (35), Kazakhstan (31), Kenya (27), Kosovo (37), Kyrgyzstan (29), Latvia (58), Lebanon (28), Liberia (32), Lithuania (59), Madagascar (25), Malawi (32), Maldives (31), Mali (32), Malta (54), Mauritania (27), Mauritius (51), Mexico (28), Moldova (33), Mongolia (37), Montenegro (45), Mozambique (23), Myanmar (29), Namibia (53), Nepal (31), Nicaragua (25), Niger (34), Nigeria (27), North Macedonia (37), Pakistan (33), Panama (37), Paraguay (29), Peru (35), Philippines (36), Poland (60), Portugal (64), Romania (47), Russia (28), Rwanda (56), Senegal (45), Serbia (39), Sierra Leone (30), Singapore (85), Slovakia (50), Slovenia (60), Somalia (10), South Africa (43), South Korea (57), South Sudan (13), Sri Lanka (38), Sudan (16), Suriname (43), Switzerland (85), Syria (13), São Tomé and Príncipe (46), Taiwan (63), Tajikistan (25), Tanzania (36), Timor-Leste (35), Togo (30), Trinidad and Tobago (41), Tunisia (43), Turkey (41), Turkmenistan (20), Uganda (26), Ukraine (32), United States (71), Uruguay (70), Uzbekistan (23), Venezuela (18), Zambia (35), Zimbabwe (22)
  • Absolute Monarchies = Brunei (63), Oman (52), Qatar (62), Saudi Arabia (49)
  • One-Party States = China (39), Cuba (47), Eritrea (24), Laos (29), North Korea (14), Vietnam (33)
  • Transitional States = Libya (17), Yemen (14)
  • G20 Monarchies = Australia (77), Canada (81), Japan (73), Saudi Arabia (49), United Kingdom (80)
  • G20 Non-Monarchies = Argentina (40), Brazil (35), China (39), France (72), Germany (80), India (41), Indonesia (38), Italy (52), Mexico (28), Russia (28), South Africa (43), South Korea (57), Turkey (41), United States (71)
  • EU Monarchies = Belgium (75), Denmark (88), Luxembourg (81), Netherlands (82), Spain (58), Sweden (85), United Kingdom (80)
  • EU Non-Monarchies = Austria (76), Bulgaria (42), Croatia (48), Cyprus (59), Czechia (59), Estonia (73), Finland (85), France (72), Germany (80), Greece (45), Hungary (46), Iceland (76), Ireland (73), Italy (52), Latvia (58), Lithuania (59), Malta (54), Poland (60), Portugal (64), Romania (47), Slovakia (50), Slovenia (60)
  • Arab League Monarchies = Bahrain (36), Jordan (49), Kuwait (41), Morocco (43), Oman (52), Qatar (62), Saudi Arabia (49), United Arab Emirates (70)
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies = Algeria (35), Comoros (27), Djibouti (31), Egypt (35), Iraq (18), Lebanon (28), Libya (17), Mauritania (27), Somalia (10), Sudan (16), Syria (13), Tunisia (43), Yemen (14)
  • ASEAN Monarchies = Brunei (63), Cambodia (20), Malaysia (47), Thailand (36)
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies = Indonesia (38), Laos (29), Myanmar (29), Philippines (36), Singapore (85), Vietnam (33)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2019, 08:54 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,525


Thank you for taking the time to marshal this trove of data and presenting it so clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Thompson View Post
One of the most common arguments against monarchic forms of government is that they promote inequality. I was curious as to what actual, like, data might say as to this subject, so I decided to divide the nations of the world into a number of data sets to compare monarchies and non-monarchies with respect to two measures of inequality, namely the Coefficient of Human Inequality (which is a wide-based measure that attempts to take account of not only income/wealth inequality, but also inequality in education and health) and the Gini Coefficient (which focuses primarily on income/wealth inequality). I also figured that it might be worthwhile to look at corruption data, seeing as corruption can be intimately related to inequality (as it can both cause and be caused by it).

It should be noted that none of the data sets in application contain all of the countries that I've assigned to the respective data sets in principle, and there is some inconsistency between the different measures, and in some cases the number of states included in each data set might be insufficient to create a reliably representative statistic.

The CHI and Gini data I've used is taken from the United Nations, while the measure of corruption I've used is taken from Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index data. In order to create a comparison, I calculated the mean for each set from the data presented. For the CHI and Gini data, lower coefficients mean less inequality. For the CPI data, higher indices mean less corruption (100 being absolutely no corruption, 0 being the most corruption that could theoretically be possible).

Coefficient of Human Inequality
  • Monarchies, Generally (22): 13.9
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally (130): 20.6
  • Constitutional Monarchies (21): 13.2
  • Constitutional Republics (126): 20.4
  • Absolute Monarchies (1): 29.4
  • One-Party States (3): 22.7
  • Transitional States (1): 30.9
  • G20 Monarchies (4): 7.1
  • G20 Non-Monarchies (14): 16.4
  • EU Monarchies (8): 9.1
  • EU Non-Monarchies (21): 9.0
  • Arab League Monarchies (1): 16.0
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies (10): 28.2
  • ASEAN Monarchies (2): 17.4
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies (6): 20.0
Gini Coefficient
  • Monarchies, Generally (22): 36.5
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally (132): 38.5
  • Constitutional Monarchies (21): 35.7
  • Constitutional Republics (128): 38.5
  • Absolute Monarchies (1): 51.5
  • One-Party States (3): 37.8
  • Transitional States (1): 36.7
  • G20 Monarchies (4): 33.5
  • G20 Non-Monarchies (14): 40.6
  • EU Monarchies (7): 30.7
  • EU Non-Monarchies (22): 31.3
  • Arab League Monarchies (2): 37.2
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies (11): 35.0
  • ASEAN Monarchies (2): 42.1
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies (5): 37.8
Corruption Perceptions Index
  • Monarchies, Generally (34): 60
  • Non-Monarchies, Generally (142): 39
  • Constitutional Monarchies (30): 61
  • Constitutional Republics (134): 40
  • Absolute Monarchies (4): 57
  • One-Party States (6): 31
  • Transitional States (2): 16
  • G20 Monarchies (5): 72
  • G20 Non-Monarchies (14): 48
  • EU Monarchies (7): 78
  • EU Non-Monarchies (22): 61
  • Arab League Monarchies (8): 50
  • Arab League Non-Monarchies (13): 24
  • ASEAN Monarchies (4): 42
  • ASEAN Non-Monarchies (6): 42
In conclusion, there does not appear to be a statistically significant difference, with respect to measures of inequality, between monarchies and non-monarchies of similar circumstance, but monarchies appear to be significantly more resistant to corruption.
It is striking that absolute monarchies score far worse on the inequality measures than both constitutional republics and constitutional monarchies. And it would be interesting to know what institutional arrangements are responsible for the relatively lower levels of measured corruption in monarchies.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2019, 09:56 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,316
It is fairly well known that the most modern, developed, tolerant, liberal, wealthy and egalitarian societies are countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, bh coincidence all with hereditary heads of state indeed. But it says nothing as similar countries like Finland, Switzerland or Iceland have elected heads of state.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:20 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is fairly well known that the most modern, developed, tolerant, liberal, wealthy and egalitarian societies are countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, bh coincidence all with hereditary heads of state indeed. But it says nothing as similar countries like Finland, Switzerland or Iceland have elected heads of state.

Indeed, it has nothing to do with the country being a monarchy or a republic, but rather with those two sets of countries having similar economic and demographic characteristics.


When people argue that monarchy promotes inequality, they are not generally referring to socioeconomic inequality at a macro level (for example, Gini coefficients or things like that), but rather to the fact that hereditary succession to the office of Head of State by order of primogeniture is inherently unequal as it creates two categories of citizens: those who are eligible to succeed to the throne (solely because they belong to a particular family or descend from someone, sometimes centuries ago), and those who are not (in this case, regardless of merit).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Indeed, it has nothing to do with the country being a monarchy or a republic, but rather with those two sets of countries having similar economic and demographic characteristics.


When people argue that monarchy promotes inequality, they are not generally referring to socioeconomic inequality at a macro level (for example, Gini coefficients or things like that), but rather to the fact that hereditary succession to the office of Head of State by order of primogeniture is inherently unequal as it creates two categories of citizens: those eligible to succeed to the throne (solely because they belong to a particular family or descend from someone, sometimes centuries ago), and those who are not (in this case, regardless of merit).
That is a sound observation. There is an ancillary argument that hereditary monarchies promote the aggregation of wealth in the elite levels of society whenever the national laws and customs designate income to these families, e.g., by granting them an entitlement to a percentage of the tax revenues.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-19-2019, 01:39 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
These are all valid points, but then comes the question of why are monarchies statistically over-represented among developed countries?

The most probable explanation for that one can probably be found in something that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once wrote: "It is against the nature of the masses to revolt, except against what hurts them, physically or morally."

For the most part, this rule has held true throughout history. Peoples whose needs are satisfied do not rebel. The American Revolution occurred as a reaction to the colonies being taxed and legislated to without their consent, the French Revolution would not have happened but for bread shortages, the Russian and German revolutions were the result of wartime food and commodity shortages, etc.

However, there are some cases where the rule has been warped. The primary cause of the Egyptian Revolution was the failure of the Kingdom of Egypt to erase the nascent State of Israel from existence during the Israeli War of Independence.

But the argument can be made that populations in developed countries have a happier lot and are consequently less likely to pursue a radical course, instead finding reform to be satisfactory.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Thompson View Post
l. The American Revolution occurred as a reaction to the colonies being taxed and legislated to without their consent,

Taxation without representation was of course a major issue, but the Declaration of Independence more broadly speaking was about self-determination, including local control of foreign trade, immigration and naturalization, and settlement of the Indian territories to the West, all of which were perceived as being obstructed by the British government against the economic interests of the colonial elites. It was also about local control of the franchise and the timing of elections, curtailing of royal prerogatives vis-a-vis the legislature including dissolutions and the royal veto of legislation, and independence of the judiciary, including security of tenure and of compensation for permanent judges , local establishment of new courts, and guarantees of local trials by popular jury.



Many people often wonder why there was never an "American Revolution" in Canada, which has kept the monarchy up to our days. I don't dare to answer that difficult question, but, leaving aside that English Canada was born pretty much as an alternative home for American loyalists who sided with the Crown in the US war of independence, the basic fact is that, from the 1840s onwards, culminating with the creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867, the Canadians were offered pretty much what the Americans were asking for in 1776, which fell short of total independence (achieved in Canada only in 1931 or 1982, depending on your point of view), but amounted again to local control of what mattered to local elites. Had the British government shown the same vision one century earlier, the ties between the Crown and the American colonies would probably have been saved, but that would have been thinking too much ahead of its time to become a reality.




Finally, going back to the American Revolution, an important point that is frequently overlooked, but is nevertheless quite prominent in the Declaration of Independence was dissatisfaction in the colonies with the annexation of New France into British North America, including the preservation of a system of French civil law in Quebec and enlargement of its territorial boundaries to include the Indian lands coveted by the American colonists (again). Unlike the English colonists, self-determination was not apparently a major concern of the French subjects in Canada , but French civil law, the French language and the civil rights of Roman Catholics were paramount to them and enough to secure their allegiance to the British Crown during the American Revolution and beyond.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-19-2019, 03:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
The vast majority of what's listed in the indictment portion of the United States Declaration of Independence can be assigned under the category of Parliament legislating to and about the colonies without procuring their consent by way of giving them voting representation in the House of Commons.

As far as Canada never having had a revolution goes, they actually did, but it was simultaneously a failure and a resounding success. There were major revolts in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 and 1838, but the loyalist forces were able to put these rebellions down. In order to avoid a repetition, Parliament responded to the rebellions by enacting a major reform of Canadian government, uniting the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada into a single Province of Canada, and gradually, over the next decade, giving the Province of Canada an executive government that was responsible to its legislature, rather than to London.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy Thompson View Post
The vast majority of what's listed in the indictment portion of the United States Declaration of Independence can be assigned under the category of Parliament legislating to and about the colonies without procuring their consent by way of giving them voting representation in the House of Commons.

As far as Canada never having had a revolution goes, they actually did, but it was simultaneously a failure and a resounding success. There were major revolts in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 and 1838, but the loyalist forces were able to put these rebellions down. In order to avoid a repetition, Parliament responded to the rebellions by enacting a major reform of Canadian government, uniting the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada into a single Province of Canada, and gradually, over the next decade, giving the Province of Canada an executive government that was responsible to its legislature, rather than to London.



Yes, that is what I said. From circa "1840 onwards culminating in the establishment of the Dominion in 1867" (i.e. following the rebellions of 1837 and 1838), Canadians were gradually offered what the Americans demanded in 1776. And, of course, the Canadian rebellions in the 1830s cannot be compared in scale to the American Revolution.


On your other point, it was not just a matter of the British parliament legislating for the colonies without their consent, but also a matter of the Crown (i.e. the Executive government) interfering in the legislative process , e.g. by repeatedly using the royal veto (via the colonial governors) or dissolving local legislative assemblies and not summoning new ones within a reasonable time, both of which are mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Independence.



In Canada, that was eventually fixed by making the Executive Council that advised the Crown responsible to the local legislature and drawn from it. That solution was not available, however, to the American colonies in the late 18th century, not least because responsible government had not been consolidated yet not even in the UK itself. The American colonists sought a different solution then, which was to keep a separate, independent Executive branch, which was not politically accountable to the legislature, but to replace the Crown (the former Executive) with locally elected governors and, eventually, with the President of the United States at the federal level.



Keep also in mind that, in the case of Canada specifically, the British parliament, even after the Dominion was created, retained the prerogative to legislate for Canada as a whole or any of the Canadian provinces in particular, and British legislation still overrode Canadian law in case of conflict between the two. Again, de facto legislative independence was only achieved with the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and full legislative independence, including the ability to amend unilaterally the constitution of Canada, was only achieved in 1982. What Canadians demanded in the 1860s and Americans wanted earlier than that was not , however, full legislative independence, but rather simply local control over taxes, the Armed Forces, the courts, immigration and naturalization, Indian affairs, or trade, and, again, that is what the grievances in the Declaration of Independence were all about. The Americans only went for full independence because their demands for more limited self-determination were rejected by the British.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:46 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
As a side note (not in reply to anything, but sometimes I think in tangents...), it's also worth noting that:
  1. The American Revolution did not initiate with independence as an objective. At the beginning, the American revolutionaries merely sought what the Canadian revolutionaries of 1837/38 ended up actually achieving. The American Revolution became a secessionist conflict by reason of the way in which the Government of Lord North responded to the crisis.
  2. The American Revolution was never uniformly anti-monarchist in its character. In fact, there were some major figures in the American Revolution who harbored monarchist sentiments—Alexander Hamilton, for perhaps the most prominent example. The plan that Hamilton submitted at the Philadelphia Convention would have, essentially, created an elective monarchy. And there reportedly was in 1786 a scheme, possibly proposed by Nathaniel Gorham (then the President of the Continental Congress), to offer the title of King of the United States to Frederick the Great's brother, Prince Henry of Prussia; it's been argued that the natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution was possibly put into place specifically to prevent the idea of offerring a hypothetical American Crown to European princes from being revisited. But, either way, there was a distinct possibility that the United States of America could have turned out more like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was not until the Constitution of 1787 was ratified that the issue of whether the United States would be a monarchy or a republic was put to rest.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:15 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Floodwood, United States
Posts: 60
Apologies beforehand for the fact that the first point of what I mentioned in my most recent post above again mentions something you already noted. I had been drafting that post while you posted your post and did not refresh the thread before posting. Now, on to an actual reply...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The American colonists sought a different solution then, which was to keep a separate, independent Executive branch, which was not politically accountable to the legislature, but to replace the Crown (the former Executive) with locally elected governors and, eventually, with the President of the United States at the federal level.
True. But, of course, the idea of a responsible government would not have really occurred to the American Founders per se, as political theory had not by that time caught up to what was already being practiced in London. The philosophers that the American Founders were well versed in had theorized a system of government in which executive (moderative/ceremonial and administrative), legislative, and judicial functions should be separated into three independent, yet interdependent in the form of checks and balances, branches, but the philosophers had not yet come up with the idea of separating the moderative and ceremonial functions of the head of state from the administrative and political functions of the government of the day. In a word, while the parliamentary system was already extant in a nascent form in London, the groundwork for it did not yet exist in the theories of major philosophers. Consequently, there was nothing for the American Founders to use as a basis for their form of government other than the idea that would later be dubbed the presidential system of government.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iñaki, Cristina and the NOOS Corruption Investigation Part 1 (2011-2014) LadyFinn Infanta Cristina, Iñaki Urdangarín and Family 1765 01-04-2015 09:24 AM




Popular Tags
alqasimi archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig birthday celebration bracelets british royal family charles of wales christian ix countess of wessex crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher denmark discussão duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of sussex duke of york family search felipe vi french royalty germany hamdan bin mohammed head of the house her children introduction jack brooksbank jerusalem king letter meghan markle modernization mohammed vi monaco christening monarchism nelson mandela bay official visit patron prince harry prince laurent prince of wales prince peter princess princess beatrice princess benedikte princess claire princesses princess royal prince william queen elisabeth royal royal tour rumania sarah ferguson siblings south africa spain state visit sweden trump valois viscount severn windy city wivies



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises