本篇文章讲述的是经济自由化，很久以前，有人预测，经济自由化将导致政治上的剧烈变化，并最终导致民主。这一预测直到最近才具体适用于任何发达国家或发展中国家，以一种标准的方式发表了一项声明，明确指出无论经济发展发生在何处，它必将导致民主(梅斯基塔，D. D. D.)。，唐斯，g.w。,2005)。任何一个国家的经济发展都会造就一个受过良好教育的企业家阶层，这个阶层的人迟早想要掌握自己的命运，并随心所欲地操纵它。本篇悉尼代写文章由澳洲论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
A long time ago, it was predicted that economic liberalization would lead to drastic changes in politics and, eventually, democracy. This prediction was not specific to any developed or developing nation until quite recently, in a standard way a statement was made clear that economic development, wherever it occurs, will certainly lead to democracy (Mesquita, D. D.,and Downs, G. W., 2005). Economic development of any nation produces an educated and entrepreneurial class of individuals that sooner or later want to control their own destiny and maneuver it as they like.
But now the data from various annual financial reports suggest that this linkage between economy, democracy and politics is getting weak, for developing countries it can be termed as Liberal Democracy. For instance, economy in China has grown quite abundantly over the last 25 years, but its politics have remained essentially stagnant. On the other hand, in Russia, the economy has improved only recently even though the political reins are tightened and holding their grip on the groups of individuals.
Writing in the convention of political economy, it was long pointed by the liberals and the Marxists that capitalist industrialization would be a historical agent in democratization of the nations. But if capital and labour played a critical part in crowning political reforms in the early industrialization of Western Europe, then the biggest doubt is whether these social forces are likely to play a similar role in the context of late development, particular to the countries which are in developing stage now (Bellin, E., 2002). And the answer to this question can be found within the political system of the country itself, one need to analyze the methods in which the political policies and the regulations are manifested.
In contrast to all these arguments, autocrats have definitive reasons to view economic development both as a boon and a curse. According to their point of view, it increases the chances of survival of a tyrant, by growing the administrative assets through higher tax revenues and enhancing its capacity to manage different sorts of issues such as economic recessions and disasters. For a short period of time, it tends to fulfil the needs of citizens’ in accordance with government policies, but it is unlikely that the policies will support a change of functionalities across systems.