ABSTRACT
This article reports our attempt to answer a central question in comparative political economy: what are the determinants of national variations in levels of human welfare? It is well established that on balance, richer countries do better according to certain measures of human welfare than poorer ones; yet some rich nations, such as the United States, do relatively badly while some poorer ones, such as Costa Rica, do relatively well. What explains these discrepancies? Some claim that socialist states perform better than capitalist ones at any given level of economic development, whilst others argue that the communist system hinders both economic and social development. Again, is democracy or a good record in human rights conducive to, or competitive with, social welfare? With the demise of the centrally planned economies and the global dominance of capitalism, these questions do not disappear. Rather, it becomes still more urgent to understand why different capitalist systems vary so much in their impact on the lives and welfare of ordinary people. Many of the dominant international agencies now recognize that levels of welfare ("investment in human capital") can also improve economic
716 / Gough and Thomas
performance in a virtuous circle, and for this reason, if no other, are showing a novel interest in the global level and spread of the quality of life.
