Authors' note: Equal authorship. We are grateful for theoretical and methodological discussions with and assistance from Thomas Plümper, Vera Troeger, and Hugh Ward, as well as assistance from Eric Tanenbaum in carrying out file conversions. Three anonymous reviewers also provided excellent feedback. Marco Larizza acknowledges financial assistance from the Economic and Social Research Council. Replication data and command files are available via the Dataverse. Network Project (http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/isq), the ISA data archive page (http://www.isanet.org/data_archive/), and the personal Web pages of Todd Landman (http://www.todd-landman.com).
Inequality and Human Rights: Who Controls What, When, and How
Version of Record online: 8 SEP 2009
© 2009 International Studies Association
International Studies Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 3, pages 715–736, September 2009
How to Cite
Landman, T. and Larizza, M. (2009), Inequality and Human Rights: Who Controls What, When, and How. International Studies Quarterly, 53: 715–736. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00553.x
- Issue online: 8 SEP 2009
- Version of Record online: 8 SEP 2009
This article tests the empirical relationship between inequality and the protection of personal integrity rights using a cross-national time-series data set for 162 countries for the years 1980–2004. The data comprise measures of land inequality, income inequality, and a combined factor score for personal integrity rights protection, while the analysis controls for additional sets of explanatory variables related to development, political regimes, ethnic composition, and domestic conflict. The analysis shows robust support for the empirical relationship between income inequality and personal integrity rights abuse across the whole sample of countries as well as for distinct subsets, including non-communist countries and non-OECD countries. The hypothesized effect of land inequality is also born out by the data, although its effects are less substantial and less robust across different methods of estimation. Additional variables with explanatory weight include the level of income, democracy, ethnic fragmentation, domestic conflict, and population size. Sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are not due to reverse causation, misspecification or omitted variable bias. The analysis is discussed in the context of inequality and rights abuse in specific country cases and the policy implications of the results are considered in the conclusion.