English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

As the concept of human security spreads in the pose-Cold War period it is often presumed that non-democracies have worse human security than democracies. But the national human security (NHS) siruation in weak or failed democracies can be even worse than in some non-democracies. So how exactly do the NHS records of stares with different regime types like non-democratic China and democratic India compare? To address this question the paper assesses and compares NHS in terms of "freedom from want" (anti-poverty security) and "freedom from fear" (anti-violence securiry). It develops a theory of how different regime types might impact NHS based on how regimes differ along the 1) democratic-authoritarian and 2) predarory-developmental dimensions. It then conducts empirical testing of the theory through a global analysis of 178 countries and case studies of contemporary China and India. The study finds that while democracies and developmental states generally have higher NHS than autocracies and predatory states, developmental authoritarian states like China on average have slightly higher human security than predatory democracies like India.

"Do We Have a Winner? What the China-India Paradox May Reveal about Regime Type and Human Security"