These scholars, from time series, detected the existence of an inverse relationship between democracy and poverty. To greater poverty, less democracy, or, put another way; rich countries would show stronger democracies, while those under-developed or developing nations would present democracies more fragile, broken or systems of Governments with absolutistic regimes. These conclusions can be constantadas part of a random sample of rich and poor nations. We could establish a direct relationship between GDP per capita (leaving the complexity of the term development for a moment) and democratic level of quality. This surface scan gives at least one elementary idea: stable and developed democracies generally boast a gross domestic product per capita of more than USD 1000.

The linkages between development and democracy have been studied since the middle of last century. Sociologist and American politician Semour Martin Lipset, already by the year 1959, in his book political man (2), argues that wealth favors the emergence of democracy, since more wealth means less conflict distributive and therefore less pressure on the political system. Wealth, argued, also favors the growth of base the middle class and education, all of which softens the social conflicts and generates an equality that promotes democracy. Other findings resulting from the work of the pair of academico-investigadores Michael Lewis-Beck and Ross Burkhart are that, although economic development would lead to the emergence of democracies, these, by themselves, do not lead to economic growth and the reduction of poverty. Low levels Educational, characteristic of groups immersed in poverty, infeasible formations of members well informed and predisposed for the democratic organization. There are also streams opposing proposed by Lipset, above the concept of democratic State to economic stability and even rank him as a requirement to achieve the growth and proilferacion of the economy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its 2005 World Economic Outlook report argues that the transition towards economic institutions of good quality is more likely to occur in countries that are more open, have a greater obligation to political accountability () and are located in the same region than others that have relatively good institutions.