Tocqueville Paradox

Tocqueville's observation

In The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856), Tocqueville wrote that the revolution broke out not when conditions were at their worst but after prosperity had grown and reforms had begun under Louis XVI. He held that the most dangerous moment for a bad government is usually when it begins to reform, and that suffering endured patiently becomes intolerable once people conceive the idea that it could be removed. He also pointed out that resistance was fiercest in regions such as the Île-de-France, the heart of the revolution, where feudal burdens had been reduced most. In Democracy in America he wrote that as equality grows, the small inequalities that remain become more conspicuous and harder to bear. The insight is that as conditions improve, expectations may rise even faster, fueling discontent.

Development into relative deprivation theory

In The American Soldier, Stouffer and colleagues (1949) found that Air Corps soldiers, who were promoted quickly, were more dissatisfied with the promotion system than military police, who were promoted slowly, and explained this as relative deprivation. Runciman (1966) systematized the concept of relative deprivation, the idea that people feel deprived not by their absolute situation but by the gap with those they compare themselves to. Davies (1962) proposed the J-curve theory, combining the views of Tocqueville and Marx. In his account, when a long period of economic and social development is followed by a sharp reversal, the gap between expectations and reality widens and revolution becomes likely. In Why Men Rebel, Gurr (1970) defined relative deprivation as the gap between value expectations and value capabilities and treated it as the key cause of political violence. Huntington (1968) argued that rapid modernization raises demands for political participation faster than institutions develop, producing instability. Hirschman and Rothschild (1973) used the tunnel effect to explain how tolerance for inequality changes over time: when others' incomes rise, people at first hope they will soon be better off too, but if that expectation goes unmet it turns to anger.

Critiques and assessment

Tilly (1978) criticized relative deprivation theory from the perspective of resource mobilization. Because grievances are everywhere, he argued, they cannot alone explain collective action; organization, resources and opportunity structures are decisive. Comparing the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, Skocpol (1979) located the causes of revolution not in mass psychology but in state crises, international pressures and the structure of peasant communities. Brush (1996) analyzed how research on relative deprivation and collective violence declined from the 1970s for lack of empirical support. However, a meta-analysis of 210 studies by Smith and colleagues (2012) reported that group-level rather than individual relative deprivation is consistently associated with collective action, partly reviving the tradition. Like the Easterlin paradox, in which rising income does not guarantee satisfaction, the Tocqueville paradox is still often cited as a warning that political risk can grow during periods of reform and growth.

FAQ

What is the Tocqueville paradox in simple terms?

You'd expect people to be content when things get better, but their expectations can rise even faster, so discontent grows. Tocqueville pointed out that the French Revolution broke out not at the worst of times but when conditions were improving.

Does it mean revolution always follows improvement?

No. It means discontent can grow, not that revolution must follow. Later research stresses that revolutions also require structural conditions such as organization, resources and a state crisis.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Tocqueville, A. de. (1955). The Old Regime and the French Revolution (S. Gilbert, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday. (Original work published 1856)
2. Tocqueville, A. de. (2000). Democracy in America (H. C. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1835–1840)
3. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4. Davies, J. C. (1962). Toward a theory of revolution. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 5–19.
5. Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6. Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7. Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8. Hirschman, A. O., & Rothschild, M. (1973). The changing tolerance for income inequality in the course of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(4), 544–566.
9. Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Brush, S. G. (1996). Dynamics of theory change in the social sciences: Relative deprivation and collective violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(4), 523–545.
12. Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203–232.