| 1. |
- Bernhard, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Institutionalising electoral uncertainty and authoritarian regime survival
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Political Research. - : Wiley. - 0304-4130 .- 1475-6765. ; 59:2, s. 465-487
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Authoritarian incumbents routinely use democratic emulation as a strategy to extend their tenure in power. Yet, there is also evidence that multiparty competition makes electoral authoritarianism more vulnerable to failure. Proceeding from the assumption that the outcomes of authoritarian electoral openings are inherently uncertain, it is argued in this article that the institutionalisation of elections determines whether electoral authoritarianism promotes stability or vulnerability. By 'institutionalisation', it is meant the ability of authoritarian regimes to reduce uncertainty over outcomes as they regularly hold multiparty elections. Using discrete-time event-history models for competing risks, the effects of sequences of multiparty elections on patterns of regime survival and failure in 262 authoritarian regimes from 1946 to 2010 are assessed, conditioned on their degree of competitiveness. The findings suggest that the institutionalisation of electoral uncertainty enhances authoritarian regime survival. However, for competitive electoral authoritarian regimes this entails substantial risk. The first three elections substantially increase the probability of democratisation, with the danger subsequently diminishing. This suggests that convoking multiparty competition is a risky game with potentially high rewards for autocrats who manage to institutionalise elections. Yet, only a small number of authoritarian regimes survive as competitive beyond the first few elections, suggesting that truly competitive authoritarianism is hard to institutionalise. The study thus finds that the question of whether elections are dangerous or stabilising for authoritarianism is dependent on differences between the ability of competitive and hegemonic forms of electoral authoritarianism to reduce electoral uncertainty.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Boese, Vanessa Alexandra, et al.
(författare)
-
Deterring Dictatorship: Explaining Democratic Resilience since 1900
- 2020
-
Ingår i: SSRN Electronic Journal. - Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet. - 1556-5068.
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Democracy is under threat globally from democratically elected leaders engaging in erosion of media freedom, civil society, and the rule of law. What distinguishes democracies that prevail against the forces of autocratization? This article breaks new ground by conceptualizing democratic resilience as a two-stage process, whereby democracies first exhibit resilience by avoiding autocratization altogether and second, by avoiding democratic breakdown given that autocratization has occurred. To model this two-stage process, we introduce the Episodes of Regime Transformation (ERT) dataset tracking autocratization since 1900. These data demonstrate the extraordinary nature of the current wave of autocratization: Fifty-nine (61%) episodes of democratic regression in the ERT began after 1992. Since then, autocratization episodes have killed an unprecedented 36 democratic regimes. Using a selection-model, we simultaneously test for factors that make democracies more prone to experience democratic regression and, given this, factors that explain democratic breakdown. Results from the explanatory analysis suggest that constraints on the executive are positively associated with a reduced risk of autocratization. Once autocratization is ongoing, we find that a long history of democratic institutions, durable judicial constraints on the executive, and more democratic neighbours are factors that make democracy more likely to prevail.
|
|
| 4. |
- Boese, Vanessa Alexandra, et al.
(författare)
-
How democracies prevail: democratic resilience as a two-stage process
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Democratization. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1351-0347 .- 1743-890X. ; 28:5, s. 885-907
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article introduces a novel conceptualization of democratic resilience - a two-stage process where democracies avoid democratic declines altogether or avert democratic breakdown given that such autocratization is ongoing. Drawing on the Episodes of Regime Transformation (ERT) dataset, we find that democracies have had a high level of resilience to onset of autocratization since 1900. Nevertheless, democratic resilience has become substantially weaker since the end of the Cold War. Fifty-nine episodes of sustained and substantial declines in democratic practices have occurred since 1993, leading to the unprecedented breakdown of 36 democratic regimes. Ominously, we find that once autocratization begins, only one in five democracies manage to avert breakdown. We also analyse which factors are associated with each stage of democratic resilience. The results suggest that democracies are more resilient when strong judicial constraints on the executive are present and democratic institutions were strong in the past. Conversely and adding nuance to the literature, economic development is only associated with resilience to onset of autocratization, not to resilience against breakdown once autocratization has begun.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Edgell, Amanda B, et al.
(författare)
-
Achieving Transparency, Reproducibility, and Readability with Hard-Coded Data: A Review
- 2023
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Many important questions in political science require the use of "hard-coded" data or information that has been systematically ordered and quantified by a human being from qualitative sources. This working paper discusses challenges and recent innovations in collecting and documenting hard-coded data. We review five datasets produced within the last ten years and also reflect on our experiences working on the Pandemic Backsliding Project, a quarterly dataset tracking state responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that scholars can deliberately produce and publish theoretically grounded human-coded data in an accessible format that promotes transparency, reproducibility, and readability. We highlight several ways scholars are already doing this, such as through narratives, source lists, and coding justifications that enhance the quality of their hard-coded datasets. We also make suggestions for how technological innovation through interactive web-based platforms can improve the documentation of hard-coding decisions in the future.
|
|
| 7. |
- Edgell, Amanda B, et al.
(författare)
-
Democratic Legacies: Using Democratic Stock to Assess Norms, Growth, and Regime Trajectories
- 2020
-
Ingår i: SSRN Electronic Journal. - Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet. - 1556-5068.
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- While social scientists often theorize about the enduring effects of past regime characteristics, conceptual issues and data limitations pose real challenges for assessing these legacies empirically. This paper introduces a new measure of democratic stock, conceptualized as the accumulated experience of democratic rule within a polity. Using a weighted sum of past values on the Electoral Democracy Index from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute, we capture variation in past experiences with democratic institutions and practices in 199 political units from 1789 to 2019. This measure of democratic stock provides additional information on a country's political history that is not captured by its present level of democracy or regime type. To illustrate this, we highlight several cases and revisit prominent theories about democratic norms, economic growth, and democratic decline. These applications encourage scholars to think more about political outcomes as legacies of democracy.
|
|
| 8. |
- Edgell, Amanda B, et al.
(författare)
-
Establishing Pathways to Democracy Using Domination Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: SSRN Electronic Journal. - Göteborg : Göteborgs universitet. - 1556-5068.
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- How does the order in which liberalization unfolds affect the likelihood for a successful democratic transition? Dahl was among the first to argue that the sequence matters for the outcome when it comes to democratization. This paper builds upon his work and empirically analyzes pathways to democracy employing the newly developed method of domination analysis. We are the first to demonstrate three key findings: 1) There is a clear structure in terms of order of how most episodes of liberalization from authoritarian rule develop; 2) Such sequences are different in key respects for failed and successful episodes of liberalization; and 3) Clean election elements - in the capacity of electoral management bodies - stand out as developing earlier in episodes that successfully lead to democracy.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Knutsen, Carl Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding
- 2023
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper addresses three interrelated questions. First, how strong is the evidence that democracy has declined globally over the last decade? Second, how should we best measure (change in) democracy? Third, given that much of the recent evidencefor global backsliding comes from measurement projects that rely on expert ratings, is there evidence that experts have become harsher judges of democratic quality in recent years? We begin our analysis with a discussion of how to conceptualize democracy and democratic backsliding, stressing that for contested concepts such as democracy, no one operationalization is likely to reign supreme. We then dissect the distinction between “subjective” and “objective” measures, examining how measurement error can affect even seemingly objective indicators, and highlight how subjectivity pervades all measurement enterprises. Next, focusing on V–Dem’s methodology, we show—through both theoretical considerations and empirical tests—that it is highly unlikely that time-varying expert biases drive recent declines in estimates of the state of global democracy. Finally we evaluate Little and Meng’s (2023) recent attempt to assess the prevailing case for global backsliding using “objective” measures. We demonstrate multiple issues that make their measurement strategy ill-suited to studying trends in global democracy.
|
|
