Search

We study how economic crises relate to the likelihood of experiencing regime changes 'from within'; that is, transitions brought about, in part or fully, by actors in the incumbent regime. While historically common and influencing the political trajectories of many countries, such processes are far less studied than regime transitions forced by non-incumbent actors, such as coups or revolutions. We synthesize previous arguments and further specify how crises can incentivize leaders to change the regime from within due to two mechanisms. First, crises create windows of opportunity for leaders to pursue transitions they inherently prefer, for instance through self-coup. Second, crises sometimes allow opposition actors to mobilize and threaten the regime, forcing incumbents to liberalize. We leverage new data on timing and mode of regime change for more than 2000 regimes from about 200 countries, during the period 1789–2018. Employing different measurement strategies, estimators, control variables and other specification choices, we find fairly robust evidence that economic crises are related to transitions from within. However, when we distinguish between liberalizing and non-liberalizing guided transitions, we only find that economic crises systematically relate to the latter, suggesting that the window of opportunity mechanism may be especially pertinent in many contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past decade, analyses drawing on several democracy measures have shown a global trend of democratic retrenchment. While these democracy measures use radically different methodologies, most partially or fully rely on subjective judgments to produce estimates of the level of democracy within states. Such projects continuously grapple with balancing conceptual coverage with the potential for bias (Munck and Verkuilen 2002; Przeworski et al. 2000). Little and Meng (L&M) (2023) reintroduce this debate, arguing that "objective" measures of democracy show little evidence of recent global democratic backsliding.1 By extension, they posit that time-varying expert bias drives the appearance of democratic retrenchment in measures that incorporate expert judgments. In this article, we engage with (1) broader debates on democracy measurement and democratic backsliding, and (2) L&M's specific data and conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

State weakness is often emphasized as a key determinant of democratic breakdowns. However, previous studies have failed to appreciate how different aspects of state weakness pose different challenges. Against this backdrop, we examine the relationships between two fundamental dimensions of state capacity (coercive capacity and administrative capacity) and different modes of democratic breakdown, i.e., incumbent-driven and nonincumbent driven takeovers. We propose that coercive capacity mainly enables containment of rebels and coup-plotters, which reduces the risk of nonincumbent takeovers. Conversely, we expect that administrative capacity mainly serves to prevent executive aggrandizement, which reduces the risk of incumbent takeovers. Global analyses of democratic breakdowns between 1789 and 2020 support only the second expectation. Coercive capacity, reflected by territorial control and military personnel per capita, usually drops below accepted significance levels for both modes of democratic breakdown. In contrast, indicators of meritocracy, impartial public administration, and predictable enforcement that proxy administrative capacity show a significant, negative relationship with the risk of democratic breakdown, but only for incumbent-driven takeovers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe and analyze patterns in the geographical focus of political science research across more than a century. Using a new database of titles and abstracts from 27,690 publications in eight major political science journals from their inception, we demonstrate that, historically, political scientists concentrated their studies on a limited number of countries situated in North America and Western Europe. While a strong focus on Western countries remains today, we detail how this picture has changed somewhat over recent decades, with political science research becoming increasingly "globalized." Still, several countries have received almost no attention, and geographical citation patterns differ by subfield. For example, we find indications of a greater focus on the United States and large Western European countries in international relations than in comparative politics publications. We also analyze several correlates of a country being the focus of political science research, including the country's predominant languages, income, population size, democracy level, and conflict experience, and show systematic variation in the geographical focus of research. This unequal focus, we argue, has important implications regarding the applicability of extant descriptive and causal claims, as well as the development of theories in political science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]