Electoral Authoritarianism and Human Development.

Do autocratic institutions matter for the welfare of average citizens? Despite the large literature comparing democracies and autocracies, we know little about how human development outcomes differ among autocratic types. Using an instrumental variables setup, this paper shows that the presence and history of multiparty autocratic elections predict significantly better outcomes on health, education, gender equality, and basic freedoms relative to non-electoral autocracy. In fact, the effects on health and education often exceed the effects of democracy. Even when they are manipulated, contested autocratic elections promote state accountability and capacity. In contrast, legislatures and parties without multiparty elections produce slightly negative outcomes, as these institutions chiefly concern elite cooptation. The results have major implications for the study of autocracy, the political economy of development, and the welfare effects of international election promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]