• Login
View Item 
  • DASH Home
  • Harvard Kennedy School
  • HKS Center for International Development
  • View Item
  • DASH Home
  • Harvard Kennedy School
  • HKS Center for International Development
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of DASH
  • Communities & Collections
  • By Issue Date
  • Author
  • Title
  • Keyword
  • FAS Department
This Collection
  • By Issue Date
  • Author
  • Title
  • Keyword

Submitters

  • Login
  • Quick submit
  • Waiver Generator

About

  • About DASH
  • DASH Stories
  • DASH FAQs
  • Accessibility
  • COVID-related Research
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Statistics

  • By Schools
  • By Collections
  • By Departments
  • By Items
  • By Country
  • By Authors

Democratic Transitions

 
Thumbnail
View/Open
101.pdf (420.6Kb)
Author
Epstein, David L.
Bates, RobertHARVARD
Goldstone, Jack
Kristensen, Ida
O’Halloran, Sharyn
Published Version
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications
Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
Epstein, David L., Robert Bates, Jack Goldstone, Ida Kristensen, and Sharyn O’Halloran. “Democratic Transitions.” CID Working Paper Series 2004.101, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, January 2004.
Abstract
Recent studies of democratization, most importantly Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, Limongi, 2000 (PACL), question the modernization hypothesis that richer countries are more likely to be democratic. PACL claim instead that transitions to democracy are unpredictable, but once there, countries can remain democratic with higher levels of GDP per capita. We retest this hypothesis using an expanded data set and a three-way, rather than two-way, categorization of regimes: autocracies, partial democracies, and full democracies. We find that the modernization theory does hold up well, contrary to PACL’s findings: greater levels of prosperity do predict when countries are likely to leave autocracy and stay fully democratic. Partial democracies, on the other hand, emerge as the most volatile and least predictable category of regimes. We also find considerable support for Acemoglu and Robinson’s (2002) theories on inequality and transitions. Our analysis highlights the need to better understand the workings of partial, or unconsolidated, democracies, as these are also the countries most likely to enter external wars or fall prey to internal failure.
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42406322

Collections
  • HKS Center for International Development [465]

Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)

Follow us on TwitterFollow us on FacebookFollow us on Google+

e: osc@harvard.edu

t: +1 (617) 495 4089

f: +1 (617) 495 0370

© 2018 President and Fellows of Harvard College
  • DASH
  • ETDs@Harvard
  • Copyright First Responders
  • HOPE
  • Contact
  • Harvard Library
  • Harvard University