Diffusion Is No Illusion

Abstract

This article develops and tests a specific model of the role of diffusion as a determinant of the magnitude and direction of regime change, using a database covering the world from 1972 to 1996. The authors find that countries tend to change their regimes to match the average degree of democracy or nondemocracy found among their contiguous neighbors and that countries in the U.S. sphere of influence tended to become more democratic in the period examined. They also confirm that countries tend to follow the direction in which the majority of other countries in the world are moving. Their model builds on several findings in the diffusion literature but adds methodological improvements and includes more extensive controls for other variables that have been found to affect regime change—including levels of development, presidentialism, and regional differences—offering further support for some and challenging other findings of the regime change literature.

Military extrication and temporary democracy: the case of Pakistan

“…24 This finding echoes the 'contagion' pattern observed by Starr and Lindborg. 25 These types of models emphasize the importance of a country's immediate geographical neighbours in determining that country's expected level of democracy.…”

Promoting democracy – promoting autocracy? International politics and national political regimes

“…Moreover, another finding by these same authors is that a predominantly democratic neighbourhood increases the likelihood that countries classified as 'partially free' (according to the ratings by Freedom House) will experience democratic transitions and reduces the probability of them undergoing a transition to a fully fledged autocracy. In a similar vein, Brinks and Coppedge (2006) confirm, in their findings, that 'diffusion is no illusion', and that, among other findings, regimes in one country tend to assimilate their regimes to match the average 'degree' of (non-)democracy among neighbouring states. However, much remains vague in these studies.…”

“…Today, the core of the literature dealing with international factors that impact on the state of democracy and on processes of democratization can roughly be differentiated between two different approaches, if we exclude studies on external democracy promotion policies as a topic in its own right: First, contributions that examine democratization by unintended 'contagion' (Whitehead 2001) or 'diffusion' (Brinks and Coppedge 2006); second, the concept of 'linkage and leverage' introduced by Levitsky and Way (2005) within which intent plays a much more prominent role. The largest part of applications of this second current has emerged in the context of studies on the EU's foreign policies in the course of its latest accession round, as well as with regard to its recently developed European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), so that it makes sense to briefly revisit this strand of literature as well (for an up-to-date statement of the European Council's position on democracy support and EU external relations see Council of European Union 2009).…”

International democracy promotion: a role for public goods theory?

“…The democracy assistance will be a private good to the country in question, even when publicly funded and provided by public agents. And yet the 'neighbourhood effect', confirmed by findings suggesting that the chances of a country democratising tend to increase when it is situated next to democratic neighbours, indicates there can be positive spill-over effects across borders even from such 'private' goods (see for example Brinks and Coppedge 2006). To the extent that this obtains, even democracy promotion, then, might be said to at least share some of the properties of an impure regional public good.…”