The determinants of democracy: a sensitivity analysis

Abstract

Numerous studies-operating with diverse model specifications, samples and empirical measures-suggest different economic, social, cultural, demographic, institutional and international determinants of democracy. We distinguish between democratization and democratic survival and test the sensitivities of 67 proposed determinants by varying the control variable set, democracy measure, and sample time period. Furthermore, we go beyond existing sensitivity analyses and unpack the aggregate results by analyzing how theoretically motivated control variables affect sensitivity for two prominent determinants in the democracy literature: income and Islam. Overall, our results reveal a far larger number of robust determinants of democratization than of democratic survival. For democratic survival, the only robust factors are income and a law-abiding bureaucracy. In addition, our results highlight uncertainty surrounding the relationship between income and democratization, but show that broader development processes enhance the chances of democratization. Moreover, chances of democratization are lower in countries with large Muslim populations, but that relationship is sensitive to controlling for natural resources, education and neighborhood characteristics. Other results of the sensitivity analysis show that political protests, a democratic neighborhood, and the global proportion of democracies positively influence democratization, while natural resources, majoritarian systems, and long-tenured leaders make countries less likely to democratize.

Democracy and Economic Growth:the Case of Moldova

“…The large and growing body of scholarly literature that examines the link between economic development and democracy can be categorized into two approaches. In the first one the conditions that give rise and sustain democracy are analyzed [4,[8][9][10][11]. The second is aimed at determining how democracy contribute to welfare [12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

“…An empirical study performed by D. Acemoglu and his co-authors (2019) proves that over the past 25 years, democratization has increased GDP per capita by 20% [13]. According to K. Knutsen (2020), democratic regimes provide stable and predictable growth, as evidenced by the fact that only 7% of democracies experienced negative growth between 1900 and 2009 compared to almost 30% of autocracies [33]. These democratic gains are primarily driven by vertical accountability mechanisms created by fair elections and freedom of expression [32].…”

Islamic Constitutions and Democracy

“…Moreover, the results show that, among religious affiliations, Protestants in developing countries and Muslims in industrialized countries both significantly advocate democratic values. In a recent study examining the sensitivities of 67 proposed determinants of democracy, Rød et al (2020) shows that chances of democratization are lower in countries with large Muslim populations, but the relationship is sensitive to controlling for natural resources and education. Rowley and Smith (2009, 298) state that democratic deficits in the Muslim world "appear to have something to do with the nature of Islam itself."…”

“…It has been a common practice in empirical research examining Islam and democracy to measure Islam by Muslim population share (Barro 1999;Fish 2002;Hanusch 2013;Potrafke 2012Potrafke , 2013Rød, Knutsen, and Hegre 2020). Some authors control for the level of religiosity of Muslim population (Ciftci, Wuthrich and Shamaileh 2019;Collins and Owen 2012;Tessler 2002).…”

Democratic versus Authoritarian Coups: The Influence of External Actors on States’ Postcoup Political Trajectories

“…10 Consistent with Goemans and Marinov (2014), we expect moves toward democracy to be less likely during the Cold War. Fourth, we expect postcoup increases in democracy levels to be more likely if the coup state borders another democracy (Rød, Knutsen, and Hegre 2019), which we capture with the count of democratic neighbors (Coppedge et al 2019;Pemstein et al 2019;Stinnett et al 2002). Finally, we include regional dummy variables to capture spatial variation, leaving Europe as the excluded category.…”