Regime types and regime change: A new dataset on democracy, coups, and political institutions

Abstract

Social scientists have created a variety of datasets in recent years that quantify political regimes, but these often provide little data on phases of regime transitions. Our aim is to contribute to filling this gap, by providing an update and expansion of the Democracy-Dictatorship data by Cheibub et al. (Public Choice, 143, 67–101, 2010), originally introduced by Alvarez et al. (Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(2), 3–36, 1996), where we add the following three features: First, we expand coverage to a total of 192 sovereign countries and 16 currently self-governing territories between 1950 and 2018, including periods under colonial rule for more than ninety entities. Second, we provide more institutional details that are deemed of importance in the relevant literature. Third, we include a new, self-created indicator of successful and failed coups d’état, which is currently the most complete of its kind. We further illustrate the usefulness of the new dataset by documenting the importance of political institutions under colonial rule for democratic development after independence, making use of our much more detailed data on colonial institutions. Findings indicate that more participatory colonial institutions have a positive and lasting effect for democratic development after transition to independence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The data can be downloaded under the following link: http://www.christianbjoernskov.com/bjoernskovrodedata/.

  2. 2.

    It should be noted that this definition implies that we code countries as autocratic if the incumbent regime either cancels or postpones scheduled elections. The exception is the rare cases in which an emergency occurs before an election, and where the constitution explicitly allows postponing the elections.

  3. 3.

    The number of references is counted in the Scopus and Web of Science databases as of December 2018, and is approaching 1800 references in Google Scholar.

  4. 4.

    Cheibub et al. (2010) discuss the problem of assessing whether the Botswana is democratic, as it has not changed government since 1966. It should be noted that by coding democracy prior to independence, we partly resolve the Botswana problem in the original DD data. The coding rule in Cheibub et al., as well as here, is that a country must have changed government through an election in order to be coded as democratic. While Botswana has not done so since 1966, the 1965 election that brought Seretse Khama to power both was democratic and resulted in a change of government. Khama was certainly not the preferred candidate of the British colonial authorities.

  5. 5.

    More pertinently, Rhodesia – the predecessor state of modern Zimbabwe – was democratic until 1962 according to our coding rules. Rhodesia is thus an example of a country that was democratic for at least part of its colonial period.

  6. 6.

    A particularly valuable magazine turned out to be the Caribbean Quarterly from which we have drawn information on numerable institutional details.

  7. 7.

    The Cook Islands and Niue are also technically sovereign nations, but share citizenship and head of state with New Zealand. Although we include it in the data, as both Cheibub et al. (2010) and Boix et al. (2013), we note that Nauru, despite being a member of the United Nations, is effectively a client state of Australia. We do not count disputed states such as, e.g., South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus, or colonies and overseas territories that are not evidently self-governing.

  8. 8.

    In this case, the name of the president given is the one with the comparatively longest tenure phase.

  9. 9.

    We found a number of cases in which existing databases reported a failed coup that we were unable to verify. Conversely, all successful coups were verified by reference to Lexis-Nexis. In almost all cases, the coups were reported in the New York Times, Washington Post, Globe and Mail, London Times, the Guardian and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Having access to Australian newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Post also allowed a wider coverage of smaller states in the Pacific and South East Asia. The Los Angeles Times likewise proved a particularly valuable source for events in Latin America.

  10. 10.

    We note that MacGowan (2006) in some cases counts several coups within days of each other. In these cases, we consider these attempts as elements of a single event, which is the primary reason why our database does not include years with more than three separable coups.

  11. 11.

    In a very early contribution, this nowadays well-established result was already anticipated by Emerson (1960).

  12. 12.

    We do not estimate a conditional fixed effects models so as not to filter out the comparative effect of colonies/independent countries that have always been democratic. Similarly, we include decadal fixed effects instead of annual time fixed effects, as the regime transitions in this group of countries is so evenly spread across time that many transitions will be uniquely identified by the inclusion of annual fixed effects.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. New York: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91, 1369–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aidt, T. S., & Franck, R. (2015). Democratization under the threat of revolution: Evidence from the great reform act of 1832. Econometrica, 83, 505–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F., & Przeworski, A. (1996). Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(2), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Banks, A.S. and K. A. Wilson. 2013. Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive. Databanks International. Jerusalem, Israel. Available at: http://www.databanksinternational.com. Accessed July 2018.

  6. Beck, T., Clarke, G., Groff, A., Keefer, P., & Walsh, P. (2001). New tools and new tests in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review, 15, 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernhard, M., Reenock, C., & Nordstrom, T. (2004). The legacy of Western overseas colonialism on democratic survival. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boix, C., Miller, M., & Rosato, S. (2013). A complete data set of political regimes, 1800-2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1523–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143, 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Collier, P. (2013). Exodus. Immigration and multiculturalism in the 21stcentury. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2016). Measuring high level democratic principles using the V-Dem data. International Political Science Review, 37, 580–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Emerson, R. (1960). Nationalism and political development. The Journal of Politics, 22(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at http://www.britannica.com/ (accessed June 2018).

  14. Fariss, C. J. (2014). Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review, 108, 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the Penn world table. American Economic Review, 105, 3150–3182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferguson, N. (2012). Empire: How Britain made the modern world. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Feyrer, J., & Sacerdote, B. (2009). Colonialism and modern income: Islands as natural experiments. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Freedom House. (2016). Freedom in the world 2016. Washington: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z., & Melton, J. (2009). The endurance of National Constitutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goodwin, J. (2001). No other way out: States and revolutionary movements, 1945–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grier, R. M. (1999). Colonial legacies and economic growth. Public Choice, 98, 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Guardado, J. (2018). Office-selling, corruption, and long-term development in Peru. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 971–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hadenius, A. (1992). Democracy and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jones, P. (2013). History matters: New evidence on the long run impact of colonial rule on institutions. Journal of Comparative Economics, 41, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2008). The economic consequences of legalorigins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 285–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lange, M. K. (2006). British colonial legacies and political development. World Development, 32, 905–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. LeDuc, L., Niemi, R. G., & Norris, P. (2010). Introduction. In L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing democracies 3: Elections and voting in the 21st century. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, Alexander, and Jack Paine. 2018. What were the consequences of decolonization? University of Rochester Working Paper.

  30. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13, 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lipset, S. M., Seong, K. R., & Torres, J. C. (1993). A comparative analysis of the social requisites of democracy. International Social Science Journal, 136, 155–175.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Luttwak, E. (1968). Coup d'etat: a practical handbook. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

  33. MacGowan, P. J. (2006). Coups and conflict in West Africa, 1955-2004. Part II, Empirical findings. Armed Forces & Society, 32(2), 234–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2010). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2015: Dataset users’ manual. Maryland: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Maseland, R. (2018). Is colonialism history? The declining impact of colonial legacies on African institutional and economic development. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14, 259–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Michalopoulos, S., & Papaioannou, E. (2013). Pre-colonial ethnic institutions and contemporary African development. Econometrica, 81, 113–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2011). Stateness First? Democratization, 18(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Olsson, O. (2009). On the democratic legacy of colonialism. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37, 534–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Powell, J. M., & Thyne, C. L. (2011). Global instances of coups from 1950 to 2010: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 48(2), 249-259.

  41. Przeworski, A. (2007). Conquered or granted? A history of suffrage extensions. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 291–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics, 49(2), 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Singh, N. (2014). Seizing power. The strategic logic of military coups. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sokoloff, K. L., & Engerman, S. L. (2000). Institutions, factor endowments, and paths of development in the new world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Statesman’s Yearbook. (1950). The Statesman’s Yearbook: Statistical and historical annual of the states of the world for the year. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vreeland, J. R. (2008). The effect of political regime on civil war: Unpacking anocracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76, 22–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ziblatt, D. (2006). How did Europe democratize? World Politics, 58, 311–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Greta Piktozyte for excellent research assistance, Andrew Blick and the House of Lords Information Office for kind assistance with the data, and Roger Congleton, Tommy Krieger, and three anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christian Bjørnskov or Martin Rode.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 171 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjørnskov, C., Rode, M. Regime types and regime change: A new dataset on democracy, coups, and political institutions. Rev Int Organ 15, 531–551 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09345-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Political regimes
  • Regime transitions
  • Measurement; colonialism

JEL codes

  • C82
  • F54
  • N40
  • P16
  • P50
  • Y1