-
1
The Ambiguities of Democracy in Forging Bureaucratic Quality
David Andersen, Postdoc
[email protected]
Aarhus University
Agnes Cornell, Assistant Professor
[email protected]
Aarhus University
Draft
Version October 19, 2017.
Abstract
Recent studies find that higher degrees of democracy are related
to higher levels of bureaucratic
quality. However, they only offer limited explanations for this
pattern based on a unidimensional
understanding of democracy. We argue that future uncertainties
as perceived by governments,
oppositions, and voters are important for why bureaucratic
reform takes place. Therefore, we expect
no uniform effects of democracy but that the effect depends on
the socioeconomic status of the
median voter. Empirically, we examine the separate effects of
three dimensions of democracy –
competitive elections, legislative constraints, and suffrage –
as well as the degree of government
stability as a general regime trait. Based on a global sample of
countries 1790–2016 that adds
historical depth and analytical leverage, the results show that
competitive elections and legislative
constraints on the executive are connected with higher levels of
bureaucratic quality. Moreover, the
positive effects of competitive elections and legislative
constraints decrease in times of great
suffrage extensions.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
2
Introduction
Studies examining the impact of political regime attributes on
bureaucratic quality1 have shored up
in the last decade. They generally find that higher degrees of
democracy are related to higher levels
of bureaucratic quality arguing that democracy implies channels
of vertical accountability that
punish governments for politicizing the bureaucracy and engaging
in clientelistic practices which
undermine bureaucratic quality. However, these studies are
largely based on a unidimensional
understanding of democracy, focusing on competitive elections,
and offer limited explanations for
why democracy should raise bureaucratic quality (see e.g.
Adserà, Boix, and Payne 2003; Bäck and
Hadenius 2008; Charron and Lapuente 2010, 2011; Carbone and
Memoli 2015).2
This paper specifies the theoretical connection between
democracy and bureaucratic
quality in three ways: First, instead of a static relationship
between variables we propose a dynamic
theory of bureaucratic quality that involves three actors – 1)
the governments or presidents and their
party support base, 2) the parliamentary opposition, and 3) the
voters – and how the extent of
bureaucratic reform is affected by these actors’ perceptions of
future uncertainties. The two first
groups of actors face substantial future uncertainties about
their goal of political survival. In short,
these actors are more likely to supply bureaucratic reforms when
certain conditions are met that
lower future uncertainties, notably expanding the prospects of
political survival beyond the next
election (see Geddes 1994). The third group of actors, the
voters, is interested in the payoffs from
electoral participation and thus demands certain goods and
controls the government’s ability to
deliver those goods (see Charron and Lapuente 2010:
450-454).
Second, we take into account legislative constraints on the
executive and suffrage
changes as alternative dimensions of democracy. Legislative
constraints and suffrage are
empirically related to competitive elections in the sense that
the existence of the former two rarely
matters without some minimum amount of the latter. However, the
three dimensions are
conceptually distinct and have different kinds of effects on
bureaucratic quality. We argue that
legislative constraints on the executive should also work to
improve bureaucratic quality but, in
1 Extant studies use terms such as ‘administrative capacity’,
‘state capacity’ (e.g. Bäck and Hadenius (2008), or ‘quality
of government’ (e.g. Charron and Lapuente 2010, 2011) as
denoting the effective and non-corrupted use of the state to
implement decisions. In this paper, we prefer the term
‘bureaucratic quality’ because it refers more precisely to the
characteristics of implementation processes as originating from
bureaucrats rather than the more diffuse group of
‘government officials/representatives.’ 2 Bäck and Hadenius
(2008: 19) investigate turnout and newspaper circulation as
intervening variables (see also Adserá,
Boix, and Payne 2003: 475); Charron and Lapuente (2010: 462;
2011: 412) interact various regime attributes with
GDP/capita and find the effect of democracy on bureaucratic
quality to be positive for high levels and negative for low
levels of economic development; Carbone and Memoli (2015) frame
their distinction between degrees and duration of
democracy as capturing different mechanisms (see also Leipziger
2016).
-
3
contrast to competitive elections, horizontal rather than
vertical accountability drives this
association. More importantly, we argue that removal of
socioeconomic barriers to suffrage should
be negatively related to bureaucratic quality since this aspect
of democratization typically implies
that relatively poorer strata of voters become part of the
electorate. As these groups demand more
particularistic goods for immediate consumption, the government
and opposition parties perceive it
necessary to use the state apparatus to channel jobs and
benefits to win the next election. Thereby,
democracy lowers overall bureaucratic quality (see e.g. Shefter
1977). The changes in the electoral
dynamics further have a spillover effect on how parliamentary
control works. Being accountable to
new voters with stronger preferences for immediate consumption,
the parliamentary opposition
lessens its use of legislative controls that would otherwise
punish politicization and clientelism. We
thus propose that changes in suffrage that remove some
socioeconomic restriction moderate the
positive effect of competitive elections and legislative
constraints on bureaucratic quality.
Third, autocratic and democratically elected leaders alike care
for political survival.
Therefore, the typical period of government survival in prior
years – what we call ‘government
stability’ – should affect governments’ perception of future
uncertainties. When governments are
normally more unstable, the prospect of a future election only
adds uncertainty and thus makes the
government secure its own survival by backing down on
bureaucratic reform instead engaging in
politicization and/or clientelism (Geddes 1994: 15, 132-133). We
therefore propose that the positive
effect of competitive elections is moderated by government
instability.
To examine these propositions, we employ disaggregated data on
democracy as well
as data on bureaucratic quality from a variety of sources,
including the Lexical Index of Electoral
Democracy (Skaaning, Gerring, and Bartusevicius 2015), the
Varieties of Democracy project
(Coppedge et al. 2017), and Historical V-Dem (Knutsen et al.
2017).3 As a proxy for bureaucratic
quality we choose the measure of ‘Rigorous and impartial public
administration’ from V-Dem and
Historical V-Dem to better distinguish regime- from
state-effects than in previous studies.4 The
combined use of the datasets also results in a much longer time
series, 1790–2016, with several
advantages. First, including the 19th century increases
variation in suffrage between and within
countries by allowing cases of early democratization in Latin
America and Europe where, for
3 In future versions of the paper we will also use indicators
from Polity IV (Marshall, Jaggers, and Gurr 2010). 4 Recent studies
(e.g. Adserà, Boix, and Payne 2003; Bäck and Hadenius 2008; Charron
and Lapuente 2010, 2011) rely
on ICRG and/or World Bank data that are temporally restricted
back to 1984 but also suffer from conceptual ambiguity
and conflation with regime traits (see Hanson and Sigman 2013).
Carbone and Memoli (2015) use the less demanding
indicator of a ‘basic administration’ from the Bertelsmann
Transformation Index with scores from 2006, 2008, and
2010.
-
4
instance, income and property restrictions on suffrage decreased
gradually.5 As a consequence, we
may better capitalize on a long list of comparative-historical
analyses that find the opposite of
recent large-n studies, namely that autocracy rather than
democracy furthers bureaucratic quality
(see e.g. Shefter 1977; Geddes 1994; Ertman 1997; Piattoni 2001;
Kurtz 2013; Soifer 2015).
Second, the data span the entire period of modern democracy,
most waves of democratic
progression and regression (Møller and Skaaning 2013: Ch. 5),
bureaucratic reform waves in
Western (see Piattoni 2001) and post-colonial states (see Evans
1995: Ch. 3), as well as different
international episodes likely to have affected domestic outcomes
of bureaucratic quality (see
Gourevitch 1986: Chs. 3-4; Mann 2012: Chs. 8, 13).6
The paper is organized as follows: First, we revisit the
arguments for why democracy
should matter for bureaucratic quality and introduce our
framework of three actors and their future
uncertainties, and next, we discuss how competitive elections,
legislative constraints, suffrage
extensions, and government instability are related to
bureaucratic quality. Then we present the
research design, models, and data, which take into account
standard confounders. Third, we present
the results and discuss the broader implications of our
findings.
Democracy, future uncertainties, and bureaucratic quality
A core ambition for the modernization of societies is the
creation of an effective and impartial state
bureaucracy. However, such successful bureaucratization has far
from progressed in a linear
fashion. Rather, bureaucratic quality has experienced ups and
downs and remains weak in both
autocracies and democracies of mostly but not exclusively
developing countries. Scholars
traditionally connected bureaucratization with war, the size of
the economy, and the availability of
resources and human capital (Geddes 1994: 16; Ertman 1997; Rauch
and Evans 2000). Political
regime entered as an explanatory factor with Weber (1978) who
famously identified bureaucracy as
originating in the 17th to 19th century Prussia, a country that
underwent various forms of
authoritarianism and thus testified to the different functional
logics between bureaucracy and
political regimes. However, Weber himself (1978: 1002) suggested
that democracy could also
underpin bureaucracy. Thus, the relationship between democracy
and bureaucracy became the
5 By employing data for the post-WWII period only, recent
studies tend mostly to include cases where free and fair
elections coincided with universal suffrage. 6 In future
versions of the paper we will explore the possibility of employing
the average global democracy level yearly
as an instrument test against the notion that, at the domestic
level, bureaucratic quality could affect the degree of
democracy in the first place (see Shefter 1977; Mazzuca and
Munck 2014). The long time-period will also make this
test more accurate.
-
5
object of considerable debate within comparative politics and
public administration research (e.g.
Etzioni-Halevey 1985: Chs. 1-2; Fukuyama 2014).
Two strands of research have taken up this debate. A group of
large-n studies finds
that democracy is positively related to bureaucratic quality
because democracy entails greater levels
of electoral competition and press freedom that move political
incentives towards supporting
bureaucratic reform, or what is often termed ‘good public
policies’, and simply forces politicians to
abstain from corruption and clientelism. The assumption is that
the majority of any large electorate
serves the collectively rational goal of impartial and clean
administration (e.g. Adserà, Boix, and
Payne 2003; Keefer 2007; Bäck and Hadenius 2008; Charron and
Lapuente 2010, 2011; Carbone
and Memoli 2015; Leipziger 2016).7 By contrast, classic
comparative-historical analyses find an
autocratic advantage in forging bureaucratic reform and thus
that democracy is to some extent
negatively related to bureaucratic quality. Some of these
analyses (e.g. Geddes 1994; Grindle 2012)
share the focus on electoral competition but others attribute
specific importance to suffrage (e.g.
Shefter 1977; Piattoni 2001).
We set out to explain why, as shown in some studies, democracy
may sometimes
hamper bureaucratic quality, while the opposite is most often
the case in large N-studies. On a par
with previous research, we explain levels of and developments in
bureaucratic quality as a political
choice between bureaucratic reform on the one hand and
politicization and clientelism on the other
(forthwith ‘politicization’). The former most notably involves
meritocracy but also the introduction
or strengthening of pecuniary incentives and management tools;
the latter a pattern of political
hirings and firings and provision of contracts and
particularistic goods to favor clients – known as
clientelism (see Olsen 2006; Dahlström, Lapuente, and Teorell
2012).
The theories in recent studies tend to boil down to the
dichotomy contrasting the
existence of vertical accountability under democracy as opposed
to autocracy. By contrast, we start
more generally by identifying key actors, their preferences, and
access to relevant information and
then consider how changes in three different dimensions of
democracy and government stability
affect future uncertainties among these actors.
Seen from a bird’s eye view, uncertainties around the
distribution of resources in the
future is a relevant parameter for considering bureaucratic
reform but typically theorized in less
7 Bäck and Hadenius’ large-n study (2008) takes a mediating
position between democracy and autocracy as the more
effective promoter of bureaucratic quality. They find a J-shaped
relationship that, however, speaks to the advantage of
democracy: Levels of bureaucratic quality are relatively high in
full autocracies, low in semi-democratic or
democratizing countries, and highest in full democracies.
-
6
clear terms in previous research.8 The most clear theorization
is arguably found in Barbara Geddes’
(1994) Politician’s Dilemma, studying Latin American
bureaucratic reforms, where the initiation of
reforms involves a collective action problem. Together with
opposition parties, governments may
initially favor bureaucratic reform. They know that if they
could agree on nurturing bureaucratic
reform, this would be the rational choice as it would nurture
economic development for the benefit
of society at large. However, their individual interests in
gaining votes and ensuring success in the
next election make them all defect from this potential reform
coalition. Instead, they engage in a
game of politicization whereby the spoils of political office
and bureaucratic control are distributed
between political opponents or brutally competed for. More
simply put, the governments and
oppositions in democracies eventually favor short-term
vote-buying over long-term economic
development since they find the latter consideration to be more
risky for winning popularity among
voters. In turn, democracies on average end up with lower levels
of bureaucratic quality than
autocracies (Geddes 1994: 17-18).
As will be explained, we do not find it convincing that
competitive elections in itself
should undermine bureaucratic quality but Geddes’ model provides
a fruitful starting point for a
theory of regime effects on bureaucratic quality. We thus agree
that any effect of democracy
ultimately channels through three actors: 1) the party
government or president, 2) the opposition
parties, and 3) the voters. While we level autocratic with
democratic politicians’ goal of political
survival, we acknowledge that governments and oppositions in
democracies, as opposed to
autocracies, have a short-term incentive to pursue policies that
maximize their vote shares in the
next election. Since competitive elections are evidently
forthcoming, governments and oppositions
fundamentally lack information about their political destiny.
This introduces substantial
uncertainties into their calculations and thus determines their
willingness to supply bureaucratic
reforms or, by contrast, patronage (Geddes 1994: 14-18).
However, as the more recent studies point out (Charron and
Lapuente 2010: 450-454;
see also Piattoni 2001), one should also take account of the
demand for patronage, as determined by
the preferences of the voters. But what complicates matters more
than assumed in most large-n
research is that the wealth of the voters affects their demand
for bureaucratic reform (see Charron
and Lapuente 2010: 450). When voters are more affluent, their
time horizon widens in the sense
8 The recent large-n studies theoretically assume that the
positive effect of democracy on bureaucratic quality is static
–
democracy works in the short as well as the long run. Some
studies (e.g. Keefer 2007; Carbone and Memoli 2015;
Leipziger 2016) suggest the stock of democracy to be
particularly, or exclusively, connected to improvements in
bureaucratic quality. However, this does not imply that
democracy is negative for bureaucratic quality in the short
run.
-
7
that they discount the future less. Thus, voter uncertainty is
not a constant but may vary over time
and space. In sum, we contend that any theory of the effect of
democracy on bureaucratic quality
should explain how the characteristics of democracy affect
future uncertainties and thus make
governments, oppositions, and voters strive for bureaucratic
reform.
Our propositions
Competitive elections and legislative constraints on the
executive
According to Geddes, competitive elections hamper bureaucratic
reforms. The uncertainty that
follows (minimally competitive) elections makes the government
and opposition perceive that there
are political opponents of significant strength and that the
power owned today can be lost tomorrow
by the ballot. This makes government as well as opposition
parties abstain from reforms. The
government wants to be able to politicize now to ensure
political survival in the immediate election
and swift implementation of its policies, and the opposition
wants politicization to be available
whenever it wins the government seat (Geddes 1994: 18; Katz and
Mair 1995: 16; see also Piattoni
2001). By contrast in an autocratic setting without truly
competitive elections, the government, or
president, can initiate top-down pressure on central and local
agencies to employ more meritocratic
forms of hiring while at the same time micro-managing
bureaucratic behavior (Geddes 1994: 12;
see also Huntington 1968; Grindle 2012).
The argument that competitive elections and the constant threat
of future electoral
loses involve short-term incentives for politicization that
autocracies avoid is compelling as it rests
on a key difference between democracies and autocracies.
However, as is rightfully suggested by
the recent large-n studies, voters do not always reward
patronage supplies such as pecuniary
payments or job opportunities. Voters are sometimes better able
to discard of future uncertainties
and demand society-wide economic development that needs
longer-term investments. As a
consequence, voters may judge patronage payments as ‘symptom
treatment’ for deeper problems in
their own and the state’s economy and create an external
pressure on the politicians and parties to
disclose the use of patronage as corruption and change the
state’s hiring procedures to improve
bureaucratic quality more permanently (Charron and Lapuente
2010: 450-454; Mazzuca and Munck
2014: 1236). Voters may also push for reform to the extent that
they find transparent, impartial, and
effective administration necessary in order to obtain
sustainable economic development (see
-
8
Rothstein 2011).9 In turn, the preferences of governments and
oppositions for bureaucratic reform
would change from negative to positive in an effort to please
the voters. Instead of competing on
the issue of bureaucratic reforms or not, governments and
oppositions would cooperate on the
initiation of reforms to avoid the risk of losing votes and
secure themselves from becoming victims
of reversed cycles of bureaucratic discrimination in the future
as government power shifts.
However, governments fight for political survival in other ways
as they are threatened
by uncertainty from other agents than voters. Whereas political
competition in elections transforms
votes into parliamentary seats and thus constitutes the power
configuration of parties and, after
government formation, the strength of the opposition, there are
formal and informal rules of the
parliament and intra-elite interaction as well as party system
dynamics that provide a separate set of
control functions. We term the totality of these rules
‘legislative constraints on the executive’ (i.e.
the parliamentary or oppositional use of monitoring and
sanctioning government actions).
Legislative constraints do not work vertically between voters
and representatives but horizontally
between representatives or, more generally, elites (including in
oligarchic regimes) (see e.g.
Marshall et al. 2010; Lauth 2015).
This should yield a separate effect on bureaucratic quality in
the era of modern
democracy. In Latin American oligarchic regimes in the first
decades after independence, either
multiple, balanced groups forged consensus around state-building
or fragmented, regionally-based
elites did the opposite. Such fragmentation also strengthened
local elites’ clientelist strongholds
under conditions of mass elections (Kurtz 2013; see also Soifer
2015). In liberal democracies,
political parties take center stage complementing parliamentary
rules in securing oppositional
control of the executive (Folke, Hirano, and Snyder Jr. 2011;
Gerring, Thacker, and Alfaro 2012:
3). Over time, if governments are voted in and out and some
oppositional control is preserved
between elections, systems for controlling the executive are
likely to expand across more policy
sectors and intensify into ever-more fine-grained webs of
committees, oversight bodies, and rules
on budgetary discipline and dissemination of information to
parliament. This raises the
opportunities for monitoring and sanctioning from occasional and
temporary to all-encompassing
and permanent (see e.g. Maravall and Przeworski 2003; Charron
and Lapuente 2010; Kurtz 2013;
Mazzuca and Munck 2014; Soifer 2015).
Nevertheless, competitive elections and legislative constraints
in a certain way merely
operate differently and in different arenas but to the same
effect: that of punishing governments for
9 Voters may of course also value transparent, impartial, and
effective bureaucracy independently of its economic
records (Rothstein 2011).
-
9
politicizing the bureaucracy. To see this, we note that
meritocratic reform is a sign of trust between
subsequent governments and opposition parties that neither will
be discriminated administratively –
that is, beyond what policies do by nature of being tools for
distributing the resources of society.
Yet, this trust typically does not rise from substantial
agreement but rather from protracted conflict
around government power by which political forces move in and
out of office, develop tools to
control the arbitrary use of power, and thus finally reconcile
with the interests of one another.
Conversely, politicization often emerges where control functions
have not developed. This makes
political elites mistrust the intentions of one another thus
incentivizing top-down politicization and
clientelistic strategies beyond any foreseeable future to
safeguard their interests (Weingast 1997;
Cornell and Lapuente 2014). Where control functions exist and
are practiced, forging and protecting
meritocratic and impartial administration becomes the rational
strategy of governments to hinder a
vote of no confidence or an early election in the short term but
also to prevent their own destruction
in the future when government power may have shifted.
Therefore, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 1: The positive effect of competitive elections on
bureaucratic quality increases with
higher levels of legislative constraints
Suffrage extensions
Besides the tendency of comparative-historical studies to
incorporate future uncertainties more
explicitly than recent large-n studies – to some extent only
natural given their respective
methodologies – it is particularly striking that these two sets
of literature focus on different
dimensions of democracy. The large-n studies overwhelmingly
focus on electoral competition as
operationalized by competitive elections but the
comparative-historical work points to other
dimensions, most notably suffrage. In Shefter’s (1977) study,
for instance, regulated uncertainty
around the election of the executive is assumed, but the driver
of politicization is extensions of
suffrage against a background of low initial levels of
bureaucratic quality.
This points out that democracy means more than competitive
elections. It crucially
implies the empowerment of ‘the people’ – i.e., the
enfranchisement of the population at large, give
or take rules that condition the enjoyment of the franchise
(Dahl 1989; Coppedge, Alvarez, and
Maldonado 2008). Our argument regards the kind of suffrage rules
that restrict voting rights based
on a citizen’s socioeconomic situation, for example, rules
restricting voting rights based on
-
10
property, economic dependence, gross income, or tax payments.
There are other kinds of suffrage
restrictions such as on gender, region, religion, or race.
However, as these categories do not by
definition discriminate on socioeconomic status, they are not
relevant for our argument. For
instance, the granting of suffrage to women only becomes
relevant insofar as women also tend to be
poor or represent poor households.
Suffrage without socioeconomic restrictions is a historical
exception rather than the
rule. Similarly, a wide and sudden extension from very low to
very high levels of suffrage has not
been typical. In the 19th century and the early 20th century,
many regimes had competitive elections
to some degree and then expanded suffrage by gradually
enfranchising poorer people – suffrage
extended downwards through the income distribution of society.
Later democratizations in
postcolonial Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe have tended to be
more abrupt with the immediate
installation of universal suffrage but these processes were
arguably more externally driven than the
European or Latin American ones (see Przeworski 2009).
As a consequence, suffrage extensions in the empirical setting
we are investigating
have typically implied the inclusion of poor masses. As shown by
Charron and Lapuente (2010:
450-454), the positive effect of competitive elections is larger
in richer countries where voters are
on average more affluent. This means that they become more
willing to relinquish patronage goods
and instead demand long-term investments in human capital
(education and health care as
facilitated by society-wide economic development), which gives
incentives for politicians to make
an effort to increase bureaucratic quality. By contrast, poorer
voters are more uncertain about their
own future, which makes them demand goods for immediate
consumption such as jobs and
benefits, or more fundamentally, food and shelter, thus
incentivizing the supply of patronage (see
also Welzel and Inglehart 2008).
Focusing on income levels or growth alone, however, does not do
justice to the
significance of suffrage. Indeed, whether the masses are rich
(or poor) has little effect on the
preferences of the political elite if the masses are not
enfranchised. Rather, it is the expansion of the
electorate with poor people that determines voter demands for
bureaucratic reform and, in turn, the
supply of it by elected leaders. We also stress that it is not
the level of suffrage at one point in time
but the scale of the expansion that matters. When suffrage is
extended, government and opposition
deem it necessary to use the state apparatus to reach the masses
and distribute the spoils of office to
maximize votes in the next election. Only the state has the
means and authority to redistribute goods
at such speed and reach the lower classes and the periphery with
jobs in and favors from the public
-
11
sector (Shefter 1977; Geddes 1994: 12). This also means that the
demand for patronage can be
satisfied at some point. Accordingly, large suffrage extensions
should matter more than smaller
ones because the push for patronage is stronger and more
enduring, and the marginal effect of any
suffrage extension should decrease over time.
Summing up, the removal of socioeconomic restrictions on
suffrage should entail
considerable incentives to initiate politicization that
satisfies voter preferences. When suffrage
extensions are absent or small, as in either early competitive
regimes with very restricted suffrage
or in many present-day democracies with universal suffrage, no
new demands for patronage are
thrown upon the political system. By contrast, when suffrage
extensions are substantial, as in some
democratizing countries, elections communicate the demands for
patronage and thus contribute to
lower bureaucratic quality. We therefore propose that
Hypothesis 2: The positive effect of competitive elections on
bureaucratic quality decreases with
greater (socioeconomic) suffrage extensions
The effect of legislative constraints should be moderated
similarly under suffrage extensions. Since
suffrage only makes conceptual sense under some degree of
competitive elections, both
governments and oppositions face incentives to court the new and
poorer voters by politicizing the
administration. The governments thus face no, if only relatively
manageable, sanctions as new
parliaments are formed post-election. We thus expect that
Hypothesis 3: The positive effect of legislative constraints on
bureaucratic quality decreases with
greater (socioeconomic) suffrage extensions
Government instability
Across equally competitive regimes, the frequency with which
governments are voted out varies
considerably. Government stability works as a sort of
institutionalized uncertainty like competitive
elections or legislative constraints. In fact, we argue that
government instability endogenizes
legislative constraints very directly. Many democracies,
including the liberal, Western ones, have
experienced decades with the same party in government obtaining
large seat majorities from several
subsequent elections – not to speak of the voting systems that
mechanically tend to produce large
majority governments. This results in a very different
competitive situation between the parties in
-
12
parliament as when compared to, for instance, consensus
democracies or, more generally,
parliaments where parties have relatively similar shares of
seats (Lijphart 1999). However, the
connection between competitive elections and government
instability is less clear-cut. Indeed,
government instability exclusively affects governments’
perception of future uncertainties – it does
not involve a popular pressure to abstain from politicization.
For instance, governments in
unconsolidated democracies, hybrid regimes, or closed
autocracies face the risk of being ousted by
oppositional moves or a military coup (Geddes 1994: 15,
132-133). Thus, we expect that
government instability moderates the effect of competitive
elections in the following way:
Hypothesis 4: The positive effect of competitive elections on
bureaucratic quality decreases with
higher levels of government instability
The next section presents the statistical models and data that
we use to examine our
propositions.
Research design and data
We employ country fixed effects and lag all independent
variables one year. Since we have a long
time period from 1800s and onwards, we run models with different
time periods. Most importantly,
we interact our key variables with a dummy distinguishing the
periods before and after 1946. This
controls for separate dynamics of the postcolonial era when
democratization came suddenly with
universal suffrage. We also take time into account by
introducing year dummies to the models.
Bureaucratic quality
To measure bureaucratic quality, new data from the V-Dem project
(Coppedge et al. 2017) enables
us to alleviate the problems of existing data sources which are
limited in spatial or temporal
coverage (e.g. the ‘Weberianness Scale’ developed by Rauch and
Evans 2000) or suffer from
serious validity issues (e.g. the bureaucratic quality measure
by the Political Risk Services Group
2014 - for reviews, see Hanson and Sigman 2013; Saylor 2013). In
any case, these measures cover
only countries back to 1984, and even with Hanson and Sigman’s
possible extensions back in time
to the 1960s, we are left with insufficient variation,
exclusively after World War II.
By contrast, the V-Dem project’s indicator of ‘Rigorous and
impartial public
administration’, which has been extended to the 19th century in
the Historical V-Dem (Knutsen et
-
13
al. 2017) is a time varying, cross-national, continuous
indicator that covers our analytical time
period. The variable scores countries from 0 to 4 by asking:
“are public officials rigorous and
impartial in the performance of their duties?” It is thus
consistent with the manifestations of
bureaucratic quality as we expect them to rise from bureaucratic
reforms toward meritocracy (see
(Dahlström, Lapuente, and Teorell 2012). This definition also
resembles the core understanding of
bureaucratic quality in recent and classic studies alike (e.g.
Shefter 1977; Geddes 1994; Ertman
1997; Adserà, Boix, and Payne 2003; Bäck and Hadenius 2008;
Charron and Lapuente 2010;
Leipziger 2016).
The coding of this variable is expert-based, and the
ordinal-level scores are subject to
extensive reliability and measurement biases. The V-Dem team has
mitigated these biases by
assigning five experts (1 expert in the historical version of
the dataset) to code each country and
aggregate coding decisions into point-estimates employing
Bayesian item response theory (IRT)
modelling techniques, which they assume to be latently interval.
In consequence, inter-coder
reliability checks and uncertainties are used to convert the
ordinal into an interval scale (see
Coppedge et al. 2015: 25-29).
Competitive elections and legislative constraints
To measure competitive elections, we use the indicator of
competitive elections from the Lexical
Index of Electoral Democracy (Skaaning, Gerring, and
Bartusevicius 2015). We use the category
measuring minimally competitive elections coded as a dummy in a
given year. To measure
legislative constraints, we use the index of legislative
constraints on the executive from the V-Dem
and Historical V-Dem data.
**FIGURE 1**
To get a blunt impression of empirical associations, Figure 1
shows yearly world
averages on the variables of bureaucratic quality and
competitive elections. First, we see that the
two lines follow one another quite neatly after 1946 but not
before 1946, although the overall trend
points in the same direction. There is thus reason to believe
that the post-1946 period is special.
World War II not only delegitimized fascism and inspired a new
wave of democratization and
decolonization. It also renewed focus on civil rights and the
rule of law thus issuing a new era of
rule-bound, impartial administration. Second, zooming in on
year-to-year trends, it is clear that
-
14
bureaucratic quality and competitive far from co-varies
perfectly. On many occasions, most
pronounced in the 19th century, increases in bureaucratic
quality coincided with decreases or
stagnation in competitive elections and vice versa.
**FIGURE 2**
As seen in Figure 2, much the same can be said of the
association between legislative
constraints and bureaucratic quality although the discrepancy in
development trends is less dramatic
and exists in a shorter period, the latter half of the 19th
century.
We thus have good reasons to believe that there is a genuine,
non-trivial relationship
between bureaucratic and competitive elections and legislative
constraints, respectively. Yet, the
direction of the effect varies between periods and years.
Suffrage extensions
For changes in suffrage we use a variable collected by
researchers in the V-Dem team based on
secondary sources. Suffrage is measured as the percentage in the
voting age population that has the
legal right to vote. As we are interested in the change in
suffrage we calculate the percentage
change in suffrage extensions. We only take into account
suffrage extensions and code all
retractions in suffrage as 0. Moreover, as we think that
suffrage changes are not only events
happening in one year with effects in that year only, the
variable is first coded as the suffrage
change in the corresponding year. For the years following the
change, we then calculate a
depreciation rate of 1% of the percentage change in suffrage.
The depreciation rate starts all over
whenever there is a new extension in suffrage and stops whenever
there is a retraction in suffrage
rates (coded as 0). However, this data does not take into
account whether the extension in suffrage
is due to abolishment of socioeconomic restrictions. Therefore,
we also use suffrage data from
Bilinski, which differentiates between male and female suffrage.
By only including extensions for
male suffrage we get rid of all extensions that are due to
gender and thus not necessarily attached to
the socioeconomic situation. The results for the Bilinski data
are reported in the Appendix.
Figure 3 illustrates the empirical association between yearly
world average suffrage
extensions (% depreciated changes) and bureaucratic quality. As
expected, we see sharp increases
in suffrage rights after World War II, coinciding with
decolonization in Asia and Africa and
democratizations in Latin America. Again, from an overall
perspective there seems to be a positive
-
15
association across the whole period but zooming on yearly
variation often reveals the opposite, such
as from the early to mid-19th century or the late 20th century.
Suffrage extensions and bureaucratic
quality thus seem to be genuinely related but in different ways
across periods and years.
**FIGURE 3**
Government instability
To measure government instability we code government stability
from the V-Dem data on heads of
state and heads of government. We construct a variable that
calculates the number of years
governed by the same head of government, or alternatively, in
the cases in which heads of state
have more power than the heads of government, the variable
indicates the number of years
governed by the same head of state.
Control variables
The preliminary analyses include the one control variable that
is most important, namely economic
development measured with GDP/capita (logged) taken from Miller
which mainly use the
Maddison data (Bolt and van Zanden 2013).10
Results
Table 1 presents the results for competitive elections. The
results for this variable are similar across
the different specifications. The variable is positively and
significantly related to bureaucratic
quality irrespective of time-period and controls included in the
model.
Moreover, our control for economic development is, as expected,
positively related to
bureaucratic quality (but not significant in the model with a
restricted time-period, 1821–1945).
**TABLE 1**
Table 2 presents the results for legislative constraints.
Legislative constraints is
positively and significantly related to bureaucratic quality in
all models with different time-periods
and with the inclusion of a control for economic development.
The result for economic
10 More control variables will be added in future versions of
the paper.
-
16
development is similar to Table 1, with a positive and
significant relationship with bureaucratic
quality in the whole time-period and for the model with a
time-period from 1946 and onwards.
**TABLE 2**
We hypothesize that the effect of legislative constraints is
conditioned on competitive
elections. Table 3 reports the results. We can see that the
interaction term is significant for all three
period specifications. Next, we proceed to plot the marginal
effects of competitive elections at
different levels of legislative constraints. Figure 4 shows that
the marginal conditional effect of
competitive elections increases at higher levels of legislative
constraints for all three time period
specifications. Thus, the results indicate support for
hypothesis 1 that the positive effect of
competitive elections on bureaucratic quality increases with
higher levels of legislative constraints.
**TABLE 3**
**FIGURE 4**
Table 4 presents the results for suffrage extensions. The table
shows that suffrage
change is positively related to bureaucratic quality in the
models with the whole period and in the
models with the later time-period. However, there is no
significant relationship in the period prior to
1946. If we use the Bilinski data on male suffrage changes, the
results are quite similar except for
suffrage change not being significant in the first model without
the control for economic
development in the whole period (see Appendix Table A4).
**TABLE 4**
This seems at odds with our expectations of a negative
relationship between suffrage
extensions and bureaucratic quality. However, according to our
theoretical propositions the more
important effect of suffrage extensions is moderation. First,
the effect of competitive elections
should be less positive when there are larger extensions of
suffrage. We therefore proceed to
interact suffrage with competitive elections. Models 7–9 in
Table 4 show that there are interesting
differences between the different time-periods. We can see that
the interaction goes in different
-
17
directions depending on the time-period and that the interaction
term is significant for all three
model specifications.
We plot the conditional marginal effects of competitive
elections at different levels of
suffrage change in Figure 5. The differences across the
time-periods are clearly illustrated in the
figure. We can see that there is a slight increase in the
conditional marginal effects of competitive
elections with higher levels of suffrage change in the whole
period and in the period after 1945.
However, in the period prior to 1946, suffrage change conditions
the effect of competitive elections
so that competitive elections has negative effects at larger
extensions of suffrage. Figure 5A in the
Appendix shows the graphs with the Bilinski data on male
suffrage. The models with the Bilinski
data show similar results for the period prior to 1946, but with
this data the marginal conditional
effects of competitive elections are positive at all levels of
suffrage change. Moreover, the Bilinski
data, for which we only use changes in male suffrage, show that
the positive effect of competitive
elections decreases as suffrage change increases for the whole
period. There is no significant
interaction effect for the period after 1946. Thus, overall, we
get some support for hypothesis 2 that
the positive effect of competitive elections on bureaucratic
quality decreases with greater
(socioeconomic) suffrage extensions. The fact this moderation is
mainly valid for the period before
1946 should come as no surprise as the major bulk of gradual
suffrage changes took place before
1946.
**FIGURE 5**
Unfortunately, we cannot discern exactly from this data whether
suffrage extensions
are connected to the socioeconomic positions of voters. However,
as indicated above, by restricting
it to only males, we do at least get rid of the extensions that
are only about gender.
We also hypothesize that legislative constraints will be
conditioned by suffrage in the
same way as competitive elections. Table 5 reports the results
for these interactions. The results
show that the interaction term is significant for the whole
period and for the period prior to 1946.
Plotting the marginal conditional effects, we can clearly see
how the effect of legislative constraints
decreases as suffrage change increases in the models for these
two period specifications (see Figure
6). In the period prior to 1946, the conditional marginal
effects of legislative constraints on the
executive even become negative at higher levels of suffrage
change. The analyses with the Bilinski
data show similar results for the whole period and for the
period before 1946, but the marginal
-
18
conditional effects are not negative at high levels of suffrage
change. However, in the Bilinski data
the results for the period after 1946 indicate that the
conditional marginal effects of legislative
constraints increase as suffrage change increases (see Appendix
Table A5 and Figure A6). Thus, we
have some support for hypothesis 3 that the positive effect of
legislative constraints on bureaucratic
quality decreases with greater (socioeconomic) suffrage
extensions but, again, only valid for the
period prior to 1946.
**TABLE 5**
**FIGURE 6**
Table 6 presents the results for government stability. We can
see that the results differ
between the time-periods. The models including the whole
time-period show a negative and
significant relationship with bureaucratic quality. This is also
the case for the later time-period. But,
the effect is positive and significant for the earlier
time-period without control for economic
development. Once we include a control for economic development,
there is no significant effect
and the sign changes. However, we hypothesize that government
stability will only be positive for
countries that have competitive elections. We do not expect
government stability to be positive for
countries with no competition. Therefore, we proceed to interact
government stability with
competitive elections. The results for the whole period show a
significant interaction term and we
can see that the effect of government stability is negative in
countries without competitive elections.
However, the interaction term is not significant when we divide
the sample into different time-
periods.
**TABLE 6**
We proceed to plot the interactions to show how government
stability conditions the
effects of competitive elections (Figure 7). From the plot for
the whole period, we can see that
government stability strengthens the effect of having
competitive elections. It should be noted that
competitive elections is positively related to bureaucratic
quality at all levels of government
stability but the conditional marginal effects of competitive
elections increases with a more stable
government. Thus, this gives some support for our hypothesis 4
that the positive effect of
-
19
competitive elections on bureaucratic quality decreases with
higher levels of government instability.
However, we stress that the interaction is not significant in
the models with separate time-periods.
**FIGURE 7**
Conclusion
In this paper, we have critically reviewed the growing
literature of regime effects on bureaucratic
quality. From the classic studies, we integrated the perspective
of time for governments considering
bureaucratic reform. Then, with the use of new, disaggregate
data on democracy as well as the
indicator of a rigorous and impartial public administration from
the V-Dem and Historical V-Dem
projects, we have reassessed the impact of democracy on
bureaucratic quality in a more
comprehensive way by incorporating three dimensions of
democracy: competitive elections,
legislative constraints, and suffrage, back to around 1800 until
today.
Our theoretical argument contributes more generally to the
literature about regime
effects on bureaucratic quality by showing that regime change
away from autocracy toward
democracy is not just important because of the introduction of
competition over government power.
Our preliminary empirical analyses show that we have some
support for (at least) parts of our
arguments. The positive effects of competitive elections seem to
be strengthened by legislative
constraints on the executive. However, the positive effects of
legislative constraints and competitive
elections are both restricted by extensions of suffrage in the
period prior to 1946. Theoretically, we
should thus distinguish sharply between democratization as
competition for political power and
empowerment of the masses in forging bureaucratic quality.
-
20
References (not complete)
Adserà, Alícia, Carles Boix, and Mark Payne (2003). “Are You
Being Served? Political
Accountability and Quality of Government.” The Journal of Law,
Economics, and Organization
19(2): 445-490.
Bäck, Hanna, and Axel Hadenius (2008). “Democracy and State
Capacity: Exploring a J-Shaped
Relationship” Governance 21(1): 1-24.
Bolt, Jutta, and van Zanden, Jan Luiten (2013). The First Update
of the Maddison Project; Re-
Estimating Growth Before 1820. Maddison-Project Working Paper
4.
Brecke, Peter (1999). Violent Conflicts 1400 A.D. to the Present
in Different Regions of the
World. Paper prepared for the 1999 Meeting of the Peace Science
Society (International).
Carbone, Giovanni, and Vincenzo Memoli (2015). “Does
Democratization Foster State
Consolidation? Democratic Rule, Political Order, and
Administrative Capacity.” Governance 28(1):
5-24.
Charron, Nicholas, and Victor Lapuente (2010). "Does Democracy
Produce Quality of
Government?". European journal of political research 49(4):
443-70.
Charron, Nicholas, and Victor Lapuente. 2011. "Which Dictators
Produce Quality of
Government?". Studies in Comparative International Development
(SCID) 46(4): 397-423.
Clio-Infra. http://www.clio-infra.eu/
Coppedge, Michael, Angel Alvarez, and Claudia Maldonado (2008).
Two Persistent Dimensions of
Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness. Journal of Politics
70(3): 632-647.
Coppedge, Michael, Gerring, John, Lindberg, Staffan I., Teorell,
Jan, Altman, David, Bernhard,
Michael, Fish, M. Steven, Glynn, Adam, Hicken, Allen, Knutsen,
Carl Henrik, McMann, Kelly,
Pemstein, Daniel, Reif, Megan, Skaaning, Svend-Erik, Staton,
Jeffrey, Tzelgov, Eitan, & Wang, Yi-
ting (2015b). Varieties of Democracy: Methodology. Varieties of
Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Retrieved from
https://v-dem.net/en/reference/version-4-mar-2015/
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Staffan I. Lindberg, Svend-Erik
Skaaning, Jan Teorell, David
Altman, Michael Bernhard, M. Steven Fish, Adam Glynn, Allen
Hicken, Carl Henrik Knutsen,
Kyle Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Farhad Miri, Pamela Paxton, Daniel
Pemstein, Jeffrey Staton,
Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, and Brigitte Zimmerman. 2017.
“V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-
Date] Dataset v7.” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Cornell, Agnes, and Lapuente, Victor. Meritocratic
administration and democratic stability.
Democratization 21(7): 1286-1304.
Cruz, Cesi, and Philip Keefer. 2015. "Political Parties,
Clientelism, and Bureaucratic
Reform." Comparative Political Studies 48(14): 1942-73.
https://v-dem.net/en/reference/version-4-mar-2015/
-
21
Dahlström, Carl, Lapuente, Victor, and Teorell, Jan (2012). The
Merit of Meritocratization: Politics,
Bureaucracy, and the Institutional Deterrents of Corruption.
Political Research Quarterly 65(3):
656-668.
Ertman, Thomas. 1997. Birth of the Leviathan : Building States
and Regimes in Medieval and
Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Etzioni-Halevy, Eva (1985). Bureaucracy and democracy: A
political dilemma. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul plc.
Evans, Peter (1995). Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial
Transformation. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Folke, Olle, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder. 2011.
"Patronage and Elections in U.S.
States." American political science review 105(3): 567-85.
Fukuyama, Francis (2014). Political Order and Political Decay.
London: Profile books.
Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician's Dilemma : Building State
Capacity in Latin America,
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
Gerring, John, Strom C. Thacker, and Rodrigo Alfaro. 2012.
"Democracy and Human
Development." The Journal of Politics 74(01): 1-17.
Gourevitch, Peter Alexis (1986). Politics in Hard Times:
Comparative Responses to International
Economic Crises. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Grindle, Merilee Serrill. 2012. "Jobs for the Boys : Patronage
and the State in Comparative
Perspective." Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hanson, Jonathan K., and Sigman, Rachel (2013). Leviathan’s
Latent Dimension: Measuring State
Capacity for Comparative Political Research. Paper presented at
the World Bank Political
Economy Brown Bag Lunch Series (21 March).
Huntington, Samuel P. (1968). Political Order in Changing
Societies. USA: Yale University Press.
Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. "Changing Models of
Party Organization and Party
Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party." Party Politics
1(1):
Keefer, Philip. 2007. "Clientelism, Credibility, and the Policy
Choices of Young
Democracies." American Journal of Political Science 51(4):
804-21.
Kitschelt, Herbert (2000). Linkages between Citizens and
Politicians in Democratic Polities.
Comparative Political Studies 33(6/7): 845-879.
Knutsen, Carl Henrik, Daniel Ziblatt, Agnes Cornell, John
Gerring, Svend-Erik Skaaning, and Jan
Teorell (2017). Country-Year Dataset. Retrieved from
https://historicalelections.fas.harvard.edu/
https://historicalelections.fas.harvard.edu/
-
22
Lauth, Hans-Joachim (2015). The Matrix of Democracy. Würzberger
Arbeitspapiere zue
Politikwissenschaft und Sozialforschung 6: 1-30.
Leipziger, Lasse (2016). Democracy and State Capacity Revisited:
An Investigation of
Democracy’s Consequences for State Capacity. Varieties of
Democracy Working Paper 2016: 1.
Maravall, J.M., and Przeworski, Adam (2003). Democracy and the
Rule of Law. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, Monty G., Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert (2010).
Polity IV Project: Political
Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010. Dataset
Users' Manual. Vienna: Center for
Systemic Peace.
Mazzuca, Sebastián L., and Gerardo L. Munck. 2014. "State or
Democracy First? Alternative
Perspectives on the State-Democracy Nexus." Democratization
21(7): 1221-43.
Møller, Jørgen, and Svend-Erik Skaaning (2013). Democracy and
Democratization in Comparative
Perspective: Conceptions, Conjunctures, Causes and Consequences.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Olsen, Johan P. (2006). Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover
Bureaucracy. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 16: 1-24.
Piattoni, Simona (2001). Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic
Representation : The European
Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective, Cambridge
Studies in Comparative
Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, Adam (2009). Conquered or Granted? A History of
Suffrage Extentions. British
Journal of Political Science 39(2): 291-321.
Rauch, James E., and Peter B. Evans (2000). "Bureaucratic
Structure and Bureaucratic
Performance in Less Developed Countries." Journal of Public
Economics 75(1): 49-71.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan (1999). Political Corruption and Democracy.
Connecticut Journal of
International Law 14(2): 363-378.
Rothstein, Bo (2011). The Quality of Government. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Saylor, Ryan (2013). Concepts, Measures, and Measuring Well: An
Alternative Outlook.
Sociological Methods & Research 42(3): 354–391.
Shefter, Martin. 1977. "Party and Patronage: Germany, England,
and Italy." Politics & Society
7(4): 403-51.
Soifer, Hillel D. (2015). State Building in Latin America. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2003. Democratization and Power Resources
1850-2000 [computer file].
FSD1216, version 1.0 (2003-03-10). Tampere: Finnish Social
Science Data Archive
[distributor].
(http://www.fsd.uta.fi/en/data/catalogue/FSD1216/meF1216e.html)
-
23
Warner, Carolyn M. 1997. "Political Parties and the Opportunity
Costs of Patronage." Party
Politics 3(4): 533-48.
Weber, Max (1978). Economy and Society. Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Weingast, Barry R. (1997). The Political Foundations of
Democracy and the Rule of Law.
American Political Science Review 91(2): 245-263.
-
24
Figures and tables
Figure 1. Competitive elections and bureaucratic quality
-
25
Figure 2. Legislative constraints and bureaucratic quality
Figure 3. Suffrage (depreciated % change) and bureaucratic
quality
-
26
Figure 4. Legislative constraints and competitive elections in
interaction (marginal conditional effects of competitive
elections)
Figure 5. Competitive elections and suffrage change in
interaction (conditional marginal effects of competitive
elections)
-
27
Figure 6. Legislative constraints and suffrage change in
interaction (conditional marginal effects of legislative
constraints)
Figure 7. Competitive elections and government stability in
interaction (conditional marginal effects of competitive
elections)
-
28
Tables
Table 1. Competitive elections and bureaucratic quality
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
The whole
period
The whole
period 1801–1945 1821–1945 1946–2016 1946–2005
Competitive electionst-1 0.860*** 0.847*** 0.549*** 0.539***
0.891*** 0.984***
(0.0196) (0.0223) (0.0331) (0.0363) (0.0220) (0.0253)
Log (economic development)t-1
0.464***
0.0714
0.495***
(0.0209)
(0.0508)
(0.0239)
Constant -0.996*** -3.861*** -0.671*** -1.072** -0.319***
-3.941***
(0.160) (0.216) (0.132) (0.375) (0.0783) (0.192)
Number of observations (country years) 16221 12291 6668 4972
9553 7319
R2 0.298 0.318 0.140 0.136 0.228 0.284
adj. R2 0.280 0.298 0.109 0.102 0.208 0.262
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p <
0.001
Table 2. Legislative constraints and bureaucratic quality
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
The whole
period
The whole
period 1790–1945 1821–1945 1946–2016 1946–2005
Legislative constraints t-1 1.806*** 1.906*** 0.965*** 1.301***
1.842*** 2.072***
(0.0343) (0.0415) (0.0615) (0.0865) (0.0408) (0.0453)
Log (economic development)t-1
0.454***
0.0330
0.444***
(0.0215)
(0.0540)
(0.0233)
Constant -1.309*** -4.228*** -0.766*** -1.080** -0.708***
-4.025***
(0.176) (0.226) (0.137) (0.400) (0.0712) (0.186)
Number of observations (country years) 18320 11913 7696 4643
10624 7270
R2 0.310 0.347 0.183 0.140 0.227 0.323
adj. R2 0.294 0.327 0.154 0.104 0.209 0.302
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p <
0.001
Table 3. Legislative constraints, competitive elections and
bureaucratic quality
(1) (2) (3)
The whole period 1821–1945 1946–2005
Legislative constraints t-1 1.271*** 1.126*** 1.386***
(0.0511) (0.0876) (0.0620)
Competitive electionst-1 -0.0487 -0.00413 0.305***
(0.0531) (0.103) (0.0588)
Legislative constraints t-1 * Competitive electionst-1 0.881***
0.653*** 0.406***
(0.0802) (0.147) (0.0981)
Log (economic development)t-1 0.407*** -0.0248 0.437***
(0.0212) (0.0522) (0.0230)
Constant -3.765*** -0.738 -3.895***
(0.227) (0.389) (0.186)
Number of observations (country years) 11636 4410 7226
R2 0.385 0.198 0.356
adj. R2 0.366 0.163 0.336 Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
Year dummies and fixed country effects included in all models. * p
< 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
-
29
Table 4. Suffrage change and bureaucratic quality
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
The whole
period
The whole
period 1790–1945 1821–1945 1946–2014 1946–2005
The whole
period 1821–1945 1946–2005
Suffrage %
change
(depreciated) t-1
0.0000214*** 0.0000659*** -0.00000707 0.0000204 0.0000320***
0.0000578*** 0.0000710*** 0.0000292** 0.0000638***
(0.00000397) (0.00000638) (0.00000692) (0.0000109) (0.00000574)
(0.00000928) (0.00000606) (0.0000106) (0.00000845)
Log (economic
development)t-1 0.599*** 0.159** 0.536*** 0.464*** 0.0792
0.470***
(0.0220) (0.0519) (0.0264) (0.0212) (0.0509) (0.0244)
Competitive
electionst-1 0.848*** 0.600*** 0.969***
(0.0231) (0.0398) (0.0267)
Competitive
electionst-1 *
Suffrage %
change
(depreciated) t-1
0.0000341* -0.000317*** 0.0000381**
(0.0000151) (0.0000845) (0.0000143)
Constant -0.871*** -4.783*** -0.654*** -1.541*** 0.00608
-4.014*** -3.917*** -1.138** -3.793***
(0.114) (0.225) (0.0848) (0.383) (0.0625) (0.212) (0.217)
(0.376) (0.196)
Number of
observations
(country years)
23501 12500 12315 5192 11186 7308 12191 4927 7264
R2 0.172 0.231 0.098 0.086 0.073 0.127 0.324 0.141 0.287
adj. R2 0.157 0.209 0.074 0.051 0.052 0.099 0.304 0.106
0.265
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p < 0.001
-
30
Table 5. Legislative constraints on the executive, suffrage
change and bureaucratic quality
(1) (2) (3)
The whole
period Prior to 1946 After 1945
Legislative constraints t-1 1.937*** 1.448*** 2.059***
(0.0427) (0.0888) (0.0473)
Suffrage % change (depreciated) t-1 0.0000532*** 0.0000829***
0.0000842***
(0.00000872) (0.0000211) (0.0000106)
Legislative constraints t-1 * Suffrage % change (depreciated)
t-1 -0.0000578** -0.000370*** 0.0000307
(0.0000211) (0.0000576) (0.0000204)
Log (economic development)t-1 0.456*** 0.0480 0.445***
(0.0216) (0.0538) (0.0235)
Constant -4.298*** -1.203** -4.121***
(0.226) (0.399) (0.188)
Number of observations (country years) 11904 4643 7261
R2 0.349 0.149 0.331
adj. R2 0.329 0.113 0.310
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p < 0.001
-
31
Table 6. Government stability and bureaucratic quality
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
The whole
period
The whole
period 1790–1945 1821–1945 1946–2016 1946–2005
The whole
period 1821–1945 1946–2005
Government
stability t-1 -0.00651*** -0.00955*** 0.00206* -0.000325
-0.0149*** -0.0148*** -0.00445*** 0.00212 -0.00727***
(0.000868) (0.00108) (0.000972) (0.00158) (0.00116) (0.00127)
(0.00108) (0.00156) (0.00125)
Log (economic
development)t-1 0.597***
0.172**
0.521*** 0.467*** 0.0697 0.483***
(0.0219)
(0.0526)
(0.0260) (0.0212) (0.0521) (0.0240)
Competitive
electionst-1 0.758*** 0.534*** 0.950***
(0.0262) (0.0423) (0.0294)
Government
stability t-1 *
Competitive
electionst-1
0.0211*** 0.00369 0.00245
(0.00379) (0.00781) (0.00378)
Constant -0.888*** -4.649*** -0.670*** -1.641*** 0.0473
-3.800*** -3.854*** -1.089** -3.816***
(0.119) (0.224) (0.0866) (0.387) (0.0625) (0.209) (0.217)
(0.382) (0.193)
Number of
observations
(country years)
23398 12428 12260 5157 11138 7271 12119 4892 7227
R2 0.175 0.236 0.096 0.086 0.086 0.143 0.320 0.138 0.288
adj. R2 0.160 0.214 0.072 0.051 0.065 0.116 0.300 0.103
0.265
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p < 0.001
-
32
Appendix
Figure 5A: Male suffrage change in interaction with competitive
elections (Bilinski)
Figure 6A: Male suffrage change in interaction with legislative
constraints (Bilinski)
-
33
Table 4A: Suffrage and bureaucratic quality with Bilinski data
on male suffrage
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
The whole
period
The whole
period Prior to 1946 Prior to 1946 After 1945 After 1945
The whole
period Prior to 1946 After 1945
Suffrage % change (depreciated)
(Biliniski) t-1 -0.00000258 0.00000655** -0.00000543 0.00000557
0.0000166*** 0.0000246*** 0.00000446 0.00000630 0.00000747**
(0.00000203) (0.00000222) (0.00000304) (0.00000335) (0.00000252)
(0.00000265) (0.00000238) (0.00000357) (0.00000268)
Log (economic development)t-1
0.534***
0.0899
0.518*** 0.416*** 0.0450 0.480***
(0.0222)
(0.0517)
(0.0264) (0.0214) (0.0523) (0.0243)
Competitive electionst-1
1.058*** 0.759*** 0.910***
(0.0325) (0.0492) (0.0416)
Suffrage % change (depreciated)
(Biliniski) t-1*Competitive
electionst-1
-0.0000437*** -0.0000627*** 0.00000892
(0.00000468) (0.00000852) (0.00000567)
Constant -1.085*** -4.236*** -0.646*** -1.001** -0.0340
-3.890*** -3.495*** -0.843* -3.830***
(0.143) (0.228) (0.113) (0.380) (0.0800) (0.212) (0.221) (0.385)
(0.196)
Number of observations (country
years) 16053 12224 7114 5014 8939 7210 11998 4804 7194
R2 0.213 0.218 0.107 0.071 0.093 0.139 0.314 0.126 0.287
adj. R2 0.193 0.195 0.075 0.034 0.069 0.112 0.294 0.090
0.265
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p < 0.001
-
34
Table 5A: Suffrage, legislative constraints and bureaucratic
quality with Bilinski data on male suffrage
(1) (2) (3)
The whole
period Prior to 1946 After 1945
Legislative constraints t-1 2.099*** 1.619*** 1.672***
(0.0540) (0.0893) (0.0639)
Suffrage % change (depreciated)
(Biliniski) t-1 0.00000929** 0.0000180** -0.00000187
(0.00000340) (0.00000602) (0.00000376)
Suffrage % change (depreciated)
(Biliniski) t-1* Legislative
constraints t-1
-0.0000311*** -0.0000815*** 0.0000673***
(0.00000698) (0.0000134) (0.00000817)
Log (economic development)t-1 0.389*** -0.0623 0.429***
(0.0217) (0.0536) (0.0235)
Constant -3.756*** -0.425 -3.790***
(0.229) (0.396) (0.189)
Number of observations (country
years) 11569 4449 7120
R2 0.347 0.150 0.336
adj. R2 0.326 0.112 0.315
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. Year dummies and fixed
country effects included in all models. * p < 0.05, ** p <
0.01, *** p < 0.001