Barbara Geddes

Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set

When the leader of an autocratic regime loses power, one of three things happens. The incumbent leadership group is replaced by democratically elected leaders. Someone from the incumbent leadership group replaces him, and the regime persists. Or the incumbent leadership group loses control to a different group that replaces it with a new autocracy. Much scholarship exists on the first kind of transition, but little on transitions from one autocracy to another, though they make up about half of all regime changes. We introduce a new data set that facilitates the investigation of all three kinds of transition. It provides transition information for the 280 autocratic regimes in existence from 1946 to 2010. The data identify how regimes exit power, how much violence occurs during transitions, and whether the regimes that precede and succeed them are autocratic. We explain the data set and show how it differs from currently available data. The new data identify autocratic regime breakdowns regardless of whether the country democratizes, which makes possible the investigation of why the ouster of dictators sometimes leads to democracy but often does not, and many other questions. We present a number of examples to highlight how the new data can be used to explore questions about why dictators start wars and why autocratic breakdown sometimes results in the establishment of a new autocratic regime rather than democratization. We discuss the implications of these findings for the Arab Spring.

A Comparative Perspective on the Leninist Legacy in Eastern Europe

This study begins with a comparison between post-Communist and other postauthoritarian party systems, demonstrating the greater importance of new parties in the formerly Leninist systems. It then discusses the effect on new parties of the weakness of prior interest group organization and sudden, as opposed to incremental, increases in political participation. The third section focuses on the institutional consequences of the differences noted in the first and second sections. It demonstrates the strong relationship between the interests of leaders of new parties and the kinds of democratic institutions created during transitions from authoritarianism. The study concludes with some speculations about the probable longer term effects of the distinctive features of the Leninist legacy.

Institutional sources of corruption in Brazil

(1992). Institutional sources of corruption in Brazil. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 641-661.

Oil and Autocratic Regime Survival

This article uncovers a new mechanism linking oil wealth to autocratic regime survival: the investigation tests whether increases in oil wealth improve the survival of autocracies by lowering the chances of democratization, reducing the risk of transition to subsequent dictatorship, or both. Using a new measure of autocratic durability shows that, once models allow for unit effects, oil wealth promotes autocratic survival by lowering the risk of ouster by rival autocratic groups. Evidence also indicates that oil income increases military spending in dictatorships, which suggests that increasing oil wealth may deter coups that could have caused a regime collapse.

Are coups good for democracy

A number of recent studies argue that coups can help usher in democracy. We examine this relationship empirically by looking at the political regimes that follow coups in autocracies, as well as the level of repression against citizens. We find that, though democracies are occasionally established in the wake of coups, more often new authoritarian regimes emerge, along with higher levels of state-sanctioned violence.

O quê sabemos sobre democratização depois de vinte anos

This essay synthesizes the results of the large number of studies of late 20th-century democratization published during the last 20 years. Strong evidence supports the claims that democracy is more likely in more developed countries and that regime transitions of all kinds are more likely during economic downturns. Very few of the other arguments advanced in the transitions literature, however, appear to be generally true. This study proposes a theoretical model, rooted in characteristics of different types of authoritarian regimes, to explain many of the differences in democratization experience across cases in different regions. Evidence drawn from a data set that includes 163 authoritarian regimes offers preliminary support for the model proposed.

Are coups good for democracy? A response to Miller (2016)

This article responds to “Reanalysis: Are coups good for democracy?” (Miller MK (2016) Reanalysis: Are coups good for democracy? Research and Politics 3(4): ) We make clear to readers that Miller (2016) re-reports findings that we originally reported in the Appendix to our original article. We then discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different estimators and re-state Miller’s main point with a visual presentation of how regime-case and country fixed effects estimators differ in this application.