Susan D. Hyde

In the Shadow of Democracy Promotion Strategic Manipulation, International Observers, and Election Boycotts

International efforts to promote democracy can have unanticipated effects. International election observation is perceived to increase domestic confidence in the electoral process and reduce fraud. Conversely, election boycotts are perceived to be more likely as electoral fairness decreases. The authors document a puzzling relationship between monitored elections and opposition party boycotts: Observers are associated with an increased boycott probability. They argue that international benefits for democratic elections give electoral autocrats the incentive to invite international observers and manipulate elections to minimize international criticism. This increase in “strategic manipulation” has led to changed incentives for opposition political parties, which have the most to lose from a manipulated but internationally certified election. Consequently, international monitors increase boycott probability. The authors support this explanation with an original data set of elections, boycotts, and international observers (1990 to 2002).

International Scrutiny and Pre-Electoral Fiscal Manipulation in Developing Countries

Pre-electoral fiscal manipulation—spending more or taxing less prior to an election—is an important tool that governments possess to enhance their chances for reelection. Existing explanations of pre-electoral fiscal manipulation focus primarily on domestic characteristics. We extend this line of inquiry by examining international influences on governments’ decisions to engage in pre-electoral fiscal manipulation. We find that international scrutiny of the economy and international scrutiny of elections affect pre-electoral fiscal manipulation in cross-cutting ways. Using data from 1990 to 2004 for 94 developing countries, we show that pre-electoral fiscal manipulation is more likely when international election monitors make direct election manipulation more difficult, and it is less likely when governments are subject to international economic scrutiny resulting from an IMF agreement.

Experimenting in Democracy Promotion: International Observers and the 2004 Presidential Elections in Indonesia

Randomized field experiments have gained attention within the social sciences and the field of democracy promotion as an influential tool for causal inference and a potentially powerful method of impact evaluation. With an eye toward facilitating field experimentation in democracy promotion, I present the first field-experimental study of international election monitoring, which should be of interest to both practitioners and academics. I discuss field experiments as a promising method for evaluating the effects of democracy assistance programs. Applied to the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia, the random assignment of international election observers reveals that even though the election was widely regarded as democratic, the presence of observers had a measurable effect on votes cast for the incumbent candidate, indicating that such democracy assistance can influence election quality even in the absence of blatant election-day fraud.

The Future of Field Experiments in International Relations

Can international relations (IR) be studied productively with field experimental methods? The two most common existing empirical approaches in IR rely on cross-national data, detailed case studies, or a combination of the two. One as yet uncommon approach is the use of randomized field experiments to evaluate causal hypotheses. Applying such methods within IR complements other theoretical, case study, and observational research, and permits a productive research agenda to be built by testing the micro-foundations of theories within IR. This argument is illustrated by exploring how field experimental methods could be applied to two existing areas: how international institutions facilitate cooperation, and whether international actors can promote democracy in sovereign states.