Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qzvq8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T06:10:02.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pathways of democratisation to human development in post‐communist countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2026

Andrea Cassani ,
Francesca Luppi  and
Gabriele Natalizia
Andrea Cassani*
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
Francesca Luppi
Affiliation:
Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics, Università Bocconi, Milan, Italy
Gabriele Natalizia
Affiliation:
Link Campus University, Rome, Italy
*
Address for correspondence: Andrea Cassani, Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali e Politiche, Università degli studi di Milano, Via Conservatorio 7, 20122 Milan, Italy. E‐mail: andrea.cassani@unimi.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article investigates the consequences of post‐Cold War regime transitions on human development in the former Soviet bloc. Relying on a mixed‐methods research strategy that combines econometric and qualitative comparative analysis, it proceeds through three consecutive steps. First, there is a discussion of how democratic institutions may solicit governments’ attention toward social issues. Second, the relationship between democratisation and human development in 21 post‐communist countries is tested. Third, democracy in its core attributes is unpacked, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is used to identify a few alternative institutional configurations favouring human development. The analysis reveals that not only full democracies, but also some hybrid regimes, have been successful in this task.

Keywords

democratisationhuman developmenthybrid regimespost‐communist countriesmixed‐methods

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , August 2016 , pp. 512 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baumgartner, M. & Thiem, A. (2015). When There is More Than Meets the Eye: Model Ambiguities in Configurational Comparative Research. Paper presented at the QCA: Social Science Applications and Methodological Challenges conference, Tilburg, 14–16 January.Google Scholar
Beck, N. & Katz, J. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time‐series cross‐section data in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 89(3): 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. & Hunter, W. (1999). Democracy and social spending in Latin America, 1980–92. American Political Science Review 93(4): 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B. et al. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbone, G. (2009). The consequences of democratization. Journal of Democracy 20(2): 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, L. (2007). Postcommunist welfare states: Reform politics in Russia and Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, L. & Morlino, L. (2004). Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fiss, P.C., Sharapov, D. & Cronqvist, L. (2013). Opposites attract? Opportunities and challenges for integrating large‐N QCA and econometric analysis. Political Research Quarterly 66(1): 191–235.Google Scholar
Gel'man, V. (2010). Post‐Soviet transitions and democratization: Toward theory building. Democratization 10(2): 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabbe, H. (2002). European Union conditionality and the acquis communautaire. International Political Science Review 23(4): 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, S., Hoff, K. & Milanovic, B. (2009). Government turnover: Concepts, measures and applications. European Journal of Political Research 48(1): 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democratization: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, R. & Hardt, J. (1993). The former Soviet Union in transition. New York: Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States.Google Scholar
Kontorovich, V. (2001). The Russian health crisis and the economy. Communist and Post‐Communist Studies 34(2): 221–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kudamatsu, M. (2012). Has democratization reduced infant mortality in sub‐Saharan Africa? Evidence from micro data. Journal of the European Economic Association 10(6): 1294–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, D. & Baum, M. (2001). The invisible hand of democracy: Political control and the provision of public services. Comparative Political Studies 34(6): 587–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, E.S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed‐method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99(3): 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFaul, M. (2002). The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: Non‐cooperative transitions in the post‐communist world. World Politics 54(2): 212–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, A. & Richard, S. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy 89(5): 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. (2015). Elections, information and policy responsiveness in autocratic regimes. Comparative Political Studies 35(1): 5–34.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2012). Making democratic governance work: How regimes shape prosperity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novotny, V. (2013). From reform to growth: Managing the economic crisis in Europe. Brussels: Eburon.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. (2009). The consolidation of democracy: Comparing Europe and Latin America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set‐theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thiem, A., Baumgartner, M. & Bol, D. (2016). Still lost in translation! A correction of three misunderstandings between configurational comparativists and regressional analysts. Comparative Political Studies 49: 742–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (1990). The UNDP human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Way, L. & Levitsky, S. (2006). Pigs, Wolves and the Evolution of Post‐Soviet Competitive Authoritarianism, 1992–2005. CDDRL Working Paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cassani et al. supplementary material

Appendix A-D
Download Cassani et al. supplementary material(File)
File 29.9 KB