Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T00:17:06.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which Elections Can Be Lost?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Susan D. Hyde  and
Nikolay Marinov
Susan D. Hyde*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520. e-mail: nikolay.marinov@yale.edu
Nikolay Marinov
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520. e-mail: nikolay.marinov@yale.edu
*
e-mail: susan.hyde@yale.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The concept of electoral competition is relevant to a variety of research agendas in political science, yet the question of how to measure electoral competition has received little direct attention. We revisit the distinction proposed by Giovanni Sartori between competition as a structure or rule of the game and competitiveness as an outcome of that game and argue that to understand which elections can be lost (and therefore when parties and leaders are potentially threatened by electoral accountability), scholars may be better off considering the full range of elections where competition is allowed. We provide a data set of all national elections between 1945 and 2006 and a measure of whether each election event is structured such that the competition is possible. We outline the pitfalls of other measures used by scholars to define the potential for electoral competition and show that such methods can lead to biased or incomplete findings. The new global data on elections and the minimal conditions necessary for electoral competition are introduced, followed by an empirical illustration of the differences between the proposed measure of competition and existing methods used to infer the existence of competition.

Information

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , Spring 2012 , pp. 191 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Edited by Vera Troeger

Authors' note: We thank the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, and the Jackson Institute at Yale University for generous support of this project. For helpful comments on previous drafts, we thank Sarah Bush, Marc Howard, Alex Kuo, Patrick Kuhn, Ellen Lust, Irfan Nooruddin, Angela O'Mahony, Kennedy Opalo, Philip Roessler, Nils Weidmann, seminar participants at the College of William & Mary, participants at the 2010 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Conference, the 2011 American Political Science Association, and attendees at the Juan March Institute's 2011 Conference on Electoral Fraud, Vote Buying, and Clientelism. Our gratitude goes to our team of excellent research assistants: Spencer Allee, William Brien, Faizan Diwan, Michael Fan, Josiane Gabel, Martha Grant, Michael Haycock, Allison Hugi, Shazan Jiwa, Bryce Kaufman, Adam Kinnon, Marianna Lanzas Goded, Vanessa Murphy, Ja-Mei Or, Jane Park, Ajla Porca, Karen Porter, Steven Rosenzweig, Gordon Siu, Mary Swartz, Peter Swartz, Rey-Hanna Vakili, Jared Webber, Jerome Wei, Lucas Wozny, Miaoting Wu, and Jiaona Zhang.

References

Beaulieu, Emily. 2006. Protesting the contest: Election boycotts around the world, 1990-2002. PhD diss., Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Beck, Thorsten. 2001. New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review 15: 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilinski, Adam. 2010. Measuring basic characteristics of political regimes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 22-25.Google Scholar
Block, Steven A., Ferree, Karen E., and Singh, Smita. 2003. Multiparty competition, founding elections and political business cycles in Africa. Journal of African Economics 12: 444–68.Google Scholar
Brownlee, Jason. 2009. Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science 53: 515–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, Valerie, and Wolchik, Sharon. 2010. Defeating dictators: electoral change and stability in competitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics 62: 43–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James. 2010. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice 143: 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 2002. Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy 13: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the world country ratings, 1972-73 through 2007. http://freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/FHSCORES.xls.Google Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Przeworski, Adam. 2009. Holding onto power by any means? The origins of competitive elections. Mimeo, Emory University, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Ward, Michael D. 1999. A revised list of independent states since the congress of vienna. International Interactions 25: 393–413.Google Scholar
Greene, Kenneth. 2007. Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hadenius, Axel, and Teorell, Jan. 2007. Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18: 143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegre, Håvard. 2001. Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816-1992. American Political Science Review 95: 33–48.Google Scholar
Hermet, Guy, Rose, Richard, and Rouquie, Alain. 1978. Elections without choice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Herrera, Yoshiko M., and Kapur, Devesh. 2007. Improving data quality: actors, incentives, and capabilities. Political Analysis 15: 365–86.Google Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Rosendorff, Peter, and Raymond Vreeland, James. Forthcoming 2011. Democracy and transparency. Journal of Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Marc, and Roessler, Philip. 2006. Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science 50: 365–81.Google Scholar
Hyde, Susan D., and Marniov, Nikolay. 2011. Replication data for: Which elections can be lost? ISQ Dataverse Network (Distributor), V1, Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/16678.Google Scholar
Jensen, Nathan M. 2003. Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International Organization 57: 587–616.Google Scholar
Keefer, Philip. 2007. Elections, special interests, and financial crisis. International Organization 61: 607–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenyon, Thomas, and Naoi, Megumi. 2008. Democracy as a latent variable. American Journal of Political Science 52: 201–17.Google Scholar
Kenyon, Thomas, and Naoi, Megumi. 2010. Policy uncertainty in hybrid regimes: Evidence from firm-level surveys. Comparative Political Studies 43: 486–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44: 347–61.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A. 2002. The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 13: 51–65.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A. 2005. Ties that bind? Leverage, linkage, and democratization in the post Cold War World. International Studies Review 7: 519–24.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism: International linkage, organizational power, and the fate of hybrid regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindberg, Staffan. 2006a. Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lindberg, Staffan. 2006b. Tragic protest: Why do opposition parties boycott elections? In Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition, ed. Schedler, Andreas, 149–63. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edward, and Snyder, Jack. 2002. Democratic transitions, institutional strength, and war. International Organization 56: 297–337.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty, and Jaggers, Keith. 2007. Polity IV project. Integrated Network for Societal Conflict Research (INSCR) Program. Center for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of Maryland, College Park. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo, and Verkuilen, Jay. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies 35: 5–34.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter. 2005. Elections in the Americas: A data handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter, Grotz, Florian, and Hartmann, Christof. 2001. Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A data handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter, Krennerich, Michael, and Thibaut, Bernhard. 1999. Elections in Africa: A data handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, Jose, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the World, 1950-1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Regan, Patrick, and Clark, Dave. 2007. The institutions and elections project. Binghampton: State University of New York. http://www2.binghamton.edu/political-science/institutions-and-elections-project.html.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2002. Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy 13: 36–50.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2006. Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Simpser, Alberto. 2005. More than Winning: The Strategic Logic of Electoral Manipulation. Book Manuscript, Chicago University.Google Scholar
Staar, Richard. 1958. Elections in Communist Poland. Midwest Journal of Political Science 2: 200–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teorell, Jan, Holmberg, Sören, and Rothstein, Bo. 2008. The Quality of Government Dataset, version 15 May 2008. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. http://www.qog.pol.gu.se.Google Scholar
Vreeland, James Raymond. 2008. The effect of political regime on civil war: Unpacking anocracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52: 401–25.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 2008. How authoritarian time horizons impact foreign aid effectiveness. Comparative Political Studies 41: 971–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hyde and Marinov supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1

Download Hyde and Marinov supplementary material(File)
File 39.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Hyde and Marinov supplementary material

Supplementary Material 2

Download Hyde and Marinov supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 200.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Hyde and Marinov supplementary material

Supplementary Material 3

Download Hyde and Marinov supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 88.9 KB