Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paths to Independence and Democracy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
State-Formation and Democratization

Part of the book series: Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century ((CDC))

  • 273 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter aims to obtain empirical understanding of the connection between paths to independence and the democratization of the initial regime, i.e., the set of political institutions that constitutes the political regime at the time of independence. The conventional perspective on democratization claims that democratic transitions replace autocratic regimes with democratic regimes, which Denk and Lehtinen challenge by claiming that state formation may establish a democratic regime. Empirical analyses indicate that the paths to independence correlate with the democratization of initial regimes. The probability of democracy tends to decrease with violent paths, but increase with consensus paths, and even more so with contentious paths. Furthermore, prediction analyses indicate that how and where state formation creates new states offer options to predict the democratization of initial regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achen, C. (2002). Toward a New Political Methodology: Microfoundations and Art. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 423–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 762–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F., & Przeworski, A. (1996). Classifying Political Regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31(2), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, D., Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2014). The State-Democracy Nexus: Conceptual Distinctions, Theoretical Perspectives, and Comparative Approaches. Democratization, 21(5), 1203–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J. (1999). Determinants of Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), 158–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix, C. (2011). Democracy, Development, and the International System. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 809–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boix, C., Miller, M., & Rosato, S. (2013). A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1523–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. (1998). Democracy and Secession. In M. Moore (Ed.), National Self-Determination and Secession (pp. 14–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Explanation to Justification (Vol. 2). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2010). Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice, 143(2), 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clague, C., Gleason, S., & Knack, S. (2001). Determinants of Lasting Democracy in Poor Countries: Culture, Development, and Institutions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 573(1), 16–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2016). Measuring High-Level Democratic Principles Using the V-Dem Data. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 580–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronqvist, L., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (2009). Multi-value QCA (mvQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques (pp. 69–86). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and It’s Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1990). After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denk, T., & Lehtinen, S. (2016). Two Modes of Democratization: Transition and State-Formation. Quality & Quantity, 50(6), 2331–2346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRouen, K. R., & Sobek, D. (2004). The Dynamics of Civil War Duration and Outcome. Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Towards Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1965). A System Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1990). The Analysis of Political Structure. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabry, M. (2010). Recognizing States: International Society & the Establishment of New States Since 1976. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fortna, V. P., & Huang, R. (2012). Democratization after Civil War: A Brush-Clearing Exercise. International Studies Quarterly, 56(4), 801–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. (2016). Freedom in the World 2016. New York: Freedom House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, R. D. (1990). The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. Studies of Comparative International Development, 25(1), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, G. (2002). Democracy and Post-Communism: Political Change in the Post-Communist World. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. (1999). A Revised List of Independent States Since the Congress of Vienna. International Interactions, 25(4), 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, J. A., Bates, R. H., Epstein, D. L., Gurr, T. R., Lustik, M. B., Marshall, M. G., et al. (2010). A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 190–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurses, M., & Mason, T. D. (2008). Democracy Out of Anarchy: The Prospects for Post-Civil-War Democracy. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2005). Assessing Alternatives Indices of Democracy (Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series). International Political Science Association (IPSA). Mexico City: Committee on Concepts and Methods.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell, C. A., & Hoddie, M. (2003). Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 318–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (1995). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2016). The State: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, M. (2010). Post-Civil War Democratization: Promotion of Democracy in Post-Civil War States, 1946–2005. Democratization, 17(5), 826–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl, T. L. (1990). Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl, T. L., & Schmitter, P. C. (1991). Modes of Transition in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe. International Social Science Journal, 128(2), 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, S. (2014). Demokratins förutsättningar vid staters självständighet. En studie om politiska regimer i nybildade stater. Åbo: Åbo Akademis förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, S. (2017). Determinants of Initial Regimes: Comparative Analyses of the Conditions for Democratisation at the Time of Independence. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichlider, R. (1995). The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945–1933. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 681–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J. J. (2007). Some Thoughts on the Victory and Future of Democracy. In D. Berg-Schlosser (Ed.), Democratization: The State of the Art (pp. 133–153). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publicers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T., & Jaggers, K. (2017). Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1900–2016. Dataset User’s Manual. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2016.pdf.

  • Mason, D., & Fett, P. (1996). How Civil Wars End: A Rational Choice Approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4), 546–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, D. T., Weingarten, J. P., & Fett, P. J. (1999). Win, Lose, or Draw: Predicting the Outcome of Civil Wars. Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 239–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzuca, S., & Munck, G. L. (2014). State or Democracy First? Alternative Perspectives on the State-Democracy Nexus. Democratization, 21(7), 1221–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1998). Introduction. In M. Moore (Ed.), National Self-Determination and Secession (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring Democracy: A Bridge Between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munck, G. L., & Leffner, C. S. (1997). Modes of Transition and Democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics, 29(3), 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, G., & Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pevehouse, J. (2005). Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poggi, G. (1990). The State: Its Nature. Development and Prospects. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, N., & Booth, J. A. (2008). Determinants of Regime Type in Newly Independent States. European Journal of Political Research, 47(5), 635–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, M. (1998). When States Divide. In M. Spencer (Ed.), Separatism: Democracy and Disintegration (pp. 7–41). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taagepera, R. (2008). Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teorell, J. (2010). Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tikuisis, P., Carment, D., & Samy, Y. (2012). Prediction of Intrastate Conflict Using State Structural Factors and Events Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(3), 410–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (1992). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wejnert, B. (2014). Diffusion of Democracy: The Past and Future of Global Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, C. H. (2005). A Theory of Secession: The Case of Political Self-Determination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Thomas Denk

  2. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sarah Lehtinen

Authors
  1. Thomas Denk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Lehtinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Denk .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Denk, T., Lehtinen, S. (2019). Paths to Independence and Democracy. In: State-Formation and Democratization. Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91749-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation