The responsiveness of policy to election results is a central component of democracy. Do the outcomes of autocratic elections also affect policy choice? Even when the threat of turnover is low, I argue that autocratic elections influence policy by allowing citizens to signal dissatisfaction with the regime. Supplementing existing work, this study explains how this opposition is communicated credibly and then shows that ruling parties use this information to calibrate policy concessions. In the first cross-country analysis of autocratic election outcomes and policy choice, I find that negative electoral shocks to ruling parties predict increases in education and social welfare spending and decreases in military spending following elections. In contrast, there is no policy effect leading up to elections, in response to violent contestation, or in resource-rich regimes, illustrating a potential mechanism for the resource curse.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AmesB. (1970). Bases of support for Mexico’s dominant party. American Political Science Review, 64, 153-167.
3.
BeckN.KatzJ. N. (1995). What to do (and no to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634-647.
4.
BeckT.ClarkeG.GroffA.KeeferP.WalshP. (2001). New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review, 15, 165-176.
5.
BlaydesL. (2011). Elections and distributive politics in Mubarak’s Egypt. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BohlkenA. T. (2010). Coups, elections and the predatory state. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 22, 169-215.
7.
BoixC.SvolikM. (2013). The foundations of limited authoritarian government: Institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships. Journal of Politics, 75, 300-316.
8.
BrownD.HunterW. (1999). Democracy and social spending in Latin America, 1980–92. American Political Science Review, 93, 779-790.
9.
BrownleeJ. (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrownleeJ. (2009). Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 515-532.
11.
Bueno de MesquitaB.RootH. L. (2000). When bad economics is good politics. In Bueno de MesquitaB.RootH. L. (Eds.), Governing for prosperity (pp. 1-16). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Bueno de MesquitaB.SmithA. (2009). Political survival and endogenous institutional change. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 167-197.
13.
Bueno de MesquitaB.SmithA.SiversonR. M.MorrowJ. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
CarothersT. (1999). Aiding democracy abroad: The learning curve. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
15.
CaseW. (2006). Manipulative skills: How do rulers control the electoral arena? In SchedlerA. (Ed.), Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition (pp. 95-112). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
16.
CongletonR. D. (2001). On the durability of king and council: The continuum between dictatorship and democracy. Constitutional Political Economy, 12, 193-215.
17.
ConradC. R. (2011). Constrained concessions: Beneficent dictatorial responses to the domestic political opposition. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 1167-1187.
18.
CoulonC. (1990). Senegal: The development and fragility of semidemocracy. In DiamondL.LinzJ.LipsetS. M. (Eds.), Politics in developing countries: Comparing experiences with democracy (pp. 411-448). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
19.
CoxG. W. (2009). Authoritarian elections and leadership succession, 1975–2004. In APSA 2009 Meeting, Toronto. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1449034.
20.
CrawfordP. V.SobelJ. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50, 1431-1451.
21.
De BoefS.KeeleL. (2008). Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 184-200.
22.
DesaiR. M.OlofsgårdA.YousefT. M. (2009). The logic of authoritarian bargains. Economics & Politics, 21, 93-125.
23.
DiamondL. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21-35.
24.
EasterlyW. R. (2001). The lost decades: Developing countries’ stagnation in spite of policy reform, 1980–1998. Journal of Economic Growth, 6, 135-157.
25.
EgorovG.GurievS.SoninK. (2009). Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: A theory and evidence from panel data. American Political Science Review, 103, 645-668.
26.
EisenstadtT. A. (2004). Courting democracy in Mexico: Party strategies and electoral institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
FearonJ. D. (2011). Self-enforcing democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1661-1708.
28.
FoltzW. J. (1973). Political opposition in single-party states of tropical Africa. In DahlR. A. (Ed.), Regimes and oppositions (pp. 143-170). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
GandhiJ. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GandhiJ.Lust-OkarE. (2009). Elections under authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 403-422.
31.
GandhiJ.PrzeworskiA. (2006). Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Economics & Politics, 18, 1-26.
32.
GeddesB. (2006). Why parties and elections in authoritarian regimes? In the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC.
33.
GleditschK. S. (2002). Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 712-724.
34.
GleditschN. P.WallensteenP.ErikssonM.SollenbergM.StrandH. (2002). Armed conflict, 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 615-637.
35.
GoemansH. E.GleditschK. S.ChiozzaG. (2009). Introducing Archigos: A dataset of political leaders. Journal of Peace Research, 46, 269-283.
36.
GreeneK. F. (2007). Why dominant parties lose: Mexico’s democratization in comparative perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
GreeneK. F. (2010). The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 807-834.
38.
HaberS.MenaldoV. (2011). Do natural resources fuel authoritarianism? A reappraisal of the resource curse. American Political Science Review, 105, 1-26.
39.
HadeniusA.TeorellJ. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18(1), 143-156.
40.
HaggardS.KaufmanR. R. (2008). Development, democracy, and welfare states: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
HanklaC. R.KuthyD. (2013). Economic liberalism in illiberal regimes: Authoritarian variation and the political economy of trade. International Studies Quarterly, 57, 492-504.
42.
HecockR. D. (2006). Electoral competition, globalization, and subnational education spending in Mexico, 1999–2004. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 950-961.
43.
HermetG.RoseR.RouquiéA. (Eds.). (1978). Elections without choice. New York, NY: John Wiley.
44.
HerronE. S. (2011). Measuring dissent in electoral authoritarian societies: Lessons from Azerbaijan’s 2008 presidential election and 2009 referendum. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1557-1583.
45.
HinnebuschR. A. (1985). Egyptian politics under Sadat: The post-populist development of an authoritarian-modernizing state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
HuntingtonS. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
HydeS. D.MarinovN. (2012). Which elections can be lost?Political Analysis, 20, 191-210.
48.
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2012). Voter turnout database, institute for democracy and electoral assistance. Retrieved from www.idea.int/vt/
49.
JensenN.WantchekonL. (2004). Resource wealth and political regimes in Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 816-841.
50.
KarklinsR. (1986). Soviet elections revisited: Voter abstention in noncompetitive voting. American Political Science Review, 80, 449-470.
51.
KeeferP. (2010). Database of political institutions: Changes and variable definitions. Washington, DC: Development Research Group, World Bank.
52.
LebovicJ. H. (2001). Spending priorities and democratic rule in Latin America. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 427-452.
53.
LeongH. K. (2000). The politics of policy-making in Singapore. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
LindbergS. I. (Ed.). (2009). Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
56.
LorentzenP. L. (2013). Regularizing rioting: Permitting public protest in an authoritarian regime. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8, 127-158.
57.
Lust-OkarE. (2006). Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan. Democratization, 13, 456-471.
58.
MagaloniB. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
MagaloniB.KricheliR. (2010). Political order and one-party rule. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 123-143.
60.
MaleskyE.SchulerP. (2010). Nodding or needling: Analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament. American Political Science Review, 104, 482-502.
61.
MaleskyE.SchulerP. (2011). The single-party dictator’s dilemma: Information in elections without opposition. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36, 491-530.
62.
MarshallM. G.JaggersK. (2010). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2009. Fairfax, VA: Center for Systemic Peace, George Mason University.
63.
MauzyD. K.MilneR. S. (2002). Singapore politics under the people’s action party. London, England: Routledge.
64.
MillerM. K. (2013a). Democratic pieces: Autocratic elections and democratic development since 1815. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication.
65.
MillerM. K. (2013b). Electoral authoritarianism and human development. In APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper; American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2303574
66.
MutalibH. (2003). Parties and politics: A study of opposition parties and the PAP in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Pop-ElechesG.RobertsonG. B. (2009). Elections, information and liberalization in the post-cold war era (Unpublished manuscript). Princeton University, Princeton, NJ; the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
69.
PravdaA. (1978). Elections in communist party systems. In HermetG.RoseR.RouquiéA. (Eds.), Elections without choice (pp. 169-195). New York, NY: John Wiley.
70.
RossM. L. (1999). The political economy of the resource curse. World Politics, 51, 297-322.
71.
RossM. L. (2001). Does oil hinder democracy?World Politics, 53, 325-361.
SchedlerA. (2002). The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 37-50.
74.
SchedlerA. (Ed.). (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
75.
SchedlerA. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
76.
SchmitterP. C. (1978). The impact and meaning of “non-competitive, non-free and insignificant” elections in authoritarian Portugal, 1933–74. In HermetG.RoseR.RouquiéA. (Eds.), Elections without choice (pp. 145-168). New York, NY: John Wiley.
77.
SimpserA. (2013). Why governments and parties manipulate elections: Theory, practice and implications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
78.
StasavageD. (2005). Democracy and education spending in Africa. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 343-358.
79.
SvolikM. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
WangC.-S.KurzmanC. (2007). Logistics: How to buy votes. In SchafferF. C. (Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying (pp. 61-79). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
83.
WaterburyJ. (1983). The Egypt of Nasser and Sadat: The political economy of two regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84.
WintrobeR. (1998). The political economy of dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
World Bank. (2011). Statistics retrieved 2012, from World Development Indicators Online (WDI). Retrieved from www.worldbank.org/data
86.
WorthingtonR. (2003). Governance in Singapore. London, England: Routledge.
87.
YeoL. H. (2002). Electoral politics in Singapore. In CroissantA.JohnM. (Eds.), Electoral politics in Southeast and East Asia (pp. 203-232). Singapore: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
88.
ZeldinT. (1958). The political system of Napoleon III. London, England: MacMillan.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
