Studies of democratic diffusion often emphasize geographic proximity: democratization in a country or region makes democratization nearby more likely. We argue that regime type has been underappreciated; authoritarian breakdown and democratization often diffuse along networks of similar regimes. A regime’s type affects its vulnerability to popular challenge, and regime similarity increases the likelihood that protest strategies developed against one regime are effective against similar regimes. We employ a qualitative case study from China to generate our theory, then test it quantitatively and with out-of-sample cases. We find that regime similarity strongly predicts autocratic breakdown and democratic diffusion, making both outcomes more likely. Including regime similarity significantly reduces the effect of geographic proximity, although geographic proximity may increase the effect of regime similarity. Reinterpreting democratic diffusion as a regime-type phenomenon calls for revision to conventional wisdom on the role of international factors in authoritarian breakdown and democratization.
AhlquistJ. S.WibbelsE. (2012). Riding the wave: World trade and factor-based models of democratization. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 447-464.
AmbrosioT. (2009). Authoritarian backlash: Russian resistance to democratization in the former Soviet Union. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
4.
AnglinD. G. (1990). Southern African responses to Eastern European developments. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 28, 431-455.
5.
BamertJ.GilardiF.WasserfallenF. (2015). Learning and the diffusion of regime contention in the Arab Spring. Research & Politics, 2(3). doi:10.1177/2053168015593306
6.
BaranyZ. (2011). Comparing the Arab revolts: The role of the military. Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 27-39.
7.
BeckN.GleditschK. S.BeardsleyK. (2006). Space is more than geography: Using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 27-44.
8.
BeissingerM. (2007). Structure and example in modular political phenomena: The diffusion of the Bulldozer/Rose/Orange/Tulip Revolutions. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 259-276.
9.
BrancatiD.LucardiA. (2019). Why democracy protests do not diffuse. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63, 2354-2389. doi:10.1177/0022002718815957
10.
BrinksD.CoppedgeM. (2006). Diffusion is no illusion: Neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 463-489.
11.
BrownleeJ. (2009). Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 515-532.
12.
BrownleeJ.MasoudT.ReynoldsA. (2015). The Arab Spring: The politics of transformation in North Africa and the Middle East. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
Bueno de MesquitaB.SmithA.SiversonR. M.MorrowJ. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
BunceV. (1999). Subversive institutions: The design and destruction of socialism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BunceV.WolchikS. (2006). International diffusion and post-communist electoral revolutions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39, 283-304.
16.
BunceV.WolchikS. (2011). Defeating authoritarian leaders in post-communist countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
BunceV. J.WolchikS. (2013). Bringing down dictators: Waves of democratic change in communist and post-communist Europe and Asia. In DimitrovM. K. (Ed.), Why communism did not collapse: Understanding authoritarian regime resilience in Asia and Europe (pp. 123-148). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
CaoX. (2010). Networks as channels of policy diffusion: Explaining worldwide changes in capital taxation, 1998–2006. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 823-854.
CharronN.LapuenteV. (2011). Which dictators produce quality of government?Studies in Comparative International Development, 46, 397-423.
21.
CsordásS.LudwigM. (2011). An empirical investigation of the determinants of democracy: Trade, aid and the neighbor effect. Economics Letter, 110, 235-237.
22.
DannemanN.RitterE. H. (2014). Contagious rebellion and preemptive repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58, 254-279.
23.
DecaloS. (1992). The process, prospects and constraints of democratization in Africa. African Affairs, 91(362), 7-35.
24.
della PortaD. (2014). Mobilizing for democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
DiamondL. (2010). Why are there no Arab democracies?Journal of Democracy, 21, 93-104.
26.
DimitrovM. K. Ed. (2013). Why communism did not collapse: Understanding authoritarian regime resilience in Asia and Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
DonnoD. (2013). Elections and democratization in authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 703-716.
28.
DoorenspleetR. (2004). The structural context of recent transitions to democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 309-335.
29.
ElkinsZ.GuzmanA. T.SimmonsB. A. (2006). Competing for capital: The diffusion of bilateral investment treaties, 1960-2000. International Organization, 60, 811-846.
30.
FortunatoD.SwiftC.WilliamsL. (2018). All economics is local: Spatial aggregations of economic information. Political Science and Research Methods, 6, 467-487.
31.
FranzeseR.HaysJ. C. (2007). Spatial econometric models of cross-sectional interdependence in political science panel and time-series-cross-section data. Political Analysis, 15, 140-164.
32.
FranzeseR.HaysJ. C. (2008). Interdependence in comparative politics, substance, theory, empirics, substance. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 742-780.
GeddesB. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115-144.
35.
GeddesB.WrightJ.FrantzE. (2014). Autocratic regimes and transitions. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 313-331.
36.
GerringJ. (2011). The case study: What it is and what it does. In GoodinRobert E. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0051
37.
GleditschK. S.WardM. D. (2006). Diffusion and the international context of democratization. International Organization, 60, 911-933.
38.
GleditschN. P.WallensteenP.ErikssonM.SollenbergM.StrandH. (2002). Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 615-637.
39.
GreitensS. C. (2016). Dictators and their secret police: Coercive institutions and state violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2010). Time will tell? Temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1267-1297.
41.
GunitskyS. (2014). From shocks to waves: Hegemonic transitions and democratization in the twentieth century. International Organization, 68, 561-597.
42.
HadeniusA.TeorellJ. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18, 143-157.
43.
HaleH. E. (2013). Regime change cascades: What we have learned from the 1848 revolutions to the 2011 Arab uprisings. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 331-353.
44.
HeydemannS.LeendersR. (2011). Authoritarian learning and authoritarian resilience: Regime responses to the “Arab awakening.”Globalizations, 8, 647-653.
45.
HouleC. (2009). Inequality and democracy: Why inequality harms consolidation but does not affect democratization. World Politics, 61, 589-622.
46.
HouleC.KayserM. A.XiangJ. (2016). Diffusion or confusion? Clustered shocks and the conditional diffusion of democracy. International Organization, 70, 687-725.
47.
HuntingtonS. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
48.
JosephM.OhlD. (2018). Are coups really contagious? An extreme bounds analysis of political diffusion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62, 410-441.
49.
KhongY. (1992). Analogies at war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
KoeselK. (2014). Religion and authoritarianism: Cooperation, conflict, and the consequences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
KoeselK.BunceV. (2013). Diffusion proofing. Perspectives on Politics, 11, 753-768.
52.
KramerM. (2013). The dynamics of diffusion in the Soviet Bloc and the effect on regime survival. In DimitrovM. K. (Ed.), Why communism did not collapse: Understanding authoritarian regime resilience in Asia and Europe (pp. 149-181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
KuranT. (1991). Now out of never: The element of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989. World Politics, 44, 7-48.
54.
KwongJ. (1988). The 1986 student demonstrations in China: A democratic movement?Asian Survey, 28, 970-985.
55.
LaFreeG.XieM.MatanockA. M. (2018). The contagious diffusion of world-wide terrorism: Is it less common than we might think?Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 41, 261-280.
56.
LeeT. (2015). Defect or defend: Military responses to popular protests in authoritarian Asia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
57.
LeesonP. T.DeanA. M. (2009). The democratic domino theory: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 533-551.
58.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59.
LijphartA. (1990). The Southern European examples of democratization: Six lessons for Latin America. Government and Opposition, 25, 68-84.
60.
LipsetS. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69-105.
61.
LuoS. (1996). Some hot issues in our work on religion. In Qiushi [Seek truth] 5. Reprinted in China: State Control of Religion (pp. 65-70). New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
62.
LynchM.FreelonD.AdayS. (2014). Syria in the Arab Spring: The integration of Syria’s conflict with the Arab uprisings, 2011–13. Research & Politics, 1(3). doi:10.1177/2053168014549091
63.
MarshC. (2005). Unparalleled reforms: China’s rise, Russia’s fall, and the interdependence of transition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
64.
MarshC. (2011). Religion and the state in Russia and China: Suppression, survival, and revival. New York, NY: Continuum.
65.
MarshallM.JaggersK. (2005). Polity IV project: Dataset users’ manual. Arlington, VA: George Mason University.
66.
MattesM.RodriguezM. (2014). Autocracies and international cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 527-538.
67.
MenaldoV. (2012). The Middle East and North Africa’s resilient monarchs. Journal of Politics, 74, 707-722.
68.
MilesJ. (1996). The legacy of Tiananmen: China in disarray. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
69.
MillerM. K. (2017). The strategic origins of electoral authoritarianism. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000394
70.
NeumayerE.PlümperT. (2010). Spatial effects in dyadic data. International Organization, 64, 145-166.
71.
NeumayerE.PlümperT. (2016). W. Political Science Research and Methods, 4, 175-193.
72.
O’LoughlinJ.WardM. D.LofdahlC. L.CohenJ. S.BrownD. S.ReillyD.ShinM. (1998). The diffusion of democracy, 1946-1994. Annals of the Association of the American Geographers, 88, 545-574.
73.
PatelD.BunceV.WolchikS. (2014). Diffusion and demonstration. In LynchM. (Ed.), The Arab uprisings explained: New contentious politics in the Middle East (pp. 57-74). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
74.
PevehouseJ. C. (2002). Democracy from the outside-in? International organizations and democratization. International Organization, 56, 515-549.
75.
PiplaniV.TalmadgeC. (2016). When war helps civil–military relations: Prolonged interstate conflict and the reduced risk of coups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(8), 1-27.
76.
RogersE. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
77.
SaidemanS. M. (2012). When conflict spreads: Arab spring and the limits of diffusion. International Interactions, 38, 713-722.
78.
SarkeesM. R.WaymanF. (2010). Resort to war: 1816–2007. Washington DC: CQ Press.
79.
SarotteM. E. (2012). China’s fear of contagion: Tiananmen Square and the power of the European example. International Security, 37, 156-182.
80.
SaxonbergS. (2013). Transitions and non-transitions from communism: Regime survival in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
81.
ShambaughD. (2008). China’s Communist Party: Atrophy and adaptation. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
82.
SlaterD.WongJ. (2013). The strength to concede: Ruling parties and democratization in developmental Asia. Perspectives on Politics, 11, 717-733.
83.
StarrH. (1991). Democratic dominoes: Diffusion approaches to the spread of democracy in the international system. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 356-381.
StinnettD. M.TirJ.SchaferP.DiehlP. F.GochmanC. (2002). The correlates of war project direct contiguity data, Version 3. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 19, 58-66.
TanseyO.KoehlerK.SchmotzA. (2017). Ties to the rest: Autocratic linkages and regime survival. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 1221-1254.
88.
TeorellJ. (2010). Determinants of democratization: Explaining regime change in the world, 1972–2006. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89.
TolstrupJ. (2015). Black knights and elections in authoritarian regimes: Why and how Russia supports authoritarian incumbents in post-Soviet states. European Journal of Political Research, 54, 673-690.
90.
TriesmanD. (2015). Income, democracy, and leader turnover. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 927-942.
91.
UlfelderJ. (2005). Contentious collective action and the breakdown of authoritarian regimes. International Political Science Review, 26, 311-334.
92.
VegaS. H.ElhorstJ. P. (2015). The SLX model. Journal of Regional Science, 55, 339-363.
WeeksJ. (2012). Strongmen and straw men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review, 106, 326-347.
95.
WejnertB. (2005). Diffusion, development, and democracy, 1800-1999. American Sociological Review, 70, 53-81.
96.
WejnertB. (2014). Diffusion of democracy: The past and future of global democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
97.
WeylandK. (2014). Making waves: Democratic contention in Europe and Latin America since the revolutions of 1848. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
98.
WeylandK. (2016). Crafting counterrevolution: How reactionaries learned to combat change in 1848. American Political Science Review, 110, 215-231.
99.
WhiteheadL. (1996). Three international dimensions of democratization. In WhiteheadL. (Ed.), The international dimensions of democratization: Europe and the Americas (pp. 3-25). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
100.
WilliamsL.WhittenG. (2015). Don’t stand so close to me: Spatial contagion effects and party competition. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 309-325.
WrightJ. (2008). Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 322-343.
103.
WrightJ.Escriba-FolchA. (2012). Authoritarian institutions and regime survival: Transitions to democracy and subsequent autocracy. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 283-309.
104.
YangB. (1998). Deng: A political biography. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
105.
YomS. (2014). Authoritarian monarchies as an epistemic community. Journal of Democracy, 10(1), 43-62.
106.
YomS. L.GauseF. G.III (2012). Resilient royals: How Arab monarchies hang on. Journal of Democracy, 23(4), 74-88.
107.
YunY. (1993). Lengzhan ju wang yi, chongtu heshi xiu [Cold war goes, when does conflict end]. Dongnanya Yanjiu/Southeast Asian Studies, 12, 13-15.
108.
ZengQ. (1990). Dong-Ou tai Yazhou dai lai de jiyu he tiaozhan [Opportunities and challenges brought by Eastern Europe to Asia]. Dongnanya Yanjiu/Southeast Asian Studies, 1, 113-115.
109.
ZhukovY.StewartB. M. (2013). Choosing your neighbors. International Studies Quarterly, 57, 271-287.
110.
ZiblattD. (2006). How did Europe democratize?World Politics, 58, 311-338.
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.
