In this article we introduce an updated version of the Partisan Electoral Intervention by Great-powers (PEIG) dataset, which collects data on situations where a foreign power tries to determine the election results in another country. This version expands the temporal coverage of PEIG into much of the Post-Cold War era and checks for possible unconfirmed or undetected cases in the period covered by PEIG 1.0, leading to an expanded PEIG 2.0 dataset with a 25.5% increase in temporal coverage and a 37.4% increase in the overall number of electoral intervention cases. After describing the PEIG dataset update process, we describe the patterns of electoral interventions in the Post-Cold War era in comparison with the Cold War era. We then examine the possibility of shifts in their effects in the Post-Cold War era by replicating one key result using the previous version of PEIG, finding no such effect.
AndrewCMitrokhinV (1999) The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. New York: Basic Books.
2.
BergerDEasterlyWNunnN, et al. (2013) Commercial imperialism? Political influence and trade during the Cold War.American Economic Review103(2): 863–896.
3.
BlumW (2005) Rogue State. Monroe: Common Courage Press.
4.
BordeleauJ-NGarnettHA (2024) Does the framing of information regarding foreign election interference matter? Evidence from a survey experiment in Canada. Election Law Journal23(1): 39–54.
5.
BoxellLGentzkowMShapiroJ (2018) A note on internet use and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election outcome.PLoS ONE13(7): e0199571.
6.
BubeckJJägerKMarinovN, et al. (2022) Why do states intervene in the elections of others? The role of incumbent–opposition divisions.British Journal of Political Science52(1): 85–106.
7.
BubeckJMarinovN (2019) Rules and Allies: Foreign Election Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BuchananBSulmeyerM (2016) Russia and cyber operations: Challenges and opportunities for the next U.S. administration. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward Russia, Ukraine, And Eurasia, Policy brief, December 26.
9.
BushSSCottieroCPratherL (2024) Zombies ahead: Explaining the rise of low-quality election monitoring. Review of International Organizations, online first.
10.
BushSSPratherL (2020) Foreign meddling and mass attitudes toward international economic engagement.International Organization74(3): 584–609.
11.
BushSSPratherL (2022) Monitors and Meddlers: How Foreign Actors Influence Local Trust in Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
CooleyA (2015) Countering democratic norms.Journal of Democracy26(3): 49–62.
16.
DebreMMorgenbesserL (2018) Out of the shadows: Autocratic regimes, election observation and legitimation. In: Justifying Dictatorship. New York: Routledge, 78–97.
17.
DonaldsonRNadkarniV (2023) The Foreign Policy of Russia: Changing Systems, Enduring Interests. London: Taylor & Francis.
18.
DownesAMontenJ (2013) Forced to be free? Why foreign imposed regime change rarely leads to democratization.International Security37(4): 90–131.
19.
EadyGPaskhalisTZilinskyJ, et al. (2023) Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior. Nature Communications14(62.
20.
FordhamB (2020) History and quantitative conflict research: A case for limiting the historical scope of our theoretical arguments.Conflict Management and Peace Science37(1): 3–15.
21.
FryeT (2022) Weak Strongman: The Limits of Power in Putin's Russia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
GaubatzK (1999) Elections and War: The Electoral Incentive in the Democratic Politics of War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
GillT (2019) Shifting imperial strategies in contemporary Latin America: The U.S. Empire and Venezuela under hugo chávez. Journal of Historical Sociology32(3): 294–310.
24.
GoldsmithBHoriuchiY (2022) Does Russian election interference damage support for US alliances? The case of Japan.European Journal of International Relations29(2): 13540661221143214.
25.
GuessANaglerJTuckerJ (2019) Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook.Science Advances5: eaau4586.
26.
GuntherRBeckPNisbetE (2019) ‘Fake News’ and the defection of 2012 Obama voters in the 2016 presidential election.Electoral Studies61: 102030.
27.
HellwigTSamuelsD (2007) Voting in open economies: The electoral consequences of globalization.Comparative Political Studies40(3): 283–306.
28.
House of Commons (UK) (2017) Russia 2017. Briefing Paper CBP8157, 20 December.
29.
JamiesonKH (2018) Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
JosephMPoznanskyM (2018) Media technology, covert action, and the politics of exposure. Journal of Peace Research55(3): 320–335.
31.
JustwanFBaumgaertnerBCurtrightM (2022) Meddling in the 2016 elections and satisfaction with democracy in the US.Political Studies72(2): 505–526.
32.
LevinDH (2016) When the great power gets a vote: The effects of great power electoral interventions on election results.International Studies Quarterly60(2): 189–202.
33.
LevinDH (2019a) Partisan electoral interventions by the great powers: Introducing the PEIG dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science36(1): 88–106.
34.
LevinDH (2019b) A vote for freedom? The effects of partisan electoral interventions on regime type.Journal of Conflict Resolution63(4): 839–868.
35.
LevinDH (2020a) Meddling in the Ballot Box: The Causes and Effects of Partisan Electoral Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
LevinDH (2020b) Voting for trouble? Partisan electoral interventions and terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence32(3): 489–505.
37.
LevinDH (2021) Will you still love me tomorrow? Partisan electoral interventions, foreign policy compliance, and voting in the UN.International Interactions47(3): 449–476.
38.
LevinDH (2023) Is sunlight the best counterintelligence technique? The effectiveness of covert operation exposure in blunting the Russian intervention in the 2020 US election. Intelligence and National Security38(5): 816–834.
39.
MartinDShapiroJIlhardtJ (2023) Introducing the online political influence efforts dataset.Journal of Peace Research60(5): 868–876.
40.
MatushK, 2018. Going public abroad: When and why leaders address foreign publics. PhD dissertation, UCSD.
41.
MeierVKarlénNPetterssonT, et al. (2023) External support in armed conflicts: Introducing the UCDP external support dataset (ESD), 1975–2017. Journal of Peace Research60(3): 545–554.
42.
MorganTCBapatNKobayashiY (2014) Threat and imposition of economic sanctions 1945–2005: Updating the TIES dataset.Conflict Management and Peace Science31(5): 541–558.
43.
O’RourkeL (2018) Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44.
PalmerGMcManusRD’OrazioV, et al. (2022) The MID5 dataset, 2011–2014: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science39(4): 470–482.
45.
PalmerM, 2023. Our man in Havana: Explaining the causes, conduct, and consequences of foreign electoral interventions. PhD dissertation, Carleton University.
46.
PalssonC (2022) The medium-run effects of a foreign election intervention: Haiti’s presidential elections, 2010–2015.Contemporary Economic Policy40(2): 369–390.
47.
PorterP (2020) The False Promise of Liberal Order: Nostalgia, Delusion and the Rise of Trump. Malden: Polity.
48.
RivaV (1999) Oro Da Mosca. Milan: Mondadori [in Italian].
49.
RobertsJ (2023) State preferences, viable alternatives, and American covert action, 1946–1989. Intelligence and National Security38(4): 501–524.
50.
RuckDRiceNBoryczJ, et al. (2019) Internet research agency twitter activity predicted 2016 U.S. election polls. First Monday24(7-1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i7.10107.
51.
San-AkcaB (2016) States in Disguise: Causes of State Support for Rebel Groups. New York: Oxford University Press.
WalterSDinasEJuradoI, et al. (2018) Noncooperation by popular vote: Expectations, foreign intervention, and the vote in the 2015 Greek bailout referendum. International Organization72(4): 969–994.
Willard-FosterM (2019) Toppling Foreign Government’s: The Logic of Regime Change. Philadelphia, PA: Penn State Press.
59.
WohlforthW (2020) Realism and great power subversion. International Relations34(4): 459–481.
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.
