The relationship between the Internet and democratic developments has long been a controversial topic, hampered in part by the lack of empirical evidence. So this study is undertaken to investigate the effects of Internet penetration on democratization based on the panel data of 125 countries gathered from 1993 to 2014. The authors apply machine-learning method (i.e., random forest) to effectively screen the variables that are more closely related to democracy. The results of different estimation models reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship between Internet penetration and democratization and also distinguish the impacts of the Internet on advanced and less advanced democracies. Then, we arrive at the conclusion that Internet penetration brings a late-starting advantage in the development of democracy for less advanced democracies. These conclusions are further confirmed by the robust test.
AbbottJ. (2012). Democracy@internet.org Revisited: Analysing the socio-political impact of the internet and new social media in East Asia. Third World Quarterly, 33, 333–357.
2.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2003). The political economy of the Kuznets Curve. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
4.
ArchibugiD.Koenig-ArchibugiM.MarchettiR. (2011). Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ÅströmJ.KarlssonM.LindeJ.PirannejadA. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 142–150.
6.
BailardC. S. (2014). Democracy’s double-edged sword: How Internet use changes citizens’ views of their government. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
7.
BestM. L.WadeK. W. (2009). The Internet and Democracy: Global catalyst or democratic dud?Bulletin of science, technology & society, 29, 255–271.
8.
BimberB.CunillM. C.CopelandL.GibsonR. (2015). Digital media and political participation: The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 21–42.
9.
BlancoL.GrierR. (2009). Long live democracy: The determinants of political instability in Latin America. The journal of development studies, 45, 76–95.
10.
BondR. M.SettleJ. E.FarissC. J.JonesJ. J.FowlerJ. H. (2016). Social endorsement cues and political participation. Political Communication, 34, 1–21.
11.
BoulianneS. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26, 193–211.
12.
BreimanL. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32.
13.
CarayannisE. G.CampbellD. F.EfthymiopoulosM. P. (2016). Cyber-development, Cyber-democracy and Cyber-defense. New York, NY: Springer.
14.
DafoeA. (2015). On technological determinism: A typology, scope conditions, and a mechanism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40, 1047–1076.
15.
DahlbergL. (2001). Democracy via cyberspace: Mapping the rhetorics and practices of three prominent camps. New Media & Society, 3, 157–177.
16.
DavisA. (2010). New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation. New Media & Society, 12, 745–761.
17.
DemidenkoE. (2013). Mixed models: Theory and applications with R. New Jersey: John Wiley.
18.
DiamondL. J. (1994). Toward democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5, 4–17.
19.
DocesJ. A.MageeC. S. P. (2015). Trade and democracy: A factor-based approach. International Interactions, 41, 407–425.
20.
EhwariemeW. (2011). The Military Factor in Nigeria’s Democratic Stability, 1999-2009. Armed Forces & Society, 37, 494–511.
21.
FreemanJ. R.QuinnD. P. (2012). The economic origins of democracy reconsidered. American Political Science Review, 106, 58–80.
22.
GaoY.ZangL.RothA.WangP. (2017). Does democracy cause innovation? An empirical test of the popper hypothesis. Research Policy, 46, 1272–1283.
23.
GenuerR.PoggiJ.-M.Tuleau-MalotC. (2010). Variable selection using random forests. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31, 2225–2236.
24.
GeraciM.BottaiM. (2014). Linear quantile mixed models. Statistics and Computing, 24, 461–479.
25.
GibsonR.CantijochM. (2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the Internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?The Journal of Politics, 75, 701–716. doi:10.1017/s0022381613000431
26.
GiddensA. (2013). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. London, England: John Wiley.
27.
GrahamM. (2013). Geography/internet: Ethereal alternate dimensions of cyberspace or grounded augmented realities?Geographical Journal, 179, 177–182.
28.
GrofmanB.TrechselA. H.FranklinM. (2014). The Internet and democracy in global perspective: Voters, candidates, parties, and social movements (Vol. 31). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
29.
GroshekJ.MaysK. (2017). A time-series, multinational analysis of democratic forecasts and emerging media diffusion, 1994–2014. International Journal of Communication, 11, 23.
30.
GrossmanG. M.KruegerA. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–377.
31.
GurrT. R.MarshallM. G.JaggersK. (2016). POLITY IV PROJECT: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2015, Dataset Users. Manual’. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, Working Paper.
32.
HanssonK.BelkacemK.EkenbergL. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 540–555.
33.
HaysR. A.KoglA. M. (2007). Neighborhood attachment, social capital building, and political participation: A case study of low-and moderate-income residents of Waterloo, Iowa. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29, 181–205.
34.
HelbingD.PournarasE. (2015). Build digital democracy: Open sharing of data that are collected with smart devices would empower citizens and create jobs. Nature, 527, 33–35.
35.
HinkleyD. V.RevankarN. S. (1977). Estimation of the Pareto law from underreported data: A further analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 5, 1–11.
36.
HoT. K. (1995). Random decision forests. Paper presented at the Document Analysis and Recognition, 1995. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on document analysis and recognition. Montreal, Canada: IEEE.
37.
HuckfeldtR. R. (1979). Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 579–592.
38.
KahneJ.WestheimerJ. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39, 289–296.
39.
KalathilS.BoasT. C. (2010). Open networks, closed regimes: The impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment.
40.
KaufmannD.MastruzziA. K. M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 3, 220–246.
41.
KimJ.LeeC. Y.ChoY. (2016). Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth☆. Research Policy, 45, 113–124.
42.
KnutsenC. H.NygårdH. M. (2015). Institutional characteristics and regime survival: Why are semi-democracies less durable than autocracies and democracies?American Journal of Political Science, 59, 656–670.
43.
KobayashiT.IkedaK. I.MiyataK. (2006). Social capital online: Collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Community & Society, 9, 582–611.
44.
KoenkerR. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 91, 74–89.
45.
KussD. (2016). Internet addiction: A clinical perspective. In AttrillA.FulwoodC. (Eds.), Applied Cyberpsychology. Basingstoke: Springer.
46.
LevineR.ReneltD. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. American Economic Review, 82, 942–963.
47.
LiR. (2014). The influence of geospatial factors on democracy: Its representation on web interface design. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 313–333.
48.
LiebermanM. B.MontgomeryD. B. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1111–1125.
49.
LipsetS. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69–105.
50.
MargolisM.Moreno-RiañoG. (2013). The prospect of internet democracy: Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
51.
McChesneyR. W. (2007). Communication revolution: Critical junctures and the future of media. New York, NY: New Press.
52.
McChesneyR. W. (2015). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. The New Press.
53.
McClurgS. D. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 449–464.
54.
MihailidisP.TheveninB. (2013). Media literacy as a core competency for engaged citizenship in participatory democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 1611–1622.
55.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2013). Digital divide. In TowseR.HandkaC. (Eds.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
56.
PapageorgiouT.MichaelidesP. G. (2016). Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen on technological determinism, individualism and institutions. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23, 1–30.
57.
PirannejadA. (2017). Can the internet promote democracy? A cross-country study based on dynamic panel data models. Information Technology for Development, 23, 281–295.
58.
PrzeworskiA.AlvarezM. E.CheibubJ. A.LimongiF. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RambeP.NelL. (2015). Technological utopia, dystopia and ambivalence: Teaching with social media at a South African university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 629–648.
60.
RhueL.SundararajanA. (2014). Digital access, political networks and the diffusion of democracy. Social Networks, 36, 40–53.
61.
RicheyS.ZhuJ. (2015). Internet access does not improve political interest, efficacy, and knowledge for late adopters. Political Communication, 32, 396–413.
62.
RisseT. (2016). Domestic politics and norm diffusion in international relations: Ideas do not float freely (Vol. 34). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
63.
RødE. G.WeidmannN. B. (2015). Empowering activists or autocrats? The Internet in authoritarian regimes. Journal of Peace Research, 52, 338–351.
64.
RudraN. (2005). Globalization and the strengthening of democracy in the developing world. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 704–730.
65.
SandholtzW.KoetzleW. (2000). Accounting for corruption: Economic structure, democracy, and trade. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 31–50.
66.
StoycheffE.NisbetE. C.EpsteinD. (2016). Differential effects of capital-enhancing and recreational internet use on citizens demand for democracy. Communication Research. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644645.
67.
SturmanM. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of management, 29, 609–640.
68.
SudulichM. L. (2011). Can the internet reinvent democracy?Irish Political Studies, 26, 563–577.
69.
TheocharisY.QuintelierE. (2016). Stimulating citizenship or expanding entertainment? The effect of Facebook on adolescent participation. New Media & Society, 18, 817–836.
70.
WarrenM. E. (2004). What does corruption mean in a democracy?American Journal of Political Science, 48, 328–343.
71.
WentrupR.XuX.NakamuraH. R.StrömP. (2016). Crossing the digital desert in sub-Saharan Africa: Does policy matter?Policy & Internet, 8, 248–269.
72.
WestD. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64, 15–27.
73.
YuanM.LinY. (2006). Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 68, 49–67.
74.
ZhangW.JohnsonT. J.SeltzerT.BichardS. L. (2010). The revolution will be networked: The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 75–92.
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.
