This study tests Simpson’s theory that information equality promotes democracy. While Simpson (1997) argues that information equality is one of the most crucial conditions for democratization, information equality is poorly measured. It only uses a single indicator, literacy rate, and does not reflect the mode of information distribution. Therefore, this study attempts to test Simpson’s theory with new measurements which reflect the theory more appropriately for the information age – the number of internet users and the percentage of the labor force that has received a secondary education. Using cross-national time-series analysis on 177 countries from 1990 to 2013, this study found that Simpson’s theory is not supported with sufficient empirical evidence. Contrary to the expectation, both the number of internet users and the labor force that has received a secondary education are not significantly associated with the level of democracy.
BurkhartRLewis-BeckM (1994) Comparative democracy: The economic development thesis. American Political Science Review88: 903–910.
10.
CasselCLoC (1997) Theories of political literacy. Political Behavior19(4): 317–335.
11.
CoppedgeM (1997) Modernization and thresholds of democracy: Evidence for a common path and process. In: MidlarskyMI (ed.) Inequality, Democracy, and Economic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–201.
12.
CorralesJWesthoffF (2006) Information technology adoption and political regimes. International Studies Quarterly50: 911–933.
13.
ChungJ (2008) Comparing online activities in China and South Korea: The internet and the political regime. Asian Survey48(5): 727–751.
14.
DanitzTStrobelW (1999) The Internet’s impact on activism: The case of Burma. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism22: 257–269.
15.
DiamondL (2010) Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy21(3): 69–83.
16.
DeibertRRohozinskiR (2010) Liberation vs. control: The future of cyberspace. Journal of Democracy21(4): 43–57.
17.
EmberMEmberCRussetB (1997) Inequality and democracy in the anthropological record. In: MidlarskyMI (ed.) Inequality, Democracy, and Economic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–130.
18.
EpsteinDBatesRGoldstoneJ. (2006) Democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 551–569.
19.
FarrellH (2012) The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science15: 35–52.
20.
FearonJLaitinD (2003) Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review97(1): 75–90.
21.
GuillenMSuarezS (2005) Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces84(2): 681–708.
22.
HarbomLWallensteenP (2012) Armed conflict, 1989–2011. Journal of Peace Research49(4): 565–575.
23.
HelliwellJ (1994) Empirical linkage between democracy and economic growth. British Journal of Political Science24: 225–248.
24.
HowardP (2005) Deep democracy, thin citizenship: The impact of digital media in political campaign strategy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science597: 153–170.
25.
HowardP (2010) The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
HowardPHussainM (2011) The upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia: The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy22: 35–48.
27.
KadabadseAKadabadseNKouzminA (2003) Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review63(1): 44–60.
28.
KedzieCAragonJ (2002) Coincident revolutions and the dictator’s dilemma: Thoughts on communications and democracy. In: AllisonJE (ed.) Technology, Development and Democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 105–130.
29.
KingGPanJRobertsM (2013) How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review107(2): 326–343.
30.
LernerD (1958) The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York: The Free Press.
31.
LipsetSM (1959) Social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review53(1): 69–105.
32.
LipsetSM (1960) Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. New York: Doubleday.
33.
LuebbertG (1991) Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LynchM (2011) After Egypt: The limits and promises of online challenges to the authoritarian Arab state. Perspective on Politics9(2): 301–310.
35.
McAllisterI (2016) Internet use, political knowledge and youth electoral participation in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies19(9): 1220–1236.
MetzlJ (1996) Information technology and human rights. Human Rights Quarterly18: 705–746.
38.
MillerH (2006) The digital divide: The role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comparative Political Studies39(2): 176–199.
39.
MillerM (2012) Economic development, violent leader removal, and democratization. American Journal of Political Science56(4): 1002–1020.
40.
MinS-J (2010) From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics7: 22–35.
41.
MooreBJr (1966) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
42.
NorrisP (2007) Getting the message out: A two-step model of the role of the Internet in campaign communication flows during the 2005 British general election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics4(4): 3–13.
43.
ParmerGD’OrazioVKenwickM. (2015) The MID4 data set: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(2): 222–242.
44.
PrzeworskiALimongiF (1997) Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics49: 155–183.
45.
PrzeworskiAAlvarezMCheibubJ. (2000) Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
RichardsDJr (2002) Making the national international: Information technology and government respect for human rights. In: AllisonJE (ed.) Technology, Development and Democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 161–186
47.
RowstowD (1970) Transition to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. Comparative Politics2(3): 337–364.
48.
RueschemeyerDStephensEStephensJ (1992) Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
49.
SimpsonM (1997) Information inequality and democracy in the new world order. In: MidlarskyMI (ed.) Inequality, Democracy, and Economic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–176.
50.
TeixeiraR (1987) Why Americans Don’t Vote: Turnout Decline in the United States 1960–1984. New York: Greenwood.
51.
TocquevilleA (1954 [1835]) Democracy in America. Vol. 1. New York: Village Books.
52.
TocquevilleA (1954 [1840]) Democracy in America. Vol. 2. New York: Village Books.
53.
TolbertCJMcNealRS (2003) Unraveling the effects of the internet on political participation?Political Research Quarterly56(2): 175–185.
54.
VanhanenT (1997) Prospects of Democracy: A Study of 172 Countries. New York: Routledge.
55.
WantchekonL (2004) The paradox of ‘warlord’ democracy: A theoretical investigation. American Political Science Review98(1): 17–33.
56.
WelchEWongW (2001) Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on website openness. Journal of Public Administration and Research and Theory11(4): 509–538.
57.
WoodridgeJ (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
58.
ZavestoskiSShulmanSSchlosbergD (2006) Democracy and the environment on the internet: Electronic citizen participation in regulatory rulemaking. Science, Technology, and Human Values31(4): 383–408.
