Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:28:09.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

DANIEL ZIBLATT
DANIEL ZIBLATT*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Daniel Ziblatt is Associate Professor of Government and Social Studies, Center for European Studies, Harvard University, 27 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why is there so much alleged electoral fraud in new democracies? Most scholarship focuses on the proximate cause of electoral competition. This article proposes a different answer by constructing and analyzing an original data set drawn from the German parliament's own voluminous record of election disputes for every parliamentary election in the life of Imperial Germany (1871–1912) after its adoption of universal male suffrage in 1871. The article analyzes the election of over 5,000 parliamentary seats to identify where and why elections were disputed as a result of “election misconduct.” The empirical analysis demonstrates that electoral fraud's incidence is significantly related to a society's level of inequality in landholding, a major source of wealth, power, and prestige in this period. After weighing the importance of two different causal mechanisms, the article concludes that socioeconomic inequality, by making elections endogenous to preexisting social power, can be a major and underappreciated barrier to the long-term process of democratization even after the “choice” of formally democratic rules.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, Daron, and Robinson, James A.. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, Daron, and Robinson, James A.. 2008. “Persistence of Power, Elites, and Institutions.” American Economic Review 98: 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Gerard. 2002. Institutionalized Uncertainty, the Rule of Law, and the Sources of Democratic Consolidation.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (10): 1145–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Margaret L. 2000. Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argersinger, Peter. 1992. Structure, Process, and Party: Essays in American Political History. New York: M.E Sharpe.Google Scholar
Arsenschek, Robert. 2003. Der Kampf um die Wahlfreiheit im Kaiserreich: zur parlamentarischen Wahlprüfung und politischen Realität der Reichstagswahlen 1871–1914. [The Fight for Free Elections in Imperial Germany] Düsseldorf: Droste.Google Scholar
ArsenschekRobert, and Daniel Ziblatt Robert, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2008. “Complete Reichstag Election Disputes Dataset, 1871–1914.” Online Dataset, Harvard University, available at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dziblattGoogle Scholar
Baland, Jean-Marie, and Robinson, James. 2006. “Land and Power: Theory and Evidence from Chile.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 12517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, Charles. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bensel, Richard. 2004. The American Ballot Box. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Sheri. 2001. “Modernization in Historical Perspective: The Case of Imperial Germany.” World Politics 53 (3): 431–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Marver. 1995. Regulating Business by Independent Commission. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Birch, Sarah. 2007. “Electoral Systems and Election Misconduct.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (12): 1533–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackbourn, David. 1980. Class, Religion, and Local Politics in Wilhelmian Germany. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Blackbourn, David, and Eley, Geoff. 1984. The Peculiarities of German History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 2003. Democracy and Redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, Valerie. 2008. “Reflecting on Elections” APSA-CP Newsletter 19 (2): 1–2.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel. 2004. “Protection without Capture: Product Approval by a Politically Responsive, Learning Regulator.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 613–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric, and Golden, Miriam. 2007. “Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and Corruption.” British Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 115–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Christopher. 2007. The Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and Kousser, J. Morgan. 1981. “Turnout and Rural Corruption: New York as a Test Case.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 646–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, Thomas, and Iversen, Torben. 2000. “The Causes of Welfare State Expansion: Deindustrialization or Globalization?” World Politics 52 (3): 313–49.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1967. Society and Democracy in Germany. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
della Porta, Donatella, and Mario, Diani. 1999. Social Movements: An Introduction. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eifert, Christiane. 2003. Paternalismus und Politik: Preussische Landräte im 19. Jahrhundert [Paternalism and Politics]. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
Eisenstadt, Shmuel, and Roniger, Luis. 1984. Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eley, Geoff. 1980. Reshaping the German Right: Radical Nationalism and Political Change after Bismarck. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Richard. 1987. Rethinking German History: Nineteenth Century Germany and the Origins of the Third Reich. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, Brett. 1997. Democracy in the Undemocratic State: The German Reichstag Elections of 1898 and 1903. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fenske, Hans. 2002. “Der Landrat als Wahlmacher.” In Fenske, Hans, Preussentum und Liberalismus: Aufsätze zur Preussischen und deutschen Geschichte des 19. Und 20. Jahrhunderts, [Landrat as Election Maker]. (Dettelbach: J.H. Röll): 562–79.Google Scholar
Feuchtwanger, Edgar. 2001. Imperial Germany, 1850–1918. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, and Przeworski, Adam. 2007. “Dictatorial Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats.” Comparative Political Studies 40: 1279–2301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gash, Norman. 1977. Politics in the Age of Peel. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Gerschenkron, Alexander. 1948. Bread and Democracy in Germany. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Oliver. 2005. Migration and Inequality in Germany, 1870–1913. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwyn, William. 1962. Democracy and the Cost of Politics in Britain. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Hadenius, Axel, and Teorell, Jan. 2007. “Elections as Levers of Democracy: A Global Inquiry.” Presented at American Political Sciesnce Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hagen, William. 2002. Ordinary Prussians: Brandenburg Junkers and Villagers, 1500–1840. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hatschek, Julius. 1915. Das Parlamentsrecht des Deutschen Reichs [Parliamentary Authority in the German Empire]. Berlin: G.J. Goeschen.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2007. “How Do Rules and Institutions Encourage Vote-Buying?” In Elections for Sale, ed. Schaffer, Fred. Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppen, K. Theodore. 1994. “Grammars of Electoral Violence in Nineteenth Century England and Ireland.” English Historical Review 109 (432): 597–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Ernst Rudolf. 1988. Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789, [German Constitutional History Since 1789], Vol. III. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research). 1984. “German Reichstag Election Data, 1871–1912.” [Online:] http://id.thedata.org/hdl:1902.2/00043.UNF:3:32:uKgmiCLL7UZgUTFS/jjxsQ==.Google Scholar
Jacob, Herbert. 1963. German Administration since Bismarck: Central Authority versus Local Autonomy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. 1885. Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsstatistik nach der allgemeinen Berufszählung vom 5 Juni 1882 [Agricultural Statistics Based on General Census of June 5, 1882]. Bd. 5. Berlin: Verlag des Königlich Preussichen Statistischen Bureaus.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. 1895. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs Bd. 112. Berlin: Verlag des Königlich Preussichen Statistischen Bureaus.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. 1898. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Bd. 112. Berlin: Verlag des Königlich Preussichen Statistischen Bureaus, pp. 351–413 [Table 9].Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Wilkinson, Steven, ed. 2007. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kousser, J Morgan. 1974. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kühne, Thomas. 1994. Dreiklassenwahlrecht und Wahlkultur in Preussen, 1867–1914 [Three-Class Voting System and Electoral Culture in Prussia, 1867–1914] Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag.Google Scholar
Kunicová, J., and Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 2005. “Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption.” British Journal of Political Science 33 (10): 1567–85.Google Scholar
Lässig, Simone. 1998. “Wahlrechtsreformen in den deutschen Einzelstaaten.” In Modernisierung und Region im wilhelmischen Deutschland, [Suffrage Reform in Germany's States] ed. Lässig, Simone, Pohl, Karl Heinrich, and Retallack, James. Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte.Google Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice Edouard, and Jiménez, Iván Molina. 1999. “Political Competition and Electoral Fraud: A Latin American Case Study.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 30 (2): 199–234.Google Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice Edouard, and Jiménez, Iván Molina. 2002. Stuffing the Ballot Box: Fraud, Electoral Reform, and Democratization in Costa Rica. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice Edouard. 2003. “Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science. 6: 233–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan. 2002. “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, Steffan. 2006. Democracy and Elections in Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53 (1): 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luebbert, Gregory. 1991. Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2008. “Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (4–5): 715–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, Luis Fernando, and Stokes, Susan. 2007. “Monopoly and Monitoring: An Approach to Political Clientelism.” In Patrons, Clients, and Policies, ed. Kitschelt, Herbert and Wilkinson, Steven. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. [1865] 1998. “Considerations on Representative Government.” In On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington. 1967. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Bostons: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Moore, David Cresap. 1976. The Politics of Deference: A Study of the Mid-Nineteenth Century English Political System. New York: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Muller, Edward, and Seligson, Mitchell. 1987. “Inequality and Insurgency.” American Political Science Review 81: 425–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muncy, Lysbeth. 1944. The Junker: In the Prussian Administration under William II, 1888–1914. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Neffe, M. 1901. Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutscher Städte. Breslau: Verlag von Rorn.Google Scholar
Nichter, Simeon. 2008. “Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot.” American Political Science Review 102 (1): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nossiter, T. J. 1974. Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
O'Leary, Cornelius. 1962. The Elimination of Corrupt Practices in British Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peltzman, Sam. 1976. “Toward a More General Theory of Regulation.” Journal of Law and Economics 19: 211–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posado-Carbo, Eduardo, ed. 1996. Elections before Democracy: The History of Elections in Europe and Latin America. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prengel, T. 1892. “Beiträge zur Wahlprüfungssatistik des deutschen Reichstages, 1871–1890.” Annalen des Deutschen Reiches [Contribution to Election Dispute Statistics in the German Reichstag, 1871–1890]: 25–90.Google Scholar
Preussische Innenministerium. 1891. Handbuch über den koeniglichen Preussischen Hof und Staat fuer das Jahr 1892. Berlin: [Handbook of the Prussian Court and State for the Year 1892].Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1986. “Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy.” In Transitions from Authoritarian Rule, ed. O'Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe, and Whitehead, Laurence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Cheibub, José A., and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Paul. 1981. Industry Influence in Federal Regulatory Agencies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reibel, Carl-Wilhelm. 2007. Handbuch der Reichstagwahlen, 1890–1918 [Handbook of Reichstag Elections, 1890–1918] Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag.Google Scholar
Reif, Heinz. 1999. Adel im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retallack, James. 1988. Notables of the Right,: The Conservative Party and Political Mobilization in Germany, 1876–1918. Boston: Unwin.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1964. “Inequality and Instability: The Relation of Land Tenure to Politics.” World Politics 16 (3): 442–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Charles Frederic, ed. 2007. Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, Andreas, ed. 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: Lynee Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, Andreas 2002. “The Nested Game of Democratization by Elections.” International Political Science Review 23: 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmädeke, Jürgen. 1995. Wählerbewegung im Wilhelmieischen Deutschland: die Reichstagswahlen von 1890 bis 1912. [Voter Movements in Wilhelmmine Germany]. Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe and Karl, Terry. 1991. “What Democracy is . . . And is Not.” Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seawright, Jason, and Gerring, John. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2): 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, James. 1978. German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simpser, Alberto. 2005. “Making Votes Not Count: Strategic Incentives for Electoral Corruption.” Ph.D. diss. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, Kenneth, and Engerman, Stanley. 2000. “History Lessons: Institutions, Factors Endowments, and Paths of Development in the New World.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (3): 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenographische Berichte. 1871–1912. Deutsche Reichstag, 8th Legislative Period, Vols. 129–51.Google Scholar
Stigler, George. 1971. “The Theory of Economic Regulation.” Bett Journal of Economics and Management Science 2: 3–21.Google Scholar
Süle, Tibor. 1989. Preussische Bürokratietradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Suval, Stanley. 1985. Electoral Politics in Wilhelmine Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis. 2002. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Gerlach, Helmut. 1925. Errinerungen eines Junkers [Memoir of a Junker] Berlin: Die Welt am Montag.Google Scholar
von Winterfeldt, Joachim. 1942. Jahreszeiten des Lebens [Seasons of Life] Berlin: Propylän-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wagner, Patrick. 2005. Bauern, Junker und Beamte: Lokale Herrschaft und Partizipation im Ostelbien des 19. Jahrhunderts. [Farmer, Junker, and Bureaucrat] Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. 1983. Das deutsche Kaiserreich, 1871–1918. [The German Empire, 1871–1918] Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. “How Did Europe Democratize.” World Politics 58 (2): 311–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2008. “Does Landholding Inequality Block Democratization? A Test of the ‘Bread and Democracy’ Thesis and the Case of Prussia.” World Politics 60 (4): 610–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.