Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:21:42.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How State Capacity Helps Autocrats win Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

Merete Bech Seeberg Open the ORCID record for Merete Bech Seeberg [Opens in a new window]
Merete Bech Seeberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research has highlighted the role of the state in sustaining authoritarian regimes. But how does state capacity support autocrats during elections? The author argues that one specific aspect of state capacity – control over territory through the state apparatus – helps autocrats ensure large majority electoral victories. High-capacity rulers can rely on local agents and institutions to subtly manipulate elections, for instance by controlling the media or inhibiting the work of domestic election monitors throughout the territory while staying clear of costly manipulation such as election violence. In cross-national analyses of authoritarian multiparty elections from 1946 to 2017, the study finds that state territorial control increases the likelihood of large victories. Furthermore, high levels of state control correlate with subtle strategies of manipulation, including media bias and restrictions on domestic monitors – strategies that are also positively associated with large victories. At the same time, state control is negatively associated with election violence.

Keywords

authoritarianismelectionsstate capacityterritorial controlmanipulationsupermajority victorieselection violence
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 541 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Asunka, J et al. (2017) Electoral fraud or violence: the effect of observers on party manipulation strategies. British Journal of Political Science 49(1), 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, S (2011) Electoral Malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolt, J and Luiten van Zanden, J (2014) The Maddison project: collaborative research on historical national accounts. The Economic History Review 67(3), 627–651.Google Scholar
Brownlee, J (2009) Portents of pluralism. American Journal of Political Science 55(3), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, J, Gandhi, J and Vreeland, J (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice 143(1), 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, J (2007) The general election in Singapore, May 2006. Electoral Studies 26(3), 703–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, M et al. (2018a) V-Dem Dataset V8. Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, M et al. (2018b) V-Dem v8 Codebook. Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, H (1996) Government and Society in Malaysia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donno, D (2013) Elections and democratization in authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science 57(3), 703–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J and Laitin, D (2003) Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review 97(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, T and Nooruddin, I (2016) Elections in Hard Times: Building Stronger Democracies in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, B, Wright, J and Frantz, E (2014) Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions. Perspectives on Politics 12(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlbach, S and Simpser, A (2015) Electoral manipulation as bureaucratic control. American Journal of Political Science 59(1), 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, K (2007) Why Dominant Parties Lose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, S (2006) Authoritarian government. In Weingast, B and Wittman, D (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 693–707.Google Scholar
Haber, S and Menaldo, V (2011) Do natural resources fuel authoritarianism? American Political Science Review 105(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanmer, M and Kalkan, K (2013) Behind the curve. American Journal of Political Science 57(1), 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J (2018) State capacity and the resilience of electoral authoritarianism. International Political Science Review 39(1), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J and Sigman, R (2013) Leviathan's Latent Dimensions: Measuring State Capacity for Comparative Political Research (September 2013). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1899933.Google Scholar
Hegre, H et al. (2001) Toward a democratic civil peace? The American Political Science Review 95(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilley, J (2001) Malaysia: Mahatirism, Hegemony and the New Opposition. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Howard, M and Roessler, P (2006) Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science 50(2), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, S (2011) The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, S and Marinov, N (2012) Which elections can be lost? Political Analysis 20(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, J (2009) D-minus elections: the politics and norms of international elections observation. International Organization 63(4), 765–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, J (2012) Monitoring Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Knutsen, CH, Nygård, H and Wig, T (2017) Autocratic elections: stabilizing tool or force for change? World Politics 69(1), 98–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, S and Way, L (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J and Elklit, J (1999) The Singapore general election 1997: campaigning strategy, results, and analysis. Electoral Studies 18(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, S (2006) Democracy and Elections in Africa. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Magaloni, B (2006) Voting for Autocracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migdal, J. (1988) State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, M (2013) Democratic pieces. British Journal of Political Science 45(3), 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P, Frank, R and Martínez, F (eds) (2015) Contentious Elections: From Ballots to Barricades. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, E and Tim, MH (2014) Singapore's 2011 general elections and beyond: beating the PAP at its own game. Asian Survey 54(4), 749–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reporters without Borders (2014) One Step Forward, Three Steps Back for Freedom of Information. Paris: Reporters without Borders. https://rsf.org/en/news/one-step-forward-three-steps-back-freedom-information.Google Scholar
Reuter, OJ and Gandhi, J (2011) Economic performance and elite defection from hegemonic parties. British Journal of Political Science 41(1), 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M and Mahdavi, P (2015) Oil and Gas Data, 1932–2014. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/ZTPW0Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundlett, A and Svolik, M (2016) Deliver the vote! American Political Science Review 110(1), 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, A (2002) The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy 13(2), 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, A (2013) The Politics of Uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, J (1974[1942]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Unwin University Books.Google Scholar
Seeberg, MB (2014) State capacity and the paradox of authoritarian elections. Democratization 21(7), 1265–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeberg, MB (2018) State Capacity, Economic Control, and Authoritarian Elections. Oxon and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seeberg, MB (2019) “Replication Data for: How state capacity helps autocrats win elections”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CTKZIG, Harvard Dataverse, V1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, A (2013) Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaaning, SE, Gerring, J and Bartusevičius, H (2015) A lexical index of electoral democracy. Comparative Political Studies 48(12), 1491–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, D (2010) Ordering Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, D and Fenner, S (2011) State power and staying power. Journal of International Affairs 65(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
Slater, D and Wong, J (2013) The strength to concede. Perspectives on Politics 11(3), 717–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soifer, H and vom Hau, M (2008) Unpacking the strength of the state. Studies in Comparative International Development 43(3–4), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, S et al. (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoner-Weiss, K (2006) Resisting the State: Reform and Retrenchment in Post-Soviet Russia. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of State (1986) 1986 Human Rights Report: Philippines. Washington DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.Google Scholar
US Department of State (1990) Human Rights Report, Malaysia. Washington DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.Google Scholar
van Ham, C and Lindberg, S (2015) From sticks to carrots: electoral manipulation in Africa, 1986–2012. Government and Opposition 50(3), 521–548..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ham, C and Seim, B (2018) Strong states, weak elections? International Political Science Review 39(1), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villegas, B (1987) The Philippines in 1986: reconstruction in the post-Marcos era. Asian Survey 27(2), 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, L (2015) Pluralism by Default: Weak Autocrats and the Rise of Competitive Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
World Bank (2014) Worldwide Governance Indicators. Washington DC: The World Bank Group. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/worldwide-governance-indicators.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Seeberg Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CTKZIG
Link
Supplementary material: File

Seeberg supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Seeberg supplementary material(File)
File 78.5 KB