Working papers

Does Sequence Matter? Pathway Arguments and Democratic Stability with J. Doucette

Many classic explanations in the social sciences, including comparative politics, argue that regime pathways depend on the sequence in which enabling conditions arise. Yet commonly used empirical approaches are ill suited to evaluate such pathway arguments, as they rarely specify the implied counterfactual structure. We develop a theoretical and methodological framework that clarifies the temporal assumptions underlying pathway arguments and aligns empirical models with those assumptions. We illustrate the usefulness of the framework by re-examining modernization and state-first theories, showing that while conventional models that suggest pre-democratic development is unrelated to democratization, a pathway-consistent specification reveals that modernization and state capacity are strongly associated with durable transitions. More broadly, the framework demonstrates how long-standing null or weak findings can stem from model–theory misalignment and provides a general strategy for testing sequence-based explanations of institutional change.

Democracy on the Horizon: Strategic Welfare Expansions Before Transition with C. Jensen

Democratization is widely expected to reduce inequality by empowering the less affluent. Yet empirical studies find no robust effect, which constitutes a persistent puzzle. We argue that redistributive change often begins before democratization, as autocratic incumbents expand social policy under regime pressure. We identify two pathways: in the anticipated-competition pathway, rulers liberalize while expecting to compete in future elections and introduce redistributive reforms to build electoral support; in the failed-concessions pathway, autocrats adopt social policies to stabilize authoritarian rule but fail to prevent democratization. To examine this argument, we analyze six third-wave transitions—Taiwan, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, and Portugal—through comparative case studies, complemented by descriptive cross-national evidence on redistribution and social spending. Our finding that social policy expansion frequently precedes regime change shows that redistributive politics are a central part of the transition process and not merely a downstream effect of democracy. 

Keeping What They Promise? Examining the Consequences of Revolutions for Inequality 

Revolutionaries often promise greater equality, yet the distributive consequences of revolutions remain contested. This paper provides systematic, comparative evidence on how revolutions shape socioeconomic inequality. Distinguishing between social and political revolutions, I analyze global time-series cross-national data from 1900 to 2014 across class, ethnic, gender, and rural–urban dimensions, using multiple inequality measures and empirical approaches. The results show that only social revolutions are consistently associated with reductions in inequality, while political revolutions have weaker and inconsistent effects. Mechanism tests show that social revolutions are systematically associated with expropriation and mass inclusion, rather than state-building. Moreover, country-level case-specific estimates reveal substantial heterogeneity across revolutionary experiences. The egalitarian effects of social revolutions, however, are often temporary and are not accompanied by sustained gains in economic development or democracy. 

Dynamics of Regime Change: A New Dataset on Actors, Actions, and Ambitions with D. Andersen and SE. Skaaning

We present a new dataset, specifying the dynamics of regime change for all democratic transitions and breakdowns from 1789 to 2022. Existing datasets primarily focus on the basic distinction between democracy and autocracy and their associated institutions. While some do address various types of regime change, they tend to cover only a limited range of dynamics or rely on compound categories that lack a clear specification of the underlying components. Our dataset breaks standards by comprehensively coding the dynamics of regime change, capturing the roles of leading, supporting, and opposing actors, their actions, the nature of mobilization and violence, and the underlying justifications. It includes highly transparent procedures comprising disaggregated indicators, explicit case-specific coding rationales, and certainty estimates. This dataset facilitates nuanced and robust studies of the causes and consequences of regime change.