Statistical Analysis

  • Daniel LambachEmail author
  • Markus Bayer
  • Felix S. Bethke
  • Matteo Dressler
  • Véronique Dudouet


Comparing cases of democracies induced by nonviolent resistance (NVR) with democracies which were installed through other means, this chapter finds that the former are much more resilient than the latter. NVR-induced democrackies, on average, survive longer, are more likely to pass the two-turnover test of democratic consolidation, and score higher on key indicators of democratic quality. These results are robust to different model specifications and to alternative measurements of democratic transition. This supports our argument about the path-dependent effect of NVR that the mode of transition determines the trajectories of democratic transition and its subsequent consolidation.


Democratic quality Democratic survival Two-turnover test Nonviolent resistance Pacted transition Insurgency 


  1. Aronow, P. M., & Samii, C. (2016). Does Regression Produce Representative Estimates of Causal Effects? American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 250–267. Scholar
  2. Bayer, M., Bethke, F. S., & Lambach, D. (2016). The Democratic Dividend of Nonviolent Resistance. Journal of Peace Research, 53(6), 758–771. Scholar
  3. Bethke, F. S. (2017). Nonviolent Resistance and Peaceful Turnover of Power. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 23(4).Google Scholar
  4. Bethke, F. S., & Pinckney, J. (2019). Nonviolent resistance and the quality of democracy. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Scholar
  5. Boix, C., Miller, M., & Rosato, S. (2013). A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46(12), 1523–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boix, C., & Stokes, S. C. (2003). Endogenous Democratization. World Politics, 55(4), 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buis, M. (2013). SEQLOGIT: Stata Module to Fit a Sequential Logit Model. EconPapers.
  8. Celestino, M. R., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2013). Fresh Carnations or All Thorn, No Rose? Nonviolent Campaigns and Transitions in Autocracies. Journal of Peace Research, 50(3), 385–400. Scholar
  9. Cheibub, J. A. (2007). Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chenoweth, E., & Lewis, O. A. (2013). Unpacking Nonviolent Campaigns: Introducing the NAVCO 2.0 Dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 50(3).Google Scholar
  11. Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S.-E., & Teorell, J. (2015). V-Dem Codebook v5. Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.Google Scholar
  13. Gasiorowski, M. J., & Power, T. J. (1998). The Structural Determinants of Democratic Consolidation: Evidence from the Third World. Comparative Political Studies, 31(6), 740–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleditsch, K. S. (2002). Expanded Trade and GDP Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gleditsch, K. S., & Ward, M. D. (2006). Diffusion and the International Context of Democratization. International Organization, 60(4), 911–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Guo, S., & Stradiotto, G. A. (2014). Democratic Transitions: Modes and Outcomes. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2016). Dictators and Democrats: Masses, Elites and Regime Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(01), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schneider, B. R. (1995). Democratic Consolidations: Some Broad Comparisons and Sweeping Arguments. Latin American Research Review, 30(2), 215–234.Google Scholar
  24. Sekhon, J. S. (2009). Opiates for the Matches: Matching Methods for Causal Inference. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singer, J. D. (1987). Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985. International Interactions, 14, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Teorell, J. (2010). Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972–2006. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Teorell, J., Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., & Lindberg, S. (2016). Measuring Electoral Democracy with V-Dem Data: Introducing a New Polyarchy Index (Working Paper No. 25). Varieties of Democracy Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Ulfelder, J. (2010). Dilemmas of Democratic Consolidations. A Game-theory Approach. Boulder, CO: First Forum Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ulfelder, J. (2012). Democracy/Autocracy Data Set. Harvard Dataverse, V1(hdl:1902.1/18836).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Lambach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Bayer
    • 2
  • Felix S. Bethke
    • 3
  • Matteo Dressler
    • 4
  • Véronique Dudouet
    • 5
  1. 1.Goethe University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  3. 3.Peace Research Institute FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  4. 4.Flemish Peace InstituteBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Conflict Transformation ResearchBerghof Foundation BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations