W hy 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 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. I n recent decades, efforts to make nation-states more democratic have been remarkably successful. Yet the results have often failed to live up to the hopes of democracy's advocates. The frequent undermining of free and fair elections and the incidence of democratic backsliding in regimes as diverse as Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela, where formally democratic institutions were present, suggest that sometimes adopting new democratic institutions is not enough. The emergence of new forms of electoral authoritarian or hybrid regimes that combine systematic abuses of democratic practice with formally democratic constitutions thus present major puzzles for the study of democratization (Levitsky and Way 2002;Schedler 2006).One scholarly response to this challenge has been to define democracy narrowly, focusing attention on the conditions under which formal democratic rules are adopted. From this perspective, the challenge of "democratic transition" is analytically separate from that of "democratic consolidation" or "democratic quality." This distinction is premised on a crisply minimalist procedural definition of democracy that emphasizes democratic procedures rather than substantive outcomes, and it is a perspective that has much to say for itself. If we avoid including other social desiderata in our concept of democracy, we can develop more Daniel Ziblatt is Associate Professor of Government and Social Studies

No abstract

No abstract

This article lays the theoretical and methodological foundations of a new historically minded approach to the comparative study of democratization, centered on the analysis of the creation, development, and interaction of democratic institutions. Historically, democracy did not emerge as a singular coherent whole but rather as a set of different institutions, which resulted from conflicts across multiple lines of social and political cleavage that took place at different moments in time. The theoretical advantage of this approach is illustrated by highlighting the range of new variables that come into focus in explaining democracy's emergence. Rather than class being the single variable that explains how and why democracy came about, scholars can see how religious conflict, ethnic cleavages, and the diffusion of ideas played a much greater role in Europe's democratization than has typically been appreciated. Above all, the authors argue that political parties were decisive players in how and why democracy emerged in Europe and should be at the center of future analyses.

Most governance arrangements involve spatial units with highly unequal powers, for example, a feudal monarchy and its principalities, an empire and its colonies, a formal empire and an informal empire (or sphere of influence), a national government and its subnational entities, or a regional government and its local entities. In this situation, the dominant unit (A) usually enjoys some discretion about how to institutionalize its authority over the subordinate unit (B). An important element of this decision concerns how much authority should be delegated to the weaker unit. The authors simplify this dimension of governance along a continuum of “direct” and “indirect” styles of rule. Why, in some cases, does one find a relatively direct (centralized) system of rule and in others a relatively indirect (decentralized) system of rule? While many factors impinge on this decision, the authors argue that an important and highly persistent factor is the prior level of centralization existing within the subordinate unit. Greater centralization in B is likely to lead to a more indirect form of rule between A and B, all other things being equal. The authors refer to this as an institutional theory of direct/indirect rule. Empirical analyses of this hypothesis are applied to patterns of direct and indirect rule (1) during the age of imperialism and (2) across contemporary nation-states. The article concludes by discussing applications of the theory in a variety of additional settings.