CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 242Political Conflict and GovernancePolitical Theory and DemocracyNatural Resources and Economic Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gaming Democracy: Elite Dominance during Transition and the Prospects for Redistribution

Albertus, Michael, Menaldo, Victor·2014·British Journal of Political Science
DOI 10.1017/s0007123413000124
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Inequality and democracy are far more compatible empirically than social conflict theory predicts. This article speaks to this puzzle, identifying the scope conditions under which democratization induces greater redistribution. Because autocrats sometimes have incentives to expropriate economic elites, who lack reliable institutions to protect their rights, elites may prefer democracy to autocratic rule if they can impose roadblocks to redistribution under democracy ex ante. Using global panel data (1972–2008), this study finds that there is a relationship between democracy and redistribution only if elites are politically weak during a transition; for example, when there is revolutionary pressure. Redistribution is also greater if a democratic regime can avoid adopting and operating under a constitution written by outgoing elites and instead create a new constitution that redefines the political game. This finding holds across three different measures of redistribution and instrumental variables estimation. This article also documents the ways in which elites ‘bias’ democratic institutions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007123413000124

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lindert, 2004, Growing Public
  2. Wood, 2000, Forging Democracy from Below

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 242

Related

Metadata

Authors
Albertus, M., & Menaldo, V.
Corresponding author
Albertus, Michael
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2013-05-23
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
575-603
ISSN
  • 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-2112
DOI
10.1017/s0007123413000124
OpenAlex
W3121603570
Cited by
242
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
28.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
British Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Natural Resources and Economic Development
Keywords
democratization, redistribution, economic elites, elite dominance, political transition, authoritarian regimes, expropriation, constitutional drafting, democratic institutions, social conflict theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review