Economic Performance And Survival In New Democracies: Is There a Honeymoon Effect?
Abstract
In the literature on democratic survival, theories of democratic consolidation assume that new democracies are more vulnerable to breakdown. Theories of democratic honeymoons, however, claim that new democracies are less vulnerable to breakdown. This article addresses this seeming contradiction. Using an original data set that includes all democracies from the period 1951 to 1995, the authors use discrete-time duration analysis to determine if there is evidence for a period of enhanced survivability in new democracies. Using both continuous and discrete specifications of a honeymoon period, they test whether new democracies experience an absolute honeymoon (whether newness in itself makes them less prone to breakdown) or a relative honeymoon (where newness insulates them from the effect of poor economic performance). The results suggest that there is a short-lived absolute honeymoon, but that new democracies are actually more vulnerable to effects of poor economic performance prior to their third legislative election.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There is substantial statistical support for hypotheses linking democratic transitions and democratic survival to macroeconomic conditions, especially rapid economic expansion or contraction.
“There is substantial statistical support for the family of hypotheses linking democratic transitions and democratic survival to macroeconomic conditions, especially if the economy is rapidly expanding or contracting”
From Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding (2018) · cites this paper as Bernhard et al. 2003
Cites
The Failure of Presidential Democracy
Linz, J. (1994) · doi:10.56021/9780801846397 · Cited by 833 · see citing works
Economic Crisis and Political Regime Change: An Event History Analysis
Gasiorowski, M. J. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082515 · Cited by 538 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding
Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628 · Cited by 889 · see citing works
Multiple Measurements, Elusive Agreement, and Unstable Outcomes in the Study of Regime Change
Lueders, H., & Lust, E. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3042470 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bernhard, M., Reenock, C., & Nordstrom, T.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Alabama (US)
- University of Mississippi (US)
- Venue
- Comparative Political Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 404-431
- ISSN
- 0010-4140 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3829
- OpenAlex
- W2099602870
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 23.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Comparative Political Studies (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 › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- democratic survival, democratic consolidation, democratic breakdown, new democracies, economic performance, honeymoon period, democratic transition
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