Cited by 250Political Conflict and GovernanceElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and Democracy

The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment

Hyde, Susan D.·2007·World Politics

Abstract

By pressuring governments to hold democratic elections and by becoming directly involved in the electoral process through technical assistance and funding or as election monitors, international actors now play a visible role in domestic elections and other democratic processes throughout the developing world. Although scholars have documented several macrolevel relationships between international-level variables and movement toward democracy, there has been little attention paid to the microlevel effects of international involvement in the democratization process. This article examines the effects of international election observation as a prominent form of international involvement in domestic elections and exploits a natural experiment in order to test whether international observers reduce election fraud. Using data from the 2003 presidential elections in Armenia, the article demonstrates that although observers may not eliminate election fraud, they can reduce election-day fraud at the polling stations they visit. The unusual advantage of experiment-like conditions for this study offers unique causal evidence that international actors can have direct, measurable effects on the level of election-day fraud and, by extension, on the democratization process.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/wp.0.0001

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • International monitoring of elections can deter electoral fraud, thus influencing democratization.

    “A study by Hyde (2007) is the strongest demonstration that international monitoring of elections can deter electoral fraud, thus influencing democratization.”

    From Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding (2018) · cites this paper as Hyde (2007)

  • In the 2003 Armenian presidential elections, incumbent advantage (and likely fraud) was greater in unmonitored than in monitored precincts.

    “By studying the 2003 Armenian presidential elections, she determines that incumbent advantage (and likely fraud) was greater in unmonitored than in monitored precincts.”

    From Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding (2018) · cites this paper as Hyde (2007)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hyde, S. D.
Corresponding author
Hyde, Susan D.
Venue
World Politics
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2007-10
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
37-63
ISSN
  • 0043-8871 (ISSN-L)
  • 1086-3338
OpenAlex
W2061608912
Cited by
250
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 23
FWCI
20.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • World Politics (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
international election observation, election observers, electoral fraud, democratization, polling stations, technical assistance, natural experiment

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