Why This Question Matters
Does mass support for democracy actually help keep democratic regimes standing? Political scientists have long assumed it does—most famously Lipset and Easton—but empirical evidence has been thin and inconsistent. The article addresses this gap by assembling a comprehensive, comparable measure of popular support for democracy and testing whether that support predicts later changes in regime type.
How the Study Works
The article's author(s) build a smooth country-year panel of democratic support for 135 countries across as many as 29 years. To do this, they use a Bayesian latent variable model that reconciles fragmented survey indicators of regime support (different questions, years, and countries) into a single continuous estimate of public support for democracy for each country-year.
Methods and design highlights:
- Bayesian latent-variable estimation to combine disparate survey items into a coherent country-year series of democratic support.
- A longitudinal design that links lagged measures of public support to subsequent democratic change.
- Statistical adjustments for potential confounders, including prior levels of democracy and unobservable, time-invariant country characteristics (i.e., country-specific traits that do not vary over time).
What the Study Finds
The results show a positive relationship between public support for democracy and later democratic outcomes. In particular:
- Higher measured support for democracy predicts more favorable subsequent democratic change, even after accounting for prior regime status and stable country traits.
- The association is especially strong for the survival and endurance of existing democracies; support is more reliably linked to keeping democracies intact than to creating new democracies.
Why It Matters
By assembling a large, cross-national, longitudinal measure of democratic support and using Bayesian latent-variable methods to address measurement gaps, the article provides stronger empirical backing for the classic claim—dating to Lipset and Easton—that popular support helps democracies survive. The findings refine understanding of when and how mass attitudes matter: they appear most consequential for maintaining democracies rather than for bringing them into being.
