This letter asks whether a "state-first" approach—where a strong state promotes democratic development—holds up when the concept of state strength is disaggregated. Using new Varieties of Democracy data covering 1789–2015, the authors specify eight versions of the state-first argument and test them across the modern democratic era. Their central contribution is to separate bureaucratic quality from broader measures of state capacity and to evaluate their distinct associations with democratic survival and deepening.
New Varieties of Democracy data Eight formulations of "state-first" Long-run panel evidence
Data and methods
The study analyzes Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) measures for the period 1789–2015 and operationalizes eight variants of the claim that state strength precedes democracy. The authors examine both conditions at the time of first democratic transition and features during democratic spells. The analyses use methods appropriate for long-run comparative panels (the abstract cites panel-wide testing across the era), estimating associations between state features and democratic outcomes while contrasting different state-first formulations.
Main findings
Across the different specifications, the authors report that higher levels of bureaucratic quality at first transition and during democratic periods are positively associated with democratic survival and further deepening. By contrast, aggregate measures of state capacity do not show robust effects on democratic survival or deepening, nor do they meaningfully condition the effect of bureaucratic quality. The results lead the authors to highlight the value of disaggregating state features rather than treating state strength as a single factor.
- Bureaucratic quality is positively associated with democratic survival and deepening.
- State capacity (as an aggregate measure) shows no robust positive effects and does not alter bureaucratic quality’s association.
