The Matthew effect in political science: head start and key reforms important for democratization

The research question explores whether pre-existing conditions influence the success of democratization efforts. The study's context is the long-standing debate in political science about the factors contributing to successful democratic transitions. The purpose is to test the hypothesis that a "Matthew effect" – where advantages beget further advantages – operates in the context of democratization. The importance stems from the potential to refine our understanding of democratization processes and to inform policy interventions aimed at promoting democracy. The authors highlight the limited research directly examining the cumulative advantage aspect in democratization despite substantial literature examining democratization's causes. This study aims to address this gap using a large-scale comparative analysis of successful and failed liberalization episodes across a wide temporal and geographical scope. The study posits that countries starting with more favorable initial conditions, such as better political institutions, stronger economies, and higher levels of education, are more likely to experience successful democratization and to achieve faster reform implementation.

The paper reviews existing literature on democratization, noting that much of the research assumes uniform effects across explanatory variables. While some studies acknowledge the importance of prior democratic experience and initial conditions, none have explicitly investigated the possibility of a consistent Matthew effect across a broad historical span. The authors discuss the concept of the Matthew effect, drawing on examples from various fields such as science, economics, and education, where initial advantages lead to disproportionate future success. They connect the idea to the Gospel of Matthew's parable of accumulating advantages, noting that their research tests its validity within the realm of political science for the first time in a significant historical context. The paper references key studies focusing on economic development and education as factors in democratization, emphasizing the novelty of their approach in examining these factors through the lens of cumulative advantage.

The study employs a quantitative comparative analysis of liberalization episodes from 1900 to 2018. The definition of democracy used closely follows Dahl's concept of polyarchy, focusing on institutional guarantees such as free and fair elections, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. The authors utilize the V-Dem dataset's Electoral Democracy Index (EDI), a composite measure encompassing 24 variables reflecting these guarantees. They analyze liberalization episodes – periods of institutional change moving a country towards democracy – categorized as successful, failed, or censored based on whether they resulted in a lasting democratic transition. The sample includes 337 liberalization episodes in 155 countries, with a focus on episodes beginning in closed or electoral autocracies. The analysis compares successful and failed episodes, assessing differences in initial conditions (pre-episode values of EDI, GDP per capita, and primary school enrollment) and reform pace (rate of change in EDI components). Statistical tests (t-tests) are employed to determine significant differences between successful and failed episodes in both initial conditions and the rate of reform. The use of the V-Dem dataset allows for a robust and comprehensive assessment of democratization across diverse contexts and time periods. The authors carefully define the variables and the criteria for categorizing episodes, enhancing the rigor and transparency of the methodology.

The study's key findings reveal a significant Matthew effect in democratization. Countries that successfully transitioned to democracy had significantly better initial conditions than those that failed, as measured by pre-episode EDI scores, GDP per capita, and primary school enrollment (Figs. 1 & 3). This difference in initial conditions was consistent across multiple years before and after the start of the liberalization episodes. Examining individual EDI components (Fig. 2), the researchers found substantial differences between successful and failed episodes in a range of indicators reflecting election quality, freedom of expression, and association. For two-thirds (16 out of 24) of the indicators, the difference was statistically significant in the year the episode started. This disparity widened even further in subsequent years. Moreover, the analysis of reform pace (Fig. 4) showed a significantly faster rate of change in several indicators related to freedom of expression and association in successful episodes. This faster pace was observed even in areas where successful episodes did not initially hold advantages. In summary, the analysis shows that countries starting from better initial conditions experienced both higher likelihood of democratization and faster improvements, irrespective of pre-existing advantages in particular areas. These results strongly support the hypothesis of a Matthew effect in political science regarding democratization.

The findings directly address the research question by demonstrating the existence of a Matthew effect in political science, specifically within the context of democratization. The significance of the results lies in challenging the conventional assumption of constant effects across the range of explanatory variables. The study offers a new perspective on democratization by highlighting the importance of initial conditions and their cumulative influence. The results highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of democratization, moving beyond simplistic causal models. This implies that policies aimed at promoting democratization should consider not only the factors traditionally emphasized but also the critical role of accumulated advantages. The Matthew effect underscores the need for a long-term perspective on democratic development and the importance of building the necessary 'capital' (political, economic, and social) before initiating transitions to democracy. It also raises important questions about potential thresholds where the Matthew effect becomes more pronounced and similar effects in the process of democratic consolidation.

The study concludes that a Matthew effect significantly influences democratization, with countries possessing better initial conditions more likely to succeed and achieve faster reforms. This challenges the traditional view that treats all cases similarly. The findings emphasize the importance of pre-existing conditions and the accumulation of advantages, suggesting that policies should aim at building foundational capital before initiating transitions. Future research should explore potential thresholds for the Matthew effect and investigate similar dynamics in democratic consolidation.

The study's limitations include the potential for omitted variable bias, although the comprehensive nature of the V-Dem dataset helps mitigate this issue. The focus on liberalization episodes might overlook other pathways to democratization. Further research could explore the generalizability of the findings to other forms of political change. Finally, while the study provides a comprehensive analysis of democratization episodes over a long period, a detailed qualitative analysis of specific cases might offer a more nuanced understanding.