State formation and democratization in a comparative perspective

Presentation of a comparative research program

Carsten Anckar
Department of Political Science
bo Akademi University
canckar@abo.se

Thomas Denk
Department of Political Science
bo Akademi University
tdenk@abo.se

State formation and democratization in a comparative perspective

Carsten Anckar and Thomas Denk

Background
Since 1945, the number of independent states has increased significantly; in fact, more than
65 per cent of the internationally recognized states have been formed since World War II.
However, the road to independence has been very different in these newly formed states. For
example, some states have received their independence after armed conflicts, while other
states have been formed in consensus after negotiations. Having received their independence,
the states have established different forms of political regimes. Although a considerable part
of the states have established democratic regimes, non-democratic regimes are also in
abundance in new states (Anckar 2010; Denk 2008; Rost & Booth 2008).

In his classic work on democratization, Robert Dahl (1971) discusses the idea that variations
in the way states gain their independence affect the political development in new states.
According to Dahl, democratic regimes are more likely to emerge if the process of
independence is slow and evolutionary than if the process is intensive with high degrees of
conflicts. Samuel Huntington (1967) also discusses the consequences of independence
processes for political development, stressing in particular the importance of institutional
development at the time of independence. New states with stable institutions for participation
and effective institutions for implementation possess positive conditions for democratic
regimes. In their seminal work on democratic consolidation Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan
(1996) argue that state-building is a fundamental condition for political development in new
states. However, they also conclude that it is a condition that is under-theorized and omitted in
empirical studies. In sum, all the studies mentioned above present theoretical arguments in
favour of an expected link between processes of state formation and developments of political
regimes in new states.

Even though both state formation and democratization have been discussed extensively in the
literature, the relationship between state formation and democratization is still surprisingly
unexplored in comparative research. The research on democratization has in many respects
generated extensive theoretical and empirical knowledge. However, most of the studies
conducted in the field are based on the assumption that the state-building process is finished
1

and that the objects of research are established and consolidated political entities. According
to Gerardo Munch (2007), the model with the state as the unit of analyses and democracy as
the dependent variable is widely accepted in a field which in many other respects is
characterized by a wide variety of perspectives and methodologies. Consequently, conditions
which mark the political entity prior to independence are rarely included in the analyses.
Here, Jan Teorells recently published ambitious study on democratization constitutes an
illustrative example. The author investigates the importance of more than 25 determinants of
democracy. However, with the exception of colonial heritage, none of the independent
variables refer to conditions prior to independence or to the process of state formation (Teorell
2010).
Rost & Booth (2008:635f) rightfully state that surprisingly little is known about why [new
states] became democracies or authoritarian regimes. They continue by noting that the
process of democratization in newly established states has received limited systematic
evaluation, given the fact that a large part of the existing states have been formed after 1945,
and given the fact that there are theoretical arguments supporting the assumption that political
development (e.g. democratization) is particularly problematic in new states. Previous studies
also show that new states tend face the same risks as other states, but to an even higher extent.
Accordingly, the probability of international war is higher for new states than for consolidated
states (Brecher 1993; Brecher et al. 2000); the level of ethnic violence is higher in new states
than in consolidated states (Carment 1993); the risk of civil war and genocides are higher for
new states than for consolidated states (Fearon & Latin 2003; Krain 1997) and new states
have lower levels of economic development and higher degrees of ethnic fragmentation than
consolidated states (Rost & Booth 2008). In sum, then, the conditions for democratization are
quite different in new states than in consolidated ones.

A major reason for the shortage of comparative studies on the connection between state
formation and democratization is the lack of comparative databases with information on
different aspects of state formation. In many other areas of comparative politics,
comprehensive databases have been developed. Thus, we find databases containing
information on political regimes (e.g. Polity IV; Freedom House), state governance (e.g.
Quality of Government Database), political values (e.g. World Values Survey), and conflicts
(e.g. Uppsala Conflict Data Program). These databases have contributed greatly to the
empirical and theoretical developments in their fields. Above all, they have provided
2

possibilities to conduct global large-N analyses. Due to lack of comparable databases, it has
not been possible to conduct similar studies with regard to the process of state formation.
Indeed, it is telling that a comparative classification of modern state formations is still missing
and that the assumption of the importance of state formation on democratization in newly
established states has not been empirically tested. The proposed project therefore aims to
create the first comparative database on state formation.

Objectives
The proposed project studies the connection between state formation and democratization in
new states. The main research question is: Is it possible to predict the form of political regime
in new states based on information regarding the processes that lead to the formation of the
state? The objective is to a) build a comparative database on state formation, b) construct a
comparative classification of state formation and c) empirically investigate how different
aspects of state formation is related to the development of political regimes in newly
established states.

Without comparative databases on state formation, empirical studies regarding the formation
of modern states have mainly been based on single cases or comparisons of few (in most
cases two) states. By linking theoretical and empirical arguments, the studies in question have
identified dimensions that are expected to be central in the processes of state formation.
Theoretical studies have systematized and integrated these dimensions into analytical
frameworks with regard to the processes of state formation (e.g. Denk 2003; Pavkovic 2007;
Premdas 1990; Smith 1976; Wood 1981). These analytical frameworks will guide the efforts
to establish a comparative database on state formation. Examples of dimensions that will be
included in the database are mobilization of citizens, degree of consensus/conflict, resolution
form (sanctions/negations), institutional development, degree of pluralism, duration of the
process of independence, citizen inclusion, and clarity of the territorial domain of the state.

The proposed project aims to create a database with information on those dimensions that
previous studies have regarded as relevant. Once the database has been compiled, the cases
will be analyzed by using different methods of classification. The ambition is to generate a
classification of state formations that identifies different empirical paths to independence. The
classification analyses are based on the expectation that although the cases vary with regard to
3

the different dimensions, the variations are correlated and different configurations can be
identified. The development of classifications will provide a major contribution to the field of
research as we still lack a classification-scheme of modern state formations. Stein Rokkan
(1975) did develop a classification-scheme of state formations but it only included historical
cases in Western Europe. The focus on the formation of European nation-states is also present
in the works of Charles Tilly (1992). The proposed project is much more ambitious in the
sense that it will provide a classification-scheme of modern state formations at the global
level.

Data compiled in the comparative database will thereafter be analyzed. The database will
consist of an extensive set of variables denoting processes of state formation, conditions prior
to independence and conditions in newly formed states. Based on previous theoretical and
empirical research, a set of initial hypotheses are formed and empirically tested:

1.

New states formed as a consequence of processes based on civil mobilization are more likely to develop
democratic regimes than other states (Huntington 1968).

2.

New states formed by consensus within and among affected groups are more likely to develop
democratic regimes than other states (Dahl 1971).

3.

New states formed after negotiations among affected groups are more likely to develop democratic
regimes than other states (Dahl 1971).

4.

New states that have effective institutions at the time of independence are more likely to develop
democratic regimes than other states (Huntington 1968).

5.

New states that are formed by processes with high degrees of pluralism are more likely to develop
democratic regimes than other states (Dahl 1971).

6.

New states that are created after evolutionary (stepwise) processes are more likely to develop
democratic regimes than other states (Dahl 1971).

7.

New states that are created after a decision based on high levels of inclusion are more likely to develop
democratic regimes than other states (Dahl 1971).

8.

New state that have a clear territorial domain and clear criteria for citizenship are more likely to
develop democratic regimes than other states (Linz & Stepan 1994)

Now, all the aforementioned hypotheses concern the direct connection between processes of
state formation and democratization. Additionally, the project sets out to study to what extent
there are indirect links between processes of state formation and democratization. In other
words, processes of state formation may affect conditions which, according to previous
research on democratization, have been shown to be of relevance for the degree of democracy
(Figure 1). Such conditions include cultural, demographic, economic, geographic,
international, political and social variables (e.g. Hadenius 1992; Teorell 2010). Furthermore,
the cases of state formation are analyzed both as one homogenous group but also within many
different settings. For example, research on democratization has indicated that the importance
of many of the independent variables varies between different waves of democratization
(Geddes 1999; Huntington 1992). This may also be the case concerning newly formed states.
Additionally, the outcomes of analyses of conditions for democratization in new states are
compared with analyses of conditions for democratization in previously established states. In
other words, the project considers processes of state formation to function not only as an
independent variable in relation to democratization but also as a contextual variable, which
affects the relations between various independent factors and democratization in newly
formed states.

Figure 1: Basic model

Processes of
state formation

Indirect effects

Direct effects
Contextual
effects

Internal and external

conditions of new states

Democratization

Research methods and material

Creation of database
The efforts to develop a comparative database on processes of state formation will be divided
into three phases. In the first phase, the existing data are to be compiled. In existing
comparative databases there are individual variables on state formation. A first task is to bring
these available variables together in one database. The second phase will be devoted to an
extensive work with data collection. The availability of information regarding individual cases
of state formation is generally quite satisfactory since the processes of state formation
constitute an important part of the states political history. It should be emphasized, though,
that the existing information tends to highly descriptive. Therefore, in the third phase, the
cases will be categorized with reference to a comparative framework, which will be
developed on the basis of previous research. The outcome of these three phases will be the
first comparative database on state formation in modern times.

The database will consist of approximately 130 cases of state formation since 1946. These
cases will be categorized in a multiplicity of dimensions. In total, data on 125-150 variables
will be available in the database. These variables indicate pre-independent conditions, aspects
of state formation (e.g. civil mobilization of citizens, degree of consensus/conflict, resolution
form, institutional development, degree of pluralism, duration of the process of independence,
citizen inclusion, and clarity of the territorial domain of the state) and conditions in new states
(e.g. cultural, economic, geographic, political, and social conditions). With the exception of
the variables of state formation, most of these variables are available through existing
databases. The database will be constructed based on an ambition to make it possible to
integrate the database with other existing databases. Thereby the project will provide
opportunities for other researchers to include factors related to the process of state formation
in their analyses. The database will be accessible through a user-friendly website.
Additionally, the website will make documentation of the cases, results and publications
available for researcher outside the project. After the project has been completed, the database
will be deposited at the Finnish Social Science Data Archive (FSD) and thus available for the
research community without charge.

Within the field of political science there is extensive experience and knowledge in building
and working with comparative databases (e.g. Munck 2009). To ensure the quality of the work
conducted within the frameworks of the project, the research group will use an extensive
6

number of peer-reviewers. For each case, a report will be prepared. The reports will then be
sent for review to country experts in the field. Based on the feedback from the experts, reports
will be revised and classifications of cases will be included in the database. The publication of
the reports provides important information about the criteria and procedures which the
classification is based on, thereby strengthening the transparency of the database.

Classification of cases
Based on the information contained in the database a set of classification analyses will be
performed. The purpose of the analyses is to identify different paths to independence in a
systematic way. In a simple form, classification is the ordering of entities into groups of
classes on the basis of their similarity. The classification can either be unidimensional (based
on one dimension) or multidimensional (based on several dimensions). As we expect the
different variables/dimensions included in the database to be correlated in different sets, the
classifications will be based on a multidimensional model. With a systematic classification
follows several advantages. Classification is a descriptive tool, which reduces complexity. It
recognizes similarities and differences among cases in a way which makes it possible to
compare the cases. A developed classification provides representation of the cases, but also
locates them within a property space formed by a combination of variables (Baily 1994).

To perform the classification analysis, several analytical methods will be applied. First,
quantitative analytical methods are to be used. The dimensions are generally based on
categorical data (nominal or ordinal variables), although some interval-level variables also
occur in the database. Depending on the nature of the variables, classification methods like
factor analyses, cluster analysis, discriminant analysis and multidimensional scaling will be
applied (Bailey 1994). Second, configurational comparative methods (CCM) offer an
alternative to quantitative classification methods. These methods provide opportunities to
analyze variables on different levels (nominal, ordinal and interval). CCM is also an excellent
tool for data exploration and for identifying similarities among cases (Rihoux & Ragin 2009).
The outcomes of the analyses are expected to be the first comparative classification of state
formation in modern times.

Analyses of state formation and democratization

The analyses in this section will use data from the comparative database on state formation
supplemented with data from other comparative databases (e.g. Cross-National Time-Series
7

Data Archive, The Quality of Government Dataset, Political and Economic Database and
Armed Conflict Dataset). From the database, analyzes will use information about the variables
and the developed classification of cases from the previous section. The overall purpose of the
analysis is to empirically test the above mentioned hypotheses of the relationship between
processes of state formation and democratization in newly established states. The ambition is
to develop empirical models of explanation of how processes of state formation are related to
democratization in new states. To achieve this ambition, the collected data will be analyzed
with quantitative methods. These methods are complemented by comparative methods. The
outcome of these analyses will be the first comparative model on the connections between
state formation and democratization in new states created in modern time.

In addition to quantitative and comparative analyses, in-depth studies of some selected cases
will be conducted. Quantitative and comparative analysis can establish if there is a correlation
between state formation and democratization in new states. However, if there is indeed a
correlation, it still provides no information about the causal mechanisms that link state
formation to democratization. Based on the case reports, a set of case studies will therefore be
conducted in order to trace the causal mechanisms which explain why certain factors exert an
influence on the dependent variable in the quantitative and comparative analyses. The
selection of cases will be done after the quantitative and comparative analyses, and it will be
based on the recommendation from Lieberman (2005): select cases on the regression line if
you want to trace the causal mechanism underlying the statistical relationship in the model. In
technical aspects, the selection will be based on the methods that are designed to identify
pathway cases (Gerring & Seawright 2007; Teorell 2010).

In all analyses, the temporal dimension of data and design will be important. The use of the
temporal dimension reduces the problem of reversed causation (that the independent factor is
caused by the dependent factor). The processes of state formation precede in time the
establishment of new states. The temporal dimension also provides opportunities to discover
path dependence, which means that past events affect present or future events by historical
lock-in effects or reproducing sequences. Path dependence is identified by comparing patterns
of processes/events over time (Mahoney & Schensul 2006; Pierson 2004). In sum, this is a
macro-comparative project that uses different methods in an elaborated way to analyze the
paths to independence and their significance for democratization in newly formed states.

Implementation
The project will be launched in September 2012. The time-table for the project is presented in
the following table.
The time-table of activities
Data collection: existing data
Data collection: own data
Analyses: classification of cases
Analyses: state formation and democracy
Analyses: pathway cases
Publications: case reports
Publications: articles
Publications: State formation and democracy
Publications: Paths towards independence
Publications: Handbook of Comparative State formation
Networks: data-base / web-site
Networks: internal workshops

2012
X

2013

2014

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

Networks: PhD-course
Networks: international conference
Networks: external workshops

2015

2016

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

NOPSA

ECPR

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IPSA/APSA

The main site of research is the Department of Political Science at bo Akademi University.
The department has a long and strong tradition of comparative research on political regimes
and democratization. Previously conducted projects on micro-states at the department, assures
that the research team has access to valuable material on processes of state formation in many
of the newly established small states (previous studies on state formation have lacked
information about precisely these states). The department also offers a stable platform for the
establishment and administration of the comparative database.

The research team will collaborate with several institutions and researchers. First, the use of
external reviewers in the process of categorizing the cases means that a comprehensive
network of researchers will be formed, which, of course, provides great opportunities for
future collaboration. Second, the project will seek to establish cooperation with research
institutes that are based on comparative databases. In particular, the connections with
International Peace Research Institute (PRIO: Oslo University), Quality of Government
Institute (QoG: University of Gothenburg), and Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP:
Uppsala University) are of foremost importance. The centers mentioned above are examples

of successful research institutes within the frameworks of which several internationally

recognized comparative databases have been compiled. Third, the members of the project will
participate in workshops at international conferences. The participation provides opportunities
to present the comparative database and studies based on it. Additionally, the members will
also organize international workshops. One ambition is to organize workshops on state
formation at the NOPSA-conference 2014, ECPR-conference 2015, and IPSA- or APSAconference 2016.

When the comparative database is established, a central aim of the project is to launch an
international network of researchers active in the field. The purpose is to consolidate research
and publication activities based on the comparative database. The ambition is also to
frequently update the database with new cases and new sets of variables. Additionally, future
projects on state formation and democratization are likely to be developed within the
international network.

Expected results and possibility risks

The project provides theoretical and empirical contributions to two central research fields in
political science: state formation and democratization. The project provides understanding on
a) the processes of state formation and b) how these processes affect the probability for
democratization in newly formed states. As the project includes an extensive effort to build a
unique comparative database on state formation, the project is expected to generate new
results that provide empirical and theoretical contributions on state formation and
democratization.

More specifically, the project is expected to provide three general contributions. First, the first
comparative database on state formation in modern times will be developed within the
project. This is an important contribution as it provides long-term conditions for future studies
outside this project. Together with activities to develop infrastructure and networks, the
database promotes the development of comparative studies on state formation. This is a
contribution which has been requested in the research field for a long period of time (see
Pavkovic 2007; Premdas 1990; Wood 1982). Second, the project presents the first
classification of state formations in modern times at a global level. By identifying different
paths to independence, the classification enhances the knowledge on how newly established
10

states are created in modern time. For political science, where the state is a central unit of
analysis, this contribution is important not only in several subfields of research, but also for
the discipline in general. Third, the project presents the first comparative model on the
connections between state formation and democratization in new states created in modern
times. This increases our understanding of the relations between two fundamental processes in
political life (state formation and democratization). In general, previous studies have ignored
conditions before independence in their analyses of the determinants of democratization. By
investigating the connection between state formation and democratization in systematic and
comparative ways, the project gives a major contribution to the body of empirical and
theoretical research on state formation and democratization. In all, this project draws
empirical and theoretical attention to key aspects of political development that have been
overlooked in previous studies.

The ability to predict the development in new states based on analyses of the processes of
state formation provides valuable information for a number of actors and institutions.
Humanitarian actors, economic actors, political institutions and organizations all tend to play
an active role in societies during the processes of independence. Nowadays it is probably fair
to say that both national actors (e.g. states or organizations) and international actors (e.g. EU,
UN or NATO) have ambitions to support processes of democratization in new states.

11

Key literature
Anckar, C. (2010): Size and Democracy in New State Formation i Denk, T. (ed.):
Perspectives on state-bulding and democracy: A research anthology. Saarbrcken: VDM.
Bailey, K. D. (1994): Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification
Techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Brecher, M. (1993): Crises in world politics: Theory and reality. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Brecher, M., James, P. & Wilkenfeld,W. (2000): Escalation and war in the twentieth century;
Findings from the International Crisis Behavior project in J.A. Vasquez (ed.): What do
we know about war? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Carment, D. (1993): The international dimensions of ethnic conflict: concepts, indicators and
theory, Journal of Peace Research 30: 137-150.
Dahl, R. A. (1971): Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Denk, T. (2003): Att frst secession Frslag till komparativt analysschema om
secessionsprocesser. Karlstad University Press: Karlstad.
Denk, T. (2008): Statsbildning och demokratisering. Uppsats
Statsvetenskapliga frbundets rsmte i Uppsala (september 2008).

presenterad

vid

Denk, T. (2010): State-building and Democratization i Denk, T. (red.): Perspectives on

state-bulding and democracy: A research anthology. Saarbrcken: VDM.
Fearon, J.D. & Laitin, D.D. (2003): Ethnicity, insurgency and civil war, American Political
Science Review 97: 7590.
Geddes, B. (1999): What Do We Know about Democratization after Twenty Years?, Annual
Review of Political Science 31: 740-771.
Gerring, J. & Seawright, J. (2007): Techniques for Choosing Cases in Gerring, J: Case
Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, S.P. (1968): Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1992): The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Krain, M. (1997): State-sponsored mass murder: The onset and severity of genocides and
Politicides, Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 331360.
Lieberman, E. (2005): Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative
Research, American Political Science Review 93: 435-452.

12

Linz, J.J. & Stepan, A. (1996): Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:
Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The John Hopkins
University Press.
Mahoney, J. & Schensul, D. (2006): Historical Context and Path Dependence in Goodin, R.
E. & Tilly, C. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Munck, G. L. (2007): Democracy Studies: Agendas, Findings, Challenges in BergSchlosser, D. (ed.): Democratization: The State of the Art. Opladen: Barbara Budrich
Publishers.
Munck, G. L. (2009): Measuring Democracy: A Bridge between Scholarship & Politics.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Pavokovic, A. (2009): Creating New States Theory and Practice of Secession. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Pierson, P. (2004): Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rihox, B. & Ragin, C. C. (eds.) (2009): Configurational Comparative Methods. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Rokkan, S. (1975): Dimensions of State Formation and Nation-Building: A Possible
Paradigm for Research on Variations within Europe in Tilly, C. (ed.): The Formation of
National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rost, N. & Booth, J.A. (2008): Determinants of regime type in newly independent states,
European Journal of Political Research 47: 635664.
Smith, A. D. (1976): Introduction: The Formation of Nationalist Movements in Smith, A. D.
(ed.): Nationalist Movements. London: Macmillan Press.
Teorell, J. (2010): Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the
World, 1972-2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, C. (1992): Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Cambridge:
Blackwell.
Wood, J. R. (1981): Secession: A Comparative Analytical Framework, Canadian Journal of
Political Science: 107-134.

13