The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains

The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains*
Raj M. Desai†
Anders Olofsgård Tarik M. Yousef
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
37th
& O Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20057
Abstract
Dictatorships do not survive by repression alone. Rather, dictatorial rule is often explained as an
―authoritarian bargain‖ by which citizens relinquish political rights for economic security. The
applicability of the authoritarian bargain to decision-making in non-democratic states, however, has not
been thoroughly examined. We conceptualize this bargain as a simple game between a representative
citizen and an autocrat who faces the threat of insurrection, and where economic transfers and political
influence are simultaneously determined. Our model yields precise implications for the empirical patterns
that are expected to exist. Tests of a system of equations with panel data comprising 80 non-democratic
states between 1975 and 1999 confirm the predictions of the authoritarian-bargain thesis, with some
variation across different categories of dictatorship.
June 2007
*
The authors thank Michael Bailey, Carles Boix, Marc Busch, Thomas Carothers, Garance Genicot, James
Habyarimana, Michael Hanmer, Steve Heydemann, Johannes Linn, Anna Maria Mayda, Kathleen McNamara,
Mustafa Nabli, George Shambaugh, David Strömberg, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier
drafts. A previous version of this paper was also prepared for a World Bank report on labor market reform in the
Middle East and North Africa. This paper benefited from presentations at the annual meeting of the American
Political Science Association, and at seminars at the University of Chicago, the Center for Global Development, the
Brookings Institution, and Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. The authors are grateful to the Office of
the Chief Economist for the Middle East and North Africa Department of the World Bank, and to the Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service for financial support. Michael Robbins provided invaluable research assistance.
†
Corresponding author, desair@georgetown.edu.

1
1 INTRODUCTION
How do authoritarian regimes stay in power? Repression—the classic answer—is not enough,
since repression also creates the ―dictator’s dilemma‖ by which citizens feign support for the ruler even as
they collude to rebel, increasing the degree of insecurity a dictator faces [Tullock (1987), Wintrobe
(2007)]. More likely, some form of redistribution to citizens is necessary to secure and maintain their
loyalty. Dictatorial regimes are therefore said to rely on an ―authoritarian bargain,‖ or an implicit
arrangement between ruling elites and citizens whereby citizens relinquish political influence in exchange
for public spending.1
Much of the rationale explaining the persistence of such bargains has been induced from regional
or case studies of policy-making in dictatorships and of authoritarian withdrawal. In addition,
econometric studies of public spending or of democratization in dictatorial regimes examine the two sides
of the ―bargain‖ separately. By contrast, we aim to develop a framework that may be used to test the
generality of the claim that political influence and public spending are substitutes in non-democratic states
across these countries and over time.
We proceed in two steps. We first develop a simple model of an authoritarian bargain, based on
the presumption that non-democratic rulers secure regime support through the allocation of two
substitutable ―goods‖ to the public: economic transfers and the ability to influence policymaking. The
former consists of explicit and implicit transfers, subsidies, protections, and regulations that guarantee
profits, employment, or consumption above what would otherwise prevail. The latter consists of partial
political liberalization or of expanding citizen participation in governmental decision-making, leading to
policy choices that are closer to citizen preferences. The central purpose of the model is not to highlight a
1
We refer to dictatorships and ―authoritarian regimes‖ interchangeably. These terms are used for
convenience, and are not meant to signify only the most extreme forms of dictatorship. Rather, we are
referring to all regimes that are less-than-fully democratic, including regimes in which some forms of
limited voting and political participation are permitted.

2
single or series of specific causal mechanism(s). Rather, it is to identify, based on certain a priori
principles, a set of relationships between variables that then form the basis for our empirical specification.
In a second step, we examine whether these patterns are, in fact, present in the data. Using cross-
national, time-series data from 80 non-democratic states between 1975 and 1999 we test a system of
equations with welfare expenditures and political rights on the left-hand side and a set of covariates
derived from the theoretical model as covariates. The results generally confirm the existence of
authoritarian bargains in non-democratic states. We also find that this bargain tends to break down in
military and highly-repressive dictatorships.
2 REGIME SUPPORT IN NON-DEMOCRATIC STATES
Support for regimes is one of the central concepts in modern comparative politics, but rarely
investigated in non-democratic states.2
Comparable conclusions about dictatorships tend to be based on
assumptions of authoritarian stability and from evidence of their breakdown. In this regard, one of the
better-known perspectives on authoritarian rule reflects the ―contract‖ between dictators and different
constituencies whereby the latter acquiesce to constraints on their political participation and liberties in
exchange for economic security. Examples of these authoritarian bargains abound. In Mexico the ruling
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for many years provided organized labor with numerous benefits
while these labor groups, in turn, supported successive PRI-governments’ restrictions on political
freedom [Collier (1992); Murillo (2000)]. In South Korea, rulers reached similar implicit and explicit
agreements with major domestic investors and large conglomerates [Kang (2002)]. In the Middle East,
2
This is by no means coincidental; while support has long been considered one of the main dimensions of
political performance, some of the conventional ―modes‖ of achieving that legitimacy (building public
trust, expanding participation, improving the responsiveness of government, etc.) are more easily
measured and observed in democracies [e.g., see Almond and Verba (1965); Powell (1982); Putnam,
Leonardi, and Nanetti (1993)].

3
authoritarian bargains have remained resilient particularly in oil-rich states, where welfare spending
provided by earnings from oil exports have historically granted rulers considerable autonomy from
pressures to liberalize politically [Heydemann (2002)]. In non-democratic Sub-Saharan Africa, finally,
the provision of private goods by rulers to groups on the basis of ethnic or linguistic solidarity has long
been a hallmark of those regimes’ survival [Olivier de Sardan (1999)].
The nature of the bargain underpinning authoritarian rule is informed by two separate but related
strands of empirical and theoretical work on decision-making in dictatorships. On the one hand,
economic theories of dictatorship focus on the ruler’s choice of fiscal or redistributive policies and other
mechanisms ruling elites use to gain popular support. By contrast, other analyses of dictatorship have
examined how rulers use political cooptation and internal political reform to maintain regime stability
given exogenous economic conditions. We examine each in turn.
2.1 Redistribution and the Economics of Authoritarianism
Formal analyses of dictatorship have shown that, in addition to repression, autocracies are often
sustained through a system of specialized patronage relationships and through a series of strategic
transfers to, among others, the heads of armed forces, national and local government bureaucrats,
individuals who control the apparatuses of the ruling party, and often segments within the business
community. In most cases, these analyses presume that the characteristics of the specific dictatorial
regime-type are given, and that the policy choices of dictators are influenced mainly by these regime
characteristics.3
One of the central insights from models of dictatorial survival is that dictators must provide
combinations of public and private goods in order to remain in power. Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2002)
3
The exception is Razo (2002), who argues that the commitment problem in dictatorships can actually
influence, in the end, the character of the political institutions that produce economically high- or low-
performing dictatorships.

4
note that, in reality, all policies contain aspects of public and private goods, and that even expenditures on
programs that purportedly benefit all of society (e.g., national defense) contain transfers to specific groups
(e.g., defense contractors). Incumbents have a repertoire of policy instruments by which they can deliver
benefits to different constituencies. Trade protection and regulations against entry into markets generate
rents to domestic producers; labor regulations and welfare programs can be used to benefit workers;
subsidies, transfers, and cheap credits can support specific economic sectors or firms. In this vein various
models have examined the use of redistributive policies [Acemoglu and Robinson (2001); Grossman and
Kim (1995, (1996)], public employment [Alesina, Danninger, and Rostagno (2001)], fiscal
decentralization [Jin, Qian, and Weingast (N.d.)], or other benefits designed to shore up public support.
2.2 Political Control and Authoritarian Breakdown
A second set of analyses emphasizes how economic conditions shape the character of governing
―pacts‖ between rulers and citizens, and how these bargains can break down. In particular, poor
economic performance diminishes the bargaining power of autocrats, increases the strength of the
opposition, destroys the bargains struck between leaders and their supporters, and leaves ruling groups
vulnerable to defections.
Consequently, a consensus has emerged that an economic crisis poses a particular political
problem: it erodes the ability of regimes to continue to secure public support through the provision of
benefits. Recession, inflation, and currency collapse deny governments the resources needed to maintain
critical support in the population [Haggard and Kaufman (1995)]. Economic crises also introduce a high
degree of uncertainty in governmental behavior, limit the availability of information to the public, blur
political identities, and create a basis for a series of unexpected, unpredictable events [O'Donnell,
Schmitter, and Whitehead (1986)].
Governments lacking resources to resolve these crises find themselves faced with disloyalty,
organized violence, and a rapid loss of legitimacy. Political openings, in these situations, are believed to
develop through negotiation, bargaining, and alliances between democrats and incumbents, moderates and

5
extremists [Di Palma (1990); Gleditsch and Choung (2004)]. Under these conditions, restricted
elections—elections in which party activities, candidate recruitment, or voter registration are limited—
can serve as an effective means of granting limited voice to opposition groups. Indeed, dictators have
managed to remain in power for long periods of time by holding ―staged‖ elections [McFaul (2002)].
2.3 Political Rights and Economic Transfers: Is There a Tradeoff?
These analyses raise two related questions. First, do dictatorships facing internal rebellion
attempt to maintain legitimacy through a greater provision of economic benefits? Second, do
dictatorships under economic stress tend to liberalize politically? On the first question, the evidence
suggests that the stability of authoritarian regimes is bolstered through the redistribution of wealth,
particularly when that wealth derives from natural resources or ―country-specific‖ capital [Boix (2003;
Ross (2001)]. Oil-rich regimes, for example, tend to survive even when controlling for repression [Smith
(2004)]. Governments in oil-rich nations, consequently, can secure citizen support through generous
welfare provision and thereby contain public demands for political liberalization. On the second question,
evidence on regime transitions seems to confirm that recessions have preceded regime transitions (in both
democratic and non-democratic directions) from the 1950s to the 1980s [Gasiorowski (1995)].
Taken together, these findings suggest an important question that, thus far, has been little
examined, namely, whether political liberalism and economic transfers are substitutes in autocracies. If
true, it follows that when non-democratic governments are forced into bouts of fiscal retrenchment they
may secure short-term political support through partial political liberalization—by extending certain basic
rights and protections from arbitrary force or expropriation to citizens [O'Donnell and Schmitter (1986)].
Conversely, an authoritarian ruler facing greater demands for political inclusion—if faced with a credible
opposition—may be forced to expand the provision of economic benefits to the population.
That economic and political goods may be substitutes, and that their provision may be jointly
determined, has not been extensively examined. Moreover, recent cross-national survey research
confirms that support for ―revolutionary action‖ falls both with faster growth and with political

6
liberalization—indeed, political liberalization is actually more legitimacy-affirming than economic
growth [MacCulloch and Pezzini (2002)]. But if economic benefits and political liberalism are jointly
determined the standard econometric approach of regressing measures of democracy on economic reform
(or vice versa) suffers from simultaneity bias. Instead, a model that explicitly takes into account the joint
nature of the decision is needed.
3 FORMALIZING THE AUTHORITARIAN BARGAIN
We present here a simple theoretical framework to guide our thinking about the authoritarian
bargain, the purpose of which is to identify empirical patterns that would derive from our conception of
decision making in authoritarian regimes. In a simple game between an authoritarian ruler and citizens,
political power entails control of some economic rents as well as the power to choose policy. Although
autocrats would prefer to keep all available rents and set policies according to their own preferences, they
will share rents and/or accommodate policies towards citizen’s preferences in order to limit popular
discontent, or to contain the threat of a coup or uprising. For this model, we assume that all citizens have
identical policy preferences, but it is straightforward to extend this framework to a population with
different preferences [Gandhi and Przeworski (2006)]. The framework is thus suggesting a standard static
maximization problem in the face of a participation constraint.
The utility of the ruler can be formalized as
   *
ddd xxvSRu  , (1)
where R is available rents, S represents economic transfers to the citizens, x is the (single-dimensional)
policy variable, and *
dx is the dictator’s ideal policy. Both functions are assumed to be concave and twice
differentiable, and we assume that   00 u and that   1**
 ddd xxxv .

7
A citizen’s utility depends, similarly, on the amount of economic compensation and the type of
policy. If the bundle offered by the dictator is accepted, then the representative citizen’s utility will be
 *
ccc xxv
N
S
u 





, (2)
where N is the size of the group and *
cx is the citizen’s optimal policy. It is assumed (without loss of
generality) that **
dc xx  , and that   1**
 ccc xxxv .
The alternative to accepting the authoritarian bargain is to overthrow the dictator. If the dictator
is successfully overthrown, then citizens capture all rents and set their preferred policy. If unsuccessful,
then the dictator sets S = 0 and x= *
dx . The anti-dictatorial uprising is successful with probability p,
yielding the following expected utility from overthrow:
    **
11 cdcc xxxvp
N
R
up 











. (3)
We focus on the equilibrium in which the dictator successfully appeases citizens, staving off an
uprising, since this represents a successful bargain. Following equations (1) – (3), this equilibrium is the
solution to the following standard optimization problem:
   *
,
ddd
xS
xxvSRuMax  ,
s. t.
      ***
11 cdccccc xxxvp
N
R
upxxv
N
S
u 

















.

8
Our model suggests that, in dictatorships, economic transfers and political accommodation are
simultaneously decided as functions of the exogenous variables in the model. Rather than estimating one
as a function of the other, we need to estimate a system with measures of transfers and policy
accommodation as outcomes. Note also that the fact that economic transfers and policy accommodation
are substitutes in the citizen’s utility function does not necessarily imply that we should expect to observe
an unconditional negative correlation between the two. As explained below, an increase (decrease) in one
may very well go hand in hand with an increase (decrease) in the other, depending on which exogenous
variables are responsible for the change.4
In figure 1 we illustrate the hypotheses from our model (derived through a differentiation of the
equilibrium conditions). The bold curve is a representative citizen’s indifference curve at the level of
utility represented by a binding participation constraint, i.e., combinations of S and x that leave a citizen
indifferent between accepting and rejecting dictatorial rule. The dashed curve represents the dictator’s
indifference curve. The equilibrium is represented as the tangency between the two indifference curves,
since the dictator’s utility is increasing as S is decreasing and as *
dxx  .
An increase in R has two separate but related effects. First, an increase in rents will raise the
gains from a successful insurrection, shifting the citizen’s indifference curve to the right, and pushing up
both transfers and policy accommodation. Second, greater rents will flatten the dictator’s indifference
curve, boosting transfers, but reducing the degree of policy accommodation. The marginal cost to the
dictator of supplying an extra dollar in transfers falls as rents are increasing due to the falling marginal
utility of rents (or, underlying all this, consumption) for the dictator. Hence, the relative price (in terms of
4
The logic here is identical to that of substitution and income effects in a standard consumption optimization
problem with two goods. A change in the relative price of one of the goods will have both an income and a
substitution effect but generally with the second effect dominating, whereas an increase in income will cause an
increase in the demand for both goods. The size of rents here represents the relative price of the two goods whereas
anything that affects only the expected utility of an insurrection will have only an income effect.

9
utility) of providing transfers falls, prompting the dictator to provide more of the cheaper (and less of the
more expensive) ―good.‖ Overall, this suggests that we should see an increase in transfers following an
increase in rents, whereas the effect on policy accommodation depends on which of these two effects
dominates.
An increase in N will, similarly, have two effects. First, the gain from a successful insurrection
will fall (since captured rents have to be shared with a greater number of fellow citizens), shifting the
representative citizen’s indifference curve to the left, and pushing both transfers and policy
accommodation down. Second, an increase in group size will flatten the citizen’s indifference curve,
further decreasing the size of transfers, but increasing the amount of policy accommodation. The
marginal cost to the dictator of providing an extra dollar in transfers is independent of the size of N, but
the increase in the utility an extra dollar of transfers brings to a representative citizen is decreasing in N.
The dictator, therefore, gets less ―bang‖ (i.e., in terms of reducing the risk of an uprising) for every
additional dollar of transfers, prompting a shift towards greater policy accommodation.
Finally, an increase in the probability of a successful uprising p will shift the citizen’s utility
function to the right, causing an increase in both transfers and in the degree of policy accommodation.
Fragile dictatorships, in other words, require greater amounts of both goods in order to maintain a
constant level of popular support for the regime.
This framework necessarily abstracts from other factors that may influence the outcome of the
bargain. In particular, there is no conflict between different groups of citizens, and no endogenously-set
level of repression. Support from critical constituencies or ―selectorates‖ [Bueno de Mesquita et al.
(2002); Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2003)] as well as from ―crisis strata‖—social groups that, due to
deprivations, would be readily mobilized against existing regimes [Linz (1978; O'Donnell (1973)]—are
always vital for dictatorial survival, and rulers will generally try to target transfers to these groups. But,
of course, different groups are important in different autocracies, and different instruments are used to
target these groups depending upon who they are, complicating an empirical investigation of the influence
of these groups in a way that is comparable across countries.

10
In addition, we assume that the probability of a successful insurrection depends on the
government’s repressive capacity (not to be confused with the actual level of repression). Hence, there is
a role for repressive capacity in the model, but it is not an endogenous choice. Recall that, by our
definition, dictatorships are simply non-democratic states. They are not repressive by definition. From
this perspective, the ―pure‖ authoritarian bargain is where dictators provide public goods to their subjects
in order to avoid the need for repression. That dictatorships, in reality, provide both welfare and other
transfers alongside some degree of repression is more likely to lead us to reject our hypotheses even if
they are correct rather than the opposite. Moreover, endogenizing repression raises questions that are
beyond the scope of this paper—in particular, the factors that determine whether a ruler prefers to spend a
dollar on repression versus a dollar on welfare provision, or the reasons some rulers gravitate towards
repression and others towards the non-repressive authoritarian bargain.
4 DATA AND RESULTS
4.1 Specification and Data
We aim to trace the movement of authoritarian bargains depicted in figure 1 over time and across
countries, thus we use our model to generate and test the validity of a particular set of constraints. Our
estimation consists of the following system of equations:
       
      ittititit
ititit
tRightsPoliticalyInstabilitCapacity
IncomeLaborRentselfareW




 71654
3210
lnln
lnlnlnln it
(4)
       
      itt1-ititit
itititit
telfareWyInstabilitCapacity
IncomeLaborRentsRightsPolitical




7654
3210
lnln
lnlnlnln
(5)
For the dependent variable in equation (4), Welfare, we consider the most widely available
measure of state-provided economic benefits, i.e., public spending on social services including health,
education, housing, unemployment benefits, pensions, and community amenities. Both the composition
and total amount of welfare spending have been used elsewhere as general measures of welfare-state
policies [Kaufman and Segura-Ubiergo (2001)]. We also consider Wages to public-sector employees in

11
subsequent estimations. Both measures are expressed in constant US dollars per capita. We characterize
political influence as the expansion of the right of access to, and representation in, policymaking to
citizens previously excluded from these processes. For Political Rights in equation (5) we use the
familiar Polity index of democracy and autocracy [Marshall and Jaggers (2001)].5
Given the prominence of natural resource wealth in authoritarian bargains, it might seem
appropriate to include standard measures of oil and mineral exports per capita as a proxy for Rents. In
many developing countries, however, greater portions of natural resource extraction and sales are now
managed through private corporations. The revenues to government accounts in middle and lower-
income nations from natural resource production dwindled significantly throughout the 1990s—when
several of these companies were privatized—even though the total export earnings from natural resource
production may have remained constant (or increased). This inability to distinguish between private and
public revenues, for our purposes, limits the usefulness of the natural resource exports measure.
Instead, we rely on the broader measure of non-tax revenue (in constant US$ per capita) from the
IMF’s Government Finance Statistics database as a proxy for Rents. Non-tax revenue to the consolidated
government budget covers receipts from government services as well as fees from permits, licenses, and
fines, and income streams from the ownership of state assets. Consequently, non-tax revenue also
includes transfers, dividends, and profits from all parastatal companies as well as from all partially state-
owned companies, including those companies that manage the export of natural resources.
As a proxy for group size we use the ratio of the labor force (employed and unemployed) to the
population, a standard measure of labor supply. We do this for two reasons. First, this measure captures
the potential pressure that demographic shifts (resulting in increased rates of entrance into the working-
age population) place on governments in rentier states, as well as increasing competition for transfers,
5
The composite Polity score, based on separate measures of democracy and autocracy, ranges from -10
(most authoritarian) to +10 (most democratic). We re-scale the measure as (10 + democracy –
autocracy)/20, yielding a score from 0 (undemocratic) to 1 (democratic).

12
public-sector jobs, and social services [World Bank (2004)]. Second, the use of this labor supply measure
also controls for well-documented effects of working-age population growth on political stability and
survival [Cincotta, Engelman, and Anastasion (2003)].
To measure the repressive capacity of the regime (Capacity), we use data from the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on military expenditures, also in constant US$ per capita.6
To capture the effect of threats to the incumbency, we use the maximum annual magnitude score from the
index of state failure taken from the Political Instability Task Force (formerly the State Failure Task
Force), which measures characteristics of countries around the world that affect the risk of serious
political instability or ―state failure,‖ based on revolutions, ethnic wars, genocides, or the combination of
these internal conflicts. The State Failure Index is meant to ―identify the underlying or structural
conditions associated with the occurrence of state failure within the next two years‖ [State Failure Task
Force (2000)].
On the assumption that richer countries can afford greater welfare expenditures, we also include
GDP per capita in constant US$ (Income). Our system also includes, in each equation, a lag of the
dependent variable from the other equation, to control for the independent, intra-equation effects of
democratization on welfare increases and vice versa. Finally, all estimations include regional dummies,
time dummies and a trend (see appendix for variable definitions, sources, and summary statistics).7
6
We use military spending rather than some measure of actual repression, given that we aim to proxy
repressive capacity—the ability of a state to deter or defeat rebellions violent attempts at regime
overthrow—rather than active repression. For reasons we explain below, we do not consider repressive
capacity an ―outcome‖ of the authoritarian bargain.
7
Note that all variables are non-negative. For all variables z not bounded by 0 the natural log ln(z) was
used. For variables bounded by 0, ln(1 + z) was used.

13
Since the hypotheses relate exclusively to non-democratic regimes, our data are restricted to
countries whose composite Polity score is 6 or less. For the full sample of countries (democratic and non-
democratic) this is approximately the mean plus one standard deviation. We use this cutoff as our
principal interest lies not merely in those regimes in which political life is tightly controlled, but in the
vast number of partial or ―illiberal‖ democracies around the world in which periodic, contested elections
may be held, but where protections of basic political rights have yet to be consolidated, or where ruling
elites remain relatively free of constraints on their exercise of political power. Our sample is further
constrained by the limited availability of reliable public expenditure data—from which the welfare
spending amounts are taken. Our resulting core data, then, consist of an unbalanced panel of over 800
observations, depending upon the specification, covering 75 – 80 dictatorships between 1975 and 1999.
As noted above, our model of the authoritarian bargain suggests that economic benefits and
political liberalization are jointly determined by a similar set of exogenous variables. Under this
assumption, single-equation estimation by ordinary least squares (OLS) is consistent but inefficient since
OLS assumes no correlation in the error structure across equations. Instead, we jointly estimate equations
(4) and (5) using seemingly-unrelated regression (SUR). SUR permits the joint estimation of welfare
expenditures and political rights while allowing disturbances from one equation to affect the other as
would be expected where dependent variables are jointly determined. We initially maintain that the
explanatory variables are exogenous, but in subsequent estimations we relax this assumption.
4.2 Descriptive Analysis
We begin with a brief analysis of the relationship between per-capita welfare spending and
democracy levels across the sample of democratic and non-democratic states. These results identify
features of the data that can be investigated in our multivariate framework. As shown figure 2, mean
welfare per-capita declines as the transformed policy score increases initially, flattens out thereafter, then
rises significantly. The gap between mean welfare spending between countries that rank 0.9 and 1.0 on
the transformed Polity scale is over $2,000 per capita, indicating the strong relationship between welfare

14
states and full democracy. In addition, the decline in the mean over the range on non-democracies is also
accompanied by a similar decline (followed by an increase) in dispersion. The standard deviation of
welfare spending falls from over $500 per capita in the least democratic states to between $100 and $200
per capita in the most ―liberal‖ of non-democratic states.
Although figure 2 suggests a negative relationship between welfare and democracy over the range
of non-democratic states, as we noted earlier, we do not posit that welfare expenditures and political
liberalization are perfect substitutes. Rather, a combination of factors influencing citizen utility and the
resources available to the dictators determines the unique combination of public welfare and political
rights in each country. The movement of these equilibrium authoritarian bargains can be seen in six
different regions in figure 3. The panels show fitted lines from non-parametric local regressions of
welfare on the Polity index in non-democratic states in each region during 1975-1999. While some
regions—especially in the Middle East and North Africa, and to a lesser extend in Latin America and the
Caribbean—appear to produce authoritarian bargains by which welfare spending declines as dictatorships
liberalize, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the former East Bloc countries suggest a ―U‖-shaped
relationship whereby welfare spending declines during liberalization, but then begins to climb once some
democratization-threshold is crossed. In East Asia, finally, the opposite is the case—democratization and
an expanding welfare state go together, but welfare declines after partial liberalization.
4.3 Basic Results
We turn to multivariate system regressions to analyze the relationship between welfare and
political rights in non-democracies more generally. The empirical estimates of our base specification are
shown in table 1. Each column reports one part of a simultaneous estimation of two equations. The first
and second columns report results with Welfare and Polity as dependent variables.
The constraints affecting the provision of economic benefits and political liberalization have, as
expected, opposite effects on these sources of regime support. The availability of non-tax revenues
expands welfare spending and, in so doing, allows authoritarian states to restrain political liberalization.

15
An increase in the labor supply makes it harder for authoritarian states to sustain current levels of welfare
spending per capita and increases the likelihood of political liberalization. The positive relationship
between per-capita income and welfare expenditures is consistent with the consensus on wealth and the
expansion of the welfare state [Lindert (1994)]. By contrast, the negative per-capita GDP coefficient in
the Polity equation does not support ―modernization-theory‖ predictions of greater per-capita wealth
leading democratization (at least among less-than-fully democratic regimes). Meanwhile we also find
that welfare expenditures and political rights are increasing and decreasing, respectively, in response to an
increase in the repressive capacity of the regime, suggesting that autocratic regimes with larger militaries
will rely more on economic benefits and less on political openings to secure regime support. Finally,
regimes facing greater instability, by contrast, are prompted to shrink welfare and expand political rights.
To test whether our results are specific to non-democratic regimes—i.e., whether the bargain is,
in fact, an authoritarian one—columns 3 and 4 report the same empirical estimates for country-year
observations with a composite Polity score greater than or equal to 7. Although the coefficients in the
welfare equation are similar to those for non-democracies, the results for the Polity equation are weaker:
non-tax revenues and instability do not have any significant impact on democracy level in the most
democratic states.
4.3.1 Public Sector Wages
This perspective on authoritarian bargains is based on the presumption of a social contract
between dictators and all citizens, and thus we do not model relationships between rulers and specific
groups or strategic constituencies.8
To be sure, there is evidence in comparative analyses of dictatorial
8
The model of the ―selectorate‖—the individuals who hold the power to replace incumbents—suggests
that in autocratic regimes where the size of the group whose loyalty is vital to dictatorial survival is small,
leaders are more likely to provide private goods at the expense of public goods [Bueno de Mesquita et al.
(2002)].

16
survival that these specific groups may matter more than citizens at large. But the nature of these
relationships varies considerably across different types of dictatorships. We can however, determine
whether the authoritarian bargain functions with respect to a particularly salient group: public sector
employees. There is widespread evidence that the public sector has historically constituted an important
distributive vehicle in the developing world, with shares of public employment in the total population
exceeding that of OECD countries.
In columns 5 and 6 of table 1, we consider an alternative measure to welfare spending, i.e., public
sector wages per capita. All significant coefficients carry similar signs to those in the welfare equation in
column 1, but the overall results are weaker. Additionally, the positive correlations between military
expenditures and public sector wages may be due to the fact that wages of military personnel in most
developing countries are not netted out of public sector wage data [Schiavo-Campo, De Tommaso, and
Mukherjee (1997)]. Hence, the correlation may reflect the impact of the military’s budget on the wage
bill.
4.3.2 Simultaneity and Endogeneity
Because we hypothesize that political rights and welfare are jointly determined in the
authoritarian bargain, our results have been based on the simultaneous estimation of equations (4) and (5)
using SUR regression, allowing shocks influencing the provision of welfare to affect the provision of
political rights. The joint estimation of different dependent variables with a common set of explanatory
variables, however, raises questions regarding the validity of the standard errors.
First, it has been suggested that, in many applications, SUR can perform poorly because the
contemporaneous variance-covariance matrix is poorly estimated [Beck (2001)]. Under these conditions,
OLS with error correction for contemporaneous correlation (panel-correct standard errors) is

17
recommended.9
Although equation-by-equation OLS allows tests of hypotheses within an equation, it
does not permit adequate testing of cross-equation restrictions. Nevertheless, to ensure that our results
hold in single-equation estimations, we re-estimate equations (4) and (5) using OLS with panel-correct
standard errors. These results are in columns 1 – 2 in table 2. The signs and significances of the
coefficients are identical to results we obtained using SUR, indicating that we do not need to relinquish
the efficiency gains of SUR—a more efficient estimator of systems of equations.
Second, our estimations thus far have assumed that the five common explanatory variables—
non-tax revenue, labor supply, per-capita income, military expenditure, and instability—are exogenous.
In columns 3 – 6 in table 2 we relax this assumption. There are reasons to suspect some reverse causality
in the case of several explanatory variables: greater welfare spending may reduce labor supply and
reduce military spending; political liberalization may affect instability or military spending in
indeterminate ways. Identifying exogenous, time-varying instruments for each endogenous variable is
especially challenging in a system of equations, and where panel (rather than cross-sectional) data are
used. Although these identification problems cannot be avoided, we address these endogeneity concerns
in two ways.
In columns 3 – 4 we use three-stage least squares (3SLS) estimation with instrumental variables,
where we include lagged values of non-tax revenue, labor supply, GDP per capita, military spending, and
instability (lagged once) as well as lagged values of the dependent variables (lagged twice). 3SLS—a
systems counterpart to two-stage least squares (2SLS)—is generally recommended over 2SLS where the
disturbances of the separate equations are correlated, and is thought to be consistent and asymptotically
more efficient [Kennedy (1998), pp. 166-167]. No parameter shifts in direction or significance occur,
suggesting that our empirical results from joint estimations that do not explicitly control for endogeneity
are valid.
9
Note that the poor estimation of the variance-covariance matrix is more likely to be a problem when the
number of equations is quite large relative to the number of time periods.

18
In columns 5 – 6 we use a heteroskedasticity-consistent, efficient two-step Generalized Method of
Moments (GMM) estimator, which we use in single equations for welfare and Polity. The efficiency
gains of this estimator relative to the traditional instrumental-variables or 2SLS estimator derive from the
use of an optimal weighting matrix, the overidentifying restrictions of the model, and the relaxation of the
i.i.d. assumption [Hayashi (2000)]. As with our 3SLS estimations, we detect no changes in the signs,
magnitudes, or significances of these results in columns 5 and 6. In further estimations (not reported
here), we test the orthogonality of a subset of the instruments—namely, state failure and military
expenditures (lagged once)—to determine whether the exclusion of these variables from the instrument
matrix affects our results. They do not, suggesting that the military expenditure and state failure variables
are not strongly endogenous.
4.4 Testing the Limits of the Authoritarian Bargain
4.4.1 Regional, Regime, and Ideological Effects
Dictatorships are highly diverse, characterized by different types of relationships between rulers,
party cadres, the military, other elites, and citizens. Classic theories of dictatorship, notably,
distinguished between ―totalitarian‖ systems—ideologically-based regimes, which interwove control over
the economy, civil society, and the state—and various ―authoritarian‖ regimes, characterized by non-
ideological, personalistic, or dynastic rule [see, e.g., Friedrich and Brzezinski (1956); Linz (2000)].
Modern dictatorial regimes, moreover, vary along multiple dimensions [Geddes (2000)].
We explore, consequently, whether regional effects, ideological disposition, or regime type
influences the hypothesized results, and whether these variables have additional effects beyond those
captured by the structural model on welfare and political rights. Including country fixed-effects (columns

19
1 – 2) in table 3 does not alter the signs of the main coefficients, although some of the coefficients lose
their statistical significance.10
The next two sets of estimations examine the effects of single-party rule and nationalism. In
separate estimations in columns 3 – 6 in table 3 we add variables coded 1 if only a single political party
exists (or if all political parties are banned), and if the ruler’s or the ruler’s party is considered
―nationalist‖ (see appendix). The addition of these variables does not alter the basic authoritarian bargain.
The effects of both variables are positive in the welfare equation, negative in the Polity equation,
suggesting that authoritarian bargains in single-party or nationalist non-democracies tend to involve more
politically restrictive governments, but more generous welfare states.
Columns 7 and 8 of table 3 augment the benchmark specification with a set of dummy variables
indicating regime type: prime-ministerial, monarchical, or presidential. The inclusion of these regime
effects does not alter our main results, suggesting that the basic character of the authoritarian bargains is
not affected by the type of government. The coefficients of the individual effects, however, indicate that
monarchical and presidential regimes tend to tolerate less political liberalization, while non-democratic
states headed by prime ministers allow more political rights, than other non-democracies with mixed
systems or assembly-elected presidents. We also note that welfare spending is greater in presidential
regimes. With the exception of the labor supply—which loses significance in the political rights
equation—the benchmark results remain intact.
In the final set of estimations, we include dummy variables signifying whether the political party
of the chief executive is considered left-wing or right-wing (the omitted category consists of regimes with
10
Note that introducing country-specific effects in SUR estimations can reduce the efficiency of the
estimator for two reasons. First, with multiple equations, the merits of introducing fixed effects are
unclear given the fact that the asymptotic properties of fixed effects are based on single equations.
Second, given that some variables in our specifications exhibit relatively little variation over time, the
introduction of fixed effects would reduce the significance of other explanators.

20
centrist or broad-based parties, or in which political parties do not exist).11
We do this on the assumption
that ruling party traits may shift the dependent variables in ways not explained by our model of an
authoritarian bargain—particularly in the case of social spending, which has been empirically linked to
leftist parties [e.g., Huber, Mustillo, and Stephens (2004)]. By contrast, we find that among less-than-
fully democratic states left-wing governments have an additional, positive effect on political
liberalization, but no other ideological effects are observed. The inclusion of these ideological dummies
does not alter our basic results.
4.4.2 Military Rule, Repression, and Regime Durability
While the intercepts included in table 3 can only show joint effects on welfare and Polity, there is
the additional question of whether different categories of non-democratic regime have slope effects, i.e.,
whether they condition the effect of any of the key explanatory variables we have included. In table 4,
therefore, we explore whether these slope effects are present by replicating our basic simultaneous
regression across different sub-samples of observations. The rows in table 4 show coefficients of each
variable (listed across the top row) for welfare and Polity equations using our SUR setup, and allow us to
examine the consistency of these results across different sub-samples.
One possible objection to our focus on the tradeoff between economic benefits and political rights
in the authoritarian bargain is that we ignore repression, often considered an additional regime ―output‖
11
The scorings for party orientation, as well as for single-party rule, and nationalist orientation are taken
from the World Bank’s Database of Political Institutions [Beck et al. (2001)]. Note that this database
also scores a limited number of governments as ―centrist.‖ In our sample, only two countries are
considered centrist—South Korea (in its last year of less-than-fully-democratic rule, 1996-1997) and
Romania (until 1995). We code both of these as neutral.

21
used to solve the problem of dictatorial insecurity [Wintrobe (1998)].12
We do not consider repression as
a policy output in the authoritarian bargain for several reasons. First, evaluating the conditions under
which dictators spend a dollar on the apparatus of repression vs. a dollar on public welfare would require
that the level of repression be fully endogenized. When do dictatorships choose the carrot and when do
they choose the stick? Second, doing so would also require that the specific instrument of repression be
defined. Regimes, after all, can spend money on developing repressive capacity—increasing the number
of state-security and military personnel, enhancing the ability of the state to conduct internal surveillance
and monitoring, and expanding the scale and scope of the repressive apparatus by other means—or they
can exile, jail, torture, or kill more citizens. Repressive capacity is not associated with the actual level of
repression in non-democratic states. Finally, the effect of repression on dictatorial survival is unclear.
Repression may solidify the regime’s hold on power by neutralizing regime challengers, or it may make
non-democratic regimes more vulnerable by decreasing the citizen’s utility under the dictatorial status
quo.
Although we do not consider repression as an explicit output, we can nonetheless assess whether
the authoritarian bargain holds in regimes more likely to engage in repression. In rows 1 and 2 we
segment the sample between those observations for which the chief executive is a serving military officer,
and those for which the chief executive is a civilian. Turning to active repression, we use the ―Political
Terror Scale‖ (PTS), which measures domestic human rights violations by the state [Gibney and Dalton
12
Note that increased repression in Wintrobe’s framework decreases the need for the regime to ―invest in
loyalty‖ (corresponding, roughly, to greater welfare spending in our approach). But we interpret the
authoritarian bargain as one in which citizens accept limitations on political openness in exchange for
economic benefits, and consequently, we choose to endogenize political openness rather than the ability
to deter insurrection. The trade off between political openness and economic benefits, of course, partly
depends on the capacity of the regime to deter insurrection; military expenditures—our (imperfect) proxy
for repressive capacity—is thus an explanatory variable in our empirical model.

22
(1996)]. In rows 3 – 4 we segment the sample between those regimes that engage in high levels of
repression (defined as having a PTS rating greater than 3 out of a maximum of 5, roughly equal to the
mean plus one standard deviation for all observations) and those that do not. In row 5 we restrict the
sample to only those countries which score 5 on the PTS. In military and highly-repressive dictatorships,
expenditures on military and security services are likely to constitute a de facto form of ―welfare‖
spending, and larger portions of the public wage bill are likely to be directed towards military and security
personnel [see, e.g., Collier and Hoeffler (2004)]. For these reasons the authoritarian bargain may fail to
function in these types of regimes.
The results in table 4, however, show a high degree of regularity in these coefficients across sub-
samples. There is some loss of statistical significance among some of the explanators. Higher non-tax
revenues do not reduce the likelihood of political opening in civilian dictatorships; labor supply does not
reduce welfare expenditures in military regimes or oppressive regimes; greater deterrence capacity does
not increase welfare provision in very oppressive regimes, and state failure does not prompt greater
political liberalization in military dictatorships or in highly-oppressive regimes. Beyond these examples,
however, all significant results are identical to those obtained from the benchmark regression in table 1
Finally, it may be the case that long-lived dictatorships are less prone to rely on providing welfare
and political rights in the same manner as newer dictatorships. Older dictatorships, for example, might
rely on stronger appeals to national identity, shared history, culture, or other norms. Rows 6 and 7 divide
the sample according to the tenure of the regime based on the number of consecutive years in office held
by the chief executive (we split the sample into observations at or below, and above, the median of seven
years). Once again, although there are some changes in the significance of some of the estimates
(although no changes in signs), the effects of the explanatory variables appear consistent across regime
durability.
5 CONCLUSION

23
Analyses of political legitimacy in post-WWII autocracies are generally based on a presumed
―authoritarian bargain,‖ by which citizens exchange rights of political inclusion for economic security.
Analyses of these bargains imply a link between redistributive policies and political control, as well as
tradeoffs between the two in explaining autocratic decision-making. And they have been invoked by
comparativists in explaining the stability or breakdown of various types of non-democratic states, from
military and ―bureaucratic-authoritarian‖ dictatorships in Latin America to state-socialist regimes in
Eastern Europe to oil-funded monarchies in the Middle East. Whether the authoritarian bargain is a valid
means of understanding the nature of state-society relations in authoritarian regimes more broadly,
however, has not been systematically tested.
We advance a stylized view of the game between rulers and citizens in non-democratic states.
We formalized a model of the authoritarian bargain whereby leaders in non-democratic regimes select the
least-cost bundle of economic benefits and political openness necessary to sustain their rulership and to
secure public support. We found that these bargains are generally sustained by the availability of rents
allowing dictators to maintain generous welfare and public-employment programs, while retaining tight
controls over political life. Our results lend strong, if preliminary, support to the argument that political
rights and welfare expenditures in non-democratic states are simultaneously determined by a common set
of explanatory factors. These results were robust to various sensitivity checks, to the inclusion of
additional controls, and to adjustments for the potential endogeneity of our explanatory variables. Our
joint estimation, moreover, allows us to explain how decisions regarding political liberalization and
public expenditures are related across a diverse set of non-democratic regimes.
These findings can encompass a number of different explanations of authoritarian survival,
breakdown, and transition that have often been examined piecemeal. It is widely expected that windfalls
from oil revenues, for example, will allow greater spending on economic welfare and thus strengthen the
grip of non-democratic, oil-rich states. Meanwhile the negative relationship between oil wealth and
democracy has usually been examined in a separate vein. Both findings can be readily accommodated by
our framework. Similarly, one of the cornerstones of the comparative study of regime transitions is that

24
recessions or financial crises that provoke fiscal crises can potentially deprive autocrats of needed
resources to sustain generous welfare programs. Likewise, episodes of authoritarian withdrawal in good
economic times seem to be rarer. Again, both findings are explained by our authoritarian-bargaining
framework in which partial democratization is the flip-side of a waning welfare state.
Our approach also explains why, in contrast to democratic states, welfare spending and political
liberalization are negatively related in authoritarian states. Additionally, our results indicate that partial
political liberalization may actually forestall transitions to genuine democracy. Partial liberalization—of
the kind seen in Russia in the mid 1990s or recently observed in Egypt and in the Kyrgyz Republic—can
co-opt opposition groups during periods of economic downturns, but is often reversed as revenues have
recovered. Finally, our framework and our empirical findings can shed some light on current debates on
democratic prospects in the Middle East and North Africa, where approximately 60% of the populations
are under the age of 25. A burgeoning labor supply is generally expected to strain public service
provision severely. But our findings suggest that a rapidly increasing labor force may also prompt greater
political inclusion in regimes as compensation for the reduction in public spending.
No model is without its limitations, of course, and ours is no exception. We mention two such
limitations here, each of which can highlight directions for further investigation of decision-making in
dictatorships. First, as mentioned earlier, dictators in our framework do not choose the level of
repression. Rather, they have a fixed amount of repressive capacity at their disposal. But of course, one
of the enduring questions involving modern dictatorships is what makes them more or less repressive.
Determining the opportunity cost of spending fiscal resources on repression rather than on public welfare
or employment may be a complicated task, but can potentially identify sources of variation in dictatorial
regime type. Second, in our model incumbent autocrats do not, obviously, choose the probability of
insurrection they face. But different regimes do, in fact, choose to tolerate different degrees of ambient
risk, and this choice can influence whether a country follows a relatively peaceful transition towards
democracy or one characterized by violence. Understanding the effects of different discrete choices
within an expanded authoritarian bargain can potentially illuminate these diverse paths to democracy.

25
APPENDIX
TABLE A1. Variable Definitions and Data Sources
Variable
a Definition Source
Public welfare spending
b Public expenditure on health, education (primary,
secondary, and tertiary levels), and welfare (compensation
to the unemployed, payments to the sick, disabled, and
elderly, and allowances for family, maternity, and children).
World Bank, World
Development Indicators
Public sector wages
b Cash payments to employees before deduction of
withholding taxes and employee contributions to social
security and pension funds.
IMF, Government
Financial Statistics
Polity Index of political rights based on democracy D and
autocracy A scores, rescaled as (10 + D – A)/20.
Marshall and Jaggers
(2001)
Non-tax revenue
b Includes requited non-repayable receipts for public
purposes, such as fines, administrative fees, or
entrepreneurial income from government ownership of
property and voluntary, unrequited non-repayable receipts.
IMF, Government
Financial Statistics
Labor participation Persons who meet ILO definition of ―economically active
population,‖ i.e., all people who supply labor for the
production of goods and services, including both employed
and the unemployed.
ILO, Key Indicators of
the Labour Market
GDP Gross domestic product, World Bank Atlas method. World Bank, World
Development Indicators
Military spending
b,c Current and capital expenditures on the armed forces based
on NATO definition, i.e., including peacekeeping forces,
defense ministries and other government agencies engaged
in defense projects, paramilitary forces (if trained and
equipped for military operations), and military space
activities.
Stockholm International
Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI)
yearbooks
State failure score Maximum yearly magnitude score of ―state failure,‖
defined to include four categories of events: revolutionary
wars (episodes of sustained violent conflict between
governments and politically organized challengers), ethnic
wars (episodes in which national, ethnic, religious, or other
communal minorities challenge governments), adverse
regime changes (including dissolution of states or the
secession of a substantial area of a state by extrajudicial
means; or complete or near-total collapse of state
authority), and genocide (sustained policies by states or
their agents, or, in civil wars, by contending authorities, that
result in the deaths of a substantial portion of members of
communal or political groups).
State Failure Task
Force (2000)
Leftist Coded 1 if ruling executive’s party is defined as
communist, socialist, social democratic, or left-wing, 0
otherwise.
Beck et al. (2001)

26
Rightist Coded 1 if ruling executive’s party is defined as
conservative, Christian democratic, or right-wing, 0
otherwise.
Beck et al. (2001)
Monarch Coded 1 if chief executive is a hereditary monarch, 0
otherwise.
Banks (2001)
Premier Coded 1 if the chief executive is an elected or unelected
prime minister, 0 otherwise.
Beck et al. (2001)
Single party Coded 1 if the party Herfindahl index (based on the sum of
the squared seat shares of all parties represented in the
legislature) equals 1, 0 otherwise. Also coded 1 if parties
are banned.
Beck et al. (2001)
Nationalist
d Coded 1 if a primary component of the ruling party’s
platform is the creation or defense of a national or ethnic
identity, 0 otherwise
Beck et al. (2001)
Notes:
a. Welfare spending, wages, GDP, and military expenditures enter regressions as constant US$ per capita.
Workers are divided by total population.
b. Central government only.
c. Includes retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and
maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military
expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous
military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons.
d. E.g., parties that have fought for independence, either militarily or politically, from a colonial power, that
advocate persecution of minorities, or that is considered ―xenophobic.‖

27
TABLE A2. Country-Year Observations
Country Period Country Period
Albania 1996 – 1998 Kyrgyz Rep. 1994 – 1999
Algeria 1995 – 1999 Lesotho 1988 – 1998
Argentina 1980 – 1982 Madagascar 1989 – 1991
Azerbaijan 1995 – 1999 Malawi 1975 – 1990
Bahrain 1981 – 1999 Malaysia 1975 – 1981, 1986 – 1997
Bangladesh 1975 – 1989 Mali 1980 – 1985, 1988
Belarus 1995 – 1999 Mauritania 1979
Benin 1978 – 1979 Mexico 1975 – 1999
Brazil 1981 – 1984 Morocco 1975 – 1995, 1998 – 1999
Bulgaria 1989 Nepal 1975 – 1985, 1989 – 1999
Burkina Faso 1988 – 1993 Nicaragua 1975 – 1980, 1991 – 1994
Burundi 1975 – 1977, 1982 – 1999 Niger 1980
Cameroon 1977 – 1981, 1984 – 1995 Nigeria 1976 – 1978, 1985 – 1987
Chad 1975 – 1976 Oman 1975 – 1999
Chile 1975 – 1988 Pakistan 1977 – 1982, 1999
China 1991 – 1999 Panama 1975 – 1988
Congo, Rep. 1982 – 1983 Paraguay 1975 – 1987, 1990 – 1991
Congo. D. R. 1975 – 1982 Peru 1975 – 1979
Côte d’Ivoire 1985 – 1990 Romania 1990 – 1995
Croatia 1992 – 1999 Russia 1995, 1999
Dominican Rep. 1975 – 1989 Rwanda 1975 – 1980
Ecuador 1975 – 1978 Senegal 1981 – 1984, 1997 – 1999
Egypt 1976 – 1979, 1981 – 1997 Sierra Leone 1975 – 1984
Estonia 1992 – 1999 Singapore 1975 – 1999
Ethiopia 1998 – 1999 South Africa 1985
Fiji 1987 – 1996 Spain 1975 – 1977
Georgia 1998 – 1999 Sri Lanka 1988 – 1999
Ghana 1975 – 1982, 1985 – 1993 Sudan 1975 – 1977, 1980, 1999
Guatemala 1975 – 1979 Swaziland 1975 – 1986, 1988 – 1991
Guyana 1975 – 1985 Syria 1975 – 1981, 1987 – 1999
Haiti 1982 Tajikistan 1999
Honduras 1975 – 1976 Thailand 1975 – 1991
Hungary 1982 – 1989 Togo 1978 – 1983
Indonesia 1975 – 1998 Tunisia 1975 – 1999
Iran 1975 – 1986, 1988 – 1990, 1994 – 1999 Turkey 1980 – 1981
Jordan 1975 - 1979, 1982 – 1999 UAE 1975 – 1981, 1986 – 1998
Kazakhstan 1998 – 1999 Uruguay 1975 – 1984
Kenya 1975 – 1998 Yemen 1991 – 1999
Korea, Rep. 1975 – 1997 Zambia 1975 – 1988
Kuwait 1978 – 1999 Zimbabwe 1977 – 1989, 1994 – 1997

28
TABLE A3. Summary Statistics of Variables Used in Regressions (Non-Democratic Regimes Sample)
Mean Between
country
std. dev.
Within
country
std. dev.
Min. Max. Countries T (ave.) Obs.
Public welfare spending per capita 4.32 1.44 0.42 0.57 8.24 80 10.35 828
Public sector wages per capita 5.12 1.13 0.36 1.89 8.05 74 10.08 746
Polity 0.23 0.15 0.09 0.00 0.59 80 10.35 828
Non-tax revenue per capita 2.63 1.94 0.73 -3.32 9.17 80 10.35 828
Labor per capita -0.91 0.18 0.04 -1.42 -0.51 80 10.35 828
GDP per capita 7.74 0.94 0.35 5.35 10.29 80 10.35 828
Military expenditure per capita 3.50 1.47 0.42 -0.17 8.40 80 10.35 828
State failure score 0.39 0.79 0.67 0 4 80 10.35 828
Single party 0.33 0.46 0.20 0 1 64 9.45 605
Nationalist 0.21 0.36 0.14 0 1 79 10.43 824
Monarch 0.18 0.29 0.11 0 1 80 10.31 825
Premier 0.62 0.46 0.18 0 1 80 10.31 825
President 0.83 0.32 0.17 0 1 80 10.35 828
Rightist 0.14 0.34 0.16 0 1 78 10.09 787
Leftist 0.18 0.38 0.14 0 1 78 10.09 787
Note: All per-capital variables are expressed in natural logs.

29
REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D., and J. A. Robinson, 2001, Inefficient redistribution. American Political Science Review
95, 649-61.
Alesina, A., S. Danninger, and M. Rostagno, 2001, Redistribution through public employment: The case
of Italy. IMF Staff Papers 48, 447-73.
Almond, G. A., and S. Verba, 1965, The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations.
(Boston, Little, Brown).
Beck, N., 2001, Time-series-cross-section data. Statistica Neerlandica 55, 111-33.
Beck, T., et al., 2001, New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions.
World Bank Economic Review 15, 165-76.
Boix, C., 2003, Democracy and redistribution. (New York, Cambridge University Press).
Bueno de Mesquita, B., et al., 2002, Political institutions, policy choice and the survival of leaders.
British Journal of Political Science 32, 559-90.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., et al., 2003, The logic of political survival. (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Cincotta, R. P., R. Engelman, and D. Anastasion, 2003, The security demographic: Population and civil
conflict after the cold war. (Washington, D.C., Population Action International).
Collier, P., and A. Hoeffler, 2004, Military expenditure: Threats, aid and arms races, Centre for the Study
of African Economies, Oxford University, Typescript.
Collier, R. B., 1992, The contradictory alliance: State-labor relations and regime change in Mexico.
(Berkeley, University of California Press).
Di Palma, G., 1990, To craft democracies : An essay on democratic transitions. (Berkeley, University of
California Press).
Friedrich, C. J., and Z. Brzezinski, 1956, Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy. (Cambridge,, Harvard
University Press).
Gandhi, J., and A. Przeworski, 2006, Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorship.
Economics & Politics 18, 1-26.

30
Gasiorowski, M., 1995, Economic crisis and political regime change: An event history analysis.
American Political Science Review 89, 882-97.
Geddes, B., 2000, Authoritarian breakdown: Empirical test of a game theoretic argument, Manuscript,
University of California, Department of Political Science, Los Angeles, Calif.
Gibney, M., and M. Dalton, 1996, The political terror scale, in: D. L. Cingranelli, ed., Human rights and
developing countries, (Greenwhich, CT, JAI Press).
Gleditsch, K. S., and J. L. Choung, 2004, Autocratic transitions and democratization, Manuscript,
University of California, San Diego, Calif.
Grossman, H. I., and M. Kim, 1995, Swords or plowshares? A theory of the security of claims to
property. Journal of Political Economy 103, 1275-88.
Grossman, H. I., and M. Kim, 1996, Predation and accumulation. Journal of Economic Growth 1, 333-51.
Haggard, S., and R. R. Kaufman, 1995, The political economy of democratic transitions. (Princeton, N.J.,
Princeton University Press).
Hayashi, F., 2000, Econometrics. (Princeton, Princeton University Press).
Heydemann, S., 2002, Defending the discipline: Middle East studies after 9/11. Journal of Democracy
13, 102-8.
Huber, E., T. Mustillo, and J. D. Stephens, 2004, Determinants of social spending in Latin America,
Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, Washington, D.C.
Jin, H., Y. Qian, and B. Weingast, N.d., Regional decentralization and fiscal incentives: Federalism,
chinese style. Journal of Public Economics Forthcoming.
Kang, D. C., 2002, Crony capitalism : Corruption and development in South Korea and the Philippines.
(Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press).
Kaufman, R. R., and A. Segura-Ubiergo, 2001, Globalization, domestic politics, and social spending in
Latin America: A time-series cross-section analysis, 1973-97. World Politics 53, 553-87.
Kennedy, P., 1998, A guide to econometrics. 4th ed. (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press).
Lindert, P. H., 1994, The rise of social spending, 1880-1930. Explorations in Economic History 31, 1-37.

31
Linz, J. J., 1978, The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown, and reequilibration.
(Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).
Linz, J. J., 2000, Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. (Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner Publishers).
MacCulloch, R., and S. Pezzini, 2002, The role of freedom, growth and religion in the taste for
revolution, Development Economics Paper, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for
Economics and Related Disciplines, London.
Marshall, M. G., and K. Jaggers. 2001. Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions.
[available from http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/polity/].
McFaul, M., 2002, The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: Noncooperative transitions in the
postcommunist world. World Politics 54, 212-44.
Murillo, M. V., 2000, From populism to neoliberalism - labor unions and market reforms in Latin
America. World Politics 52, 135-74.
O'Donnell, G. A., 1973, Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American
politics. (Berkeley, Institute of International Studies).
O'Donnell, G. A., and P. C. Schmitter, 1986, Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions
about uncertain democracies. (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).
O'Donnell, G. A., P. C. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead, 1986, Transitions from authoritarian rule:
Prospects for democracy. (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).
Olivier de Sardan, J. P., 1999, A moral economy of corruption in Africa. Journal of Modern African
Studies 37, 25-52.
Powell, G. B., 1982, Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability, and violence. (Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard University Press).
Putnam, R. D., R. Leonardi, and R. Nanetti, 1993, Making democracy work : Civic traditions in modern
Italy. (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press).
Razo, A., 2002, Political control, regulation, and commitments in dictatorships, annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Boston, Mass.

32
Ross, M. L., 2001, Does oil hinder democracy? World Politics 53, 325-61.
Schiavo-Campo, S., G. De Tommaso, and A. Mukherjee, 1997, An international statistical survey of
government employment and wages, Policy Research Working Paper 1806, World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Smith, B., 2004, Oil wealth and regime survival in the developing world, 1960-1999. American Journal
of Political Science 48, 232-46.
State Failure Task Force. 2000. State failure task force: Phase III findings. Center for Global Policy,
George Mason University, [available from http://globalpolicy.gmu.edu/pitf/pitfdata.htm].
Tullock, G., 1987, Autocracy. (Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers).
Wintrobe, R., 1998, The political economy of dictatorship. (New York, Cambridge University Press).
Wintrobe, R., 2007, Authoritarianism and dictatorships, in: C. Boix and S. C. Stokes, ed., The Oxford
handbook of comparative politics, (New York, Oxford University Press).
World Bank, 2004, Unlocking the employment potential in the Middle East and North Africa : Toward a
new social contract. (Washington, D.C., World Bank).

33
FIGURE 1. Equilibrium Authoritarian Bargain
*
dx
*
cx
S* S
0
*
x
R
x

34
FIGURE 2. Mean Per-Capita Welfare Spending by Polity Scores.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Transformed Polity score
Welfarespending(US$percapita)
Standard deviation
Mean
Non-democratic
Democratic
>2,300>2,000

35
FIGURE 3. Welfare and Democracy in Six Regions.
Middle East and North Africa
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Welfarespending
(US$percapita)
East Asia and Pacific
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Welfarespending
(US$percapita)
Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Welfarespending
(US$percapita)
Latin America and Caribbean
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Welfarespending
(US$percapita)
Sub-Saharan Africa
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Welfarespending
(US$percapita)
South Asia
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Welfarespending
(US$percapita)
Notes: Graphs show conditional means from non-parametric local regressions with quartic (biweight) kernels and
bandwidths of 0.4.

36
TABLE 1. Public Welfare and Political Rights in Non-Democratic and Democratic Regimes, 1975-1999.
Non-democratic regimes Democratic regimes Non-democratic regimes
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Dependent
variable: Welfare Polity Welfare Polity Wages Polity
Non-tax revenue 0.2063***
(0.0144)
-0.0125***
(0.0043)
0.2345***
(0.0173)
0.0014
(0.0010)
0.1524***
(0.0142)
-0.0019
(0.0052)
Labor participation -0.4742***
(0.1749)
0.2392***
(0.0466)
-0.4703***
(0.1612)
0.0211**
(0.0086)
-0.7489***
(0.1533)
0.2890***
(0.0529)
GDP 0.7659***
(0.0442)
-0.0631***
(0.0137)
1.0577***
(0.0526)
-0.0090***
(0.0034)
0.6629***
(0.0359)
0.0085
(0.0149)
Military spending 0.2302***
(0.0254)
-0.0319***
(0.0070)
0.0962***
(0.0224)
-0.0089***
(0.0012)
0.0976***
(0.0219)
-0.0196**
(0.0076)
State failure score -0.0614***
(0.0198)
0.0205***
(0.0053)
-0.2299***
(0.0245)
0.0010
(0.0014)
-0.0232
(0.0158)
0.0228***
(0.0054)
System lag 1.4566***
(0.1222)
0.1109***
(0.0088)
1.3010***
(0.2682)
0.0139***
(0.0018)
0.7195***
(0.1038)
0.0839***
(0.0122)
Trend -0.0017***
(0.0003)
0.0005***
(0.0001)
-0.0027***
(0.0002)
0.0004***
(0.0000)
-0.0009***
(0.0002)
0.0002***
(0.0001)
N 828 828 771 771 746 746
RMSE 0.5102 0.1368 0.4132 0.0219 0.4131 0.1423
R2 0.8881 0.3952 0.9489 0.4903 0.8682 0.3810
p > χ2
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Notes: Dependent variables in system equations are: public welfare spending per capita, and the Polity index of
democracy and autocracy (models 1 – 4) or public sector wages per capita, and the Polity index of democracy and
autocracy (models 5 – 6). All dependent variables are in natural logs. Non-tax revenue, GDP, and military spending
are US$ per capita (natural log). Labor participation is workforce per capita, also in natural log. System lag is
lagged dependent variable of the opposite equation in simultaneous estimation. Sample is restricted to country-year
observations for which the Polity index is less than 7 in models (1) – (2) and in (5) – (6) , and to observations in
which the Polity index is 7 or above in models (3) – (4). Estimations are performed using seemingly-unrelated
regression. All variables are in natural logs. Time and regional dummies are included in all system regressions;
these are not reported. Standard errors are in parenthesis.
* p < 0.10.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.01.

37
TABLE 2. Single-Equation Estimates and Estimates Allowing for Endogeneity (Non-Democratic Regimes,
1975-1999)
Single-equation,
panel-correct std. errors 3SLS
Single-equation,
GMM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Dependent
variable: Welfare Polity Welfare Polity Welfare Polity
Non-tax revenue 0.2162***
(0.0124)
-0.0051*
(0.0030)
0.2405***
(0.0168)
-0.0219***
(0.0054)
0.2390***
(0.0154)
-0.0080*
(0.0041)
Labor participation -0.3321*
(0.1828)
0.2042***
(0.0354)
-0.4403**
(0.1886)
0.2636***
(0.0523)
-0.2547
(0.2175)
0.2093***
(0.0451)
GDP 0.7809***
(0.0515)
-0.0281**
(0.0141)
0.8093***
(0.0487)
-0.0883***
(0.0162)
0.7803***
(0.0513)
-0.0308*
(0.0165)
Military spending 0.2250***
(0.0228)
-0.0215***
(0.0057)
0.1970***
(0.0285)
-0.0399***
(0.0082)
0.2016***
(0.0304)
-0.0271***
(0.0076)
State failure score -0.0410**
(0.0160)
0.0223***
(0.0056)
-0.0874***
(0.0274)
0.0369***
(0.0076)
-0.0609**
(0.0297)
0.0330***
(0.0076)
(0.1638)
0.0635***
(0.0114)
1.7497***
(0.1344)
0.1467***
(0.0106)
0.8402***
(0.1750)
0.0778***
(0.0110)
Trend -0.0232***
(0.0050)
0.0072***
(0.0009)
-0.0021***
(0.0003)
0.0005***
(0.0001)
-0.0255***
(0.0046)
0.0070***
(0.0011)
N 828 828 724 724 793 742
RMSE 0.4983 0.1408 0.5130 0.1380
R2
0.8890 0.3897 0.8938 0.3726 0.8865 0.3924
p > χ2
/ F 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Notes: Dependent variables are: public welfare spending per capita, and the Polity index of democracy and
autocracy. All dependent variables are in natural logs. Non-tax revenue, GDP, and military spending are US$ per
capita (natural log). Labor participation is workforce per capita, also in natural log. System lag is lagged dependent
variable of the opposite equation in simultaneous estimation. Sample is restricted to country-year observations for
which the Polity index is less than 7. Estimations (1) – (2) are performed as single equations using OLS with errors
corrected for contemporaneous correlation. Equations (3) – (4) are estimated using three-stage least squares
regression including lags of all independent variables as instrumental variables. Equations (5) – (6) are performed
as single equations using two-step feasible GMM estimation. For GMM estimates, the instrument matrix consists of
single lags of all independent variables. GMM estimates are heteroskedasticity-consistent. All variables are in
natural logs. Time dummies are included in simultaneous and GMM regressions; these and intercepts are not
reported. Robust standard errors are in parenthesis.
* p < 0.10.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.01.

38
TABLE 3. Estimating Ideological and Chief Executive Effects (Non-Democratic Regimes, 1975-1999).
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Dependent
variable: Welfare Polity Welfare Polity Welfare Polity Welfare Polity Welfare Polity
Non-tax
revenue
0.0930***
(0.0147)
-0.0058
(0.0048)
0.2266***
(0.0169)
-0.0050
(0.0052)
0.2033***
(0.0144)
-0.0123***
(0.0043)
0.2186***
(0.0148)
-0.0141***
(0.0039)
0.2058***
(0.0147)
-0.0125***
(0.0043)
Labor
participation
0.2410
(0.2945)
0.3240***
(0.0924)
-0.3526*
(0.2100)
0.2328***
(0.0558)
-0.5629***
(0.1770)
0.2622***
(0.0471)
-0.2882
(0.1775)
0.0957**
(0.0416)
-0.4618**
(0.1833)
0.2338***
(0.0477)
GDP 0.7819***
(0.0599)
-0.0597***
(0.0205)
0.7925***
(0.0557)
-0.0192
(0.0172)
0.8183***
(0.0477)
-0.0808***
(0.0147)
0.7423***
(0.0444)
-0.0389***
(0.0120)
0.7689***
(0.0461)
-0.0701***
(0.0139)
Military
spending
0.3799***
(0.0245)
-0.0056
(0.0083)
0.2699***
(0.0329)
-0.0355***
(0.0091)
0.2075***
(0.0265)
-0.0254***
(0.0073)
0.2404***
(0.0254)
-0.0334***
(0.0061)
0.2221***
(0.0264)
-0.0247***
(0.0072)
State failure
score
-0.0362***
(0.0137)
0.0159***
(0.0043)
-0.0946***
(0.0226)
0.0188***
(0.0060)
-0.0614***
(0.0198)
0.0206***
(0.0052)
-0.0584***
(0.0198)
0.0147***
(0.0046)
-0.0669***
(0.0206)
0.0253***
(0.0053)
(0.1036)
0.0565***
(0.0100)
1.2974***
(0.1464)
0.1004***
(0.0103)
1.4712***
(0.1223)
0.1133***
(0.0088)
1.7209***
(0.1449)
0.0963***
(0.0077)
1.5184***
(0.1288)
0.1094***
(0.0088)
Trend -0.0014***
(0.0003)
0.0006***
(0.0001)
-0.0022***
(0.0002)
0.0002***
(0.0001)
-0.0025***
(0.0002)
0.0005***
(0.0001)
-0.0018***
(0.0003)
0.0004***
(0.0001)
-0.0017***
(0.0003)
0.0004***
(0.0001)
Single party 0.1396**
(0.0543)
-0.1052***
(0.0138)
Nationalist 0.1486***
(0.0503)
-0.0422***
(0.0135)
Premier 0.0650
(0.0465)
0.0384***
(0.0109)
Monarch 0.0946
(0.0600)
-0.1012***
(0.0135)

39
President 0.2849***
(0.0592)
-0.1380***
(0.0126)
Rightist 0.0159
(0.0625)
0.0199
(0.0164)
Leftist -0.0555
(0.0530)
0.0492***
(0.0138)
N 828 828 605 605 824 824 825 825 787 787
RMSE 0.2475 0.0783 0.4939 0.1323 0.5090 0.1364 0.5057 0.1184 0.5159 0.1354
R2
0.9737 0.8019 0.8881 0.4518 0.8885 0.3951 0.8904 0.5436 0.8872 0.3900
p > χ2
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Notes: Dependent variables in system equations are: public welfare spending per capita, and the Polity index of democracy and autocracy. Both dependent
variables are in natural logs. All dependent variables are in natural logs. Non-tax revenue, GDP, and military spending are US$ per capita (natural log). Labor
participation is workforce per capita, also in natural log. System lag is lagged dependent variable of the opposite equation in simultaneous estimation. Sample is
restricted to country-year observations for which the Polity index is less than 7. All estimations are performed using seemingly-unrelated regression. Equations
(1) and (2) include country-fixed effects. Non-tax revenue, GDP, and military spending are US$ per capita (natural log). Labor participation is workforce per
capita, also in natural log. Time and regional dummies included in all system regressions; these and intercepts are not reported. Standard errors are in
parenthesis.
* p < 0.10.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.01.

40
TABLE 4. Stability of Coefficients across Regime Type (Non-Democratic Regimes, 1975-1999).
Non-tax
revenue
Labor
participation
GDP Military
spending
State
failure
R2
N
Regime type:
(1) Military 0.33250.000
-0.02220.003
0.22770.434
0.30880.000
0.60550.000
-0.07110.000
0.23760.000
-0.01600.090
-0.03670.201
0.00910.176
0.87
0.40
292
(2) Civilian 0.16380.000
-0.00830.113
-0.74020.001
0.12420.048
0.77620.000
-0.05040.010
0.23680.000
-0.02950.002
-0.06490.013
0.03270.000
0.90
0.46
534
(3) Non-
oppressive
0.18960.000
-0.00920.156
-0.75930.000
0.37890.000
0.69060.000
-0.06970.004
0.20240.000
-0.02230.086
-0.15830.036
0.05710.024
0.95
0.61
283
(4) Oppressive 0.27390.000
-0.02040.023
0.04820.878
0.12380.077
0.68100.000
-0.04960.011
0.32630.000
-0.04510.000
-0.07760.008
0.02560.000
0.86
0.48
333
(5) Very
oppressive
0.36920.000
0.01710.212
-0.02470.973
0.25330.063
0.69790.000
-0.00310.920
0.15490.116
-0.05900.001
0.02870.546
0.01380.112
0.86
0.70
100
(6) Short lived 0.22410.000
-0.01320.051
-0.48400.052
0.15820.014
0.86390.000
-0.04050.052
0.23710.000
-0.03750.000
-0.05570.033
0.01460.030
0.88
0.42
440
(7) Long lived 0.20680.000
-0.00980.054
-0.21920.394
0.17120.006
0.75920.000
-0.09900.000
0.21530.000
-0.01510.107
-0.06470.059
0.02540.002
0.91
0.33
388
Notes: Dependent variables in system equations are: public welfare spending per capita, and the Polity index of
democracy and autocracy. Sample is restricted to country-year observations for which the Polity index is less than
7. Rows show two sets of coefficients for five key variables in simultaneous estimations replicating model (1) in
table 1: the first is the coefficient of the variable of interest in the welfare equation, the second for the Polity
equation, with p values superscripted for both. Model (1) is further restricted to country-years in which the autocrat
is a military officer, (2) where the ruler is a civilian. Model (3) is restricted to observations for which the Political
Terror Scale (PTS) is 3 or less out of a total of 5, (4) where the PTS greater than 3, and (5) where the PTS is 5.
Model (6) and (7) is constrained to countries in which governments have survived 7 years or less, or more than 7
years, respectively. All estimations are performed using seemingly-unrelated regression. All variables are in natural
logs. Time and regional dummies, a trend, and system lag are included in all system regressions.

The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains

More from Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics

Recently uploaded

The Logic of Authoritarian Bargains