IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v55y2011i2p356-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Catch Us If You Can: Election Monitoring and International Norm Diffusion

Author

Listed:
  • Susan D. Hyde

Abstract

Why has the decision to invite foreign election observers become an international norm? More generally, how do international norms develop in the absence of incentives for cooperation or activism by norm entrepreneurs? Motivated by the case of election observation, I argue that international norms can be generated through a diffusely motivated signaling process. Responding to increased benefits associated with being democratic, international election observation was initiated by democratizing governments as a signal of a government's commitment to democracy. Increased democracy‐contingent benefits gave other “true‐democrats” the incentive to invite observers, resulting in a widespread belief that all true‐democrats invite election monitors. Consequently, not inviting observers became an unambiguous signal that a government was not democratizing, giving even pseudo‐democrats reason to invite observers and risk a negative report. I evaluate this theory with an original global dataset on elections and election observation, 1960–2006.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan D. Hyde, 2011. "Catch Us If You Can: Election Monitoring and International Norm Diffusion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 356-369, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:2:p:356-369
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00508.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00508.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00508.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Berman, Eli & Callen, Michael & Gibson, Clark C. & Long, James D. & Rezaee, Arman, 2019. "Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 292-317.
    2. Michael K Miller, 2013. "Electoral authoritarianism and democracy: A formal model of regime transitions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(2), pages 153-181, April.
    3. Sara Kahn-Nisser, 2021. "For better or worse: Shaming, faming, and human rights abuse," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 479-493, May.
    4. Sara Kahn-Nisser, 2019. "When the targets are members and donors: Analyzing inter-governmental organizations’ human rights shaming," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 431-451, September.
    5. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    6. Luke N. Condra & Michael Callen & Radha K. Iyengar & James D. Long & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2019. "Damaging democracy? Security provision and turnout in Afghan elections†," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 163-193, July.
    7. Allison Carnegie & Lindsay R. Dolan, 2021. "The effects of rejecting aid on recipients’ reputations: Evidence from natural disaster responses," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 495-519, July.
    8. Berman, Eli & Callen, Mike & Gibson, Clark C. & Long, James D. & Rezaee, Arman, 2019. "Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102986, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Rubén Ruiz-Rufino & Sarah Birch, 2020. "The effect of alternation in power on electoral intimidation in democratizing regimes," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 126-139, January.
    10. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    11. Swinerd, Chris & McNaught, Ken R., 2015. "Comparing a simulation model with various analytic models of the international diffusion of consumer technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 330-343.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:2:p:356-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.