How Do Inclusionary and Exclusionary Autocracies Affect Ordinary People?

Abstract

We propose a distinction between inclusionary and exclusionary autocratic ruling strategies and develop novel theoretical propositions on the legacy that these strategies leave on citizens' political attitudes once the autocratic regime broke down. Using data of 1.3 million survey respondents from 71 countries and Hierarchical Age-Period-Cohort models we estimate between and within cohort differences in citizens' democratic support. We find that inclusionary regimes-with wider redistribution of socioeconomic and political benefits-leave a stronger anti-democratic legacy than exclusionary regimes on the political attitudes of their citizens. Similarly, citizens who were part of the winning group in an autocracy are more critical with democracy compared to citizens who were part of discriminated groups. This paper contributes to our understanding about how autocracies affect the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens.

Full text

!!
How!do!inclusionary!and!exclusionary!autocracies!
affect!ordinary!people?!
!
Anja!Neundorf1!
(University!of!Nottingham)!
!
Johannes!Gerschewski!
(Technical!University!Munich)!
!
Roman-Gabriel!Olar!
(Trinity!College!Dublin)!
!
[Paper!accepted!for!publication!in!Comparative+Political+Studies,!March!2019]!
!
Abstract!
We! propose! a! distinction! between! inclusionary! and! exclusionary! autocratic! ruling!
strategies! and! develop! novel! theoretical! propositions! on! the! legacy! that! these!
strategies! leave! on! citizens’! political! attitudes! once! the! autocratic! regime! broke!
down.! Using! data! of! 1.3! million! survey! respondents! from! 70! countries! and!
Hierarchical! Age-Period-Cohort!models! we! estimate! between! and! within! cohort!
differences!in!citizens’!democratic!support.!We!find!that!inclusionary!regimes!–!with!
wider!redistribution!of!socio-economic!and!political!benefits!–!leave!a!stronger!anti-
democratic! legacy! than! exclusionary! regimes! on! the! political! attitudes! of! their!
citizens.!Similarly,!citizens! who! were! part!of!the! winning! group! in!an!autocracy! are!
more!critical!with! democracy! compared! to!citizens! who! were! part! of!discriminated!
groups.! This! paper! contributes! to! our! understanding! about! how! autocracies! affect!
the!hearts!and!minds!of!ordinary!citizens.!
!
Keywords:! Authoritarianism,! public! goods,! micro-foundation,! inclusion,! exclusion,!
cohort!analysis,!political!socialization.!!
! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!Emails:!anja.neundorf@nottingham.ac.uk;!johannes.gerschewski@hfp.tum.de;!olarr@tcd.ie.!!

!
!
2!
!
!
Introduction!
February!5,!2018!marked!the!day!on!which!the!Berlin!Wall!stood!as!long!as!it!is!gone!
-!28!years!and!3!months.!Yet,!the!legacy!of!the!former!German!Democratic!Republic!
(GDR)! is! still! tangible.! The! autocratic! rule! of! the! GDR! has! left! an! imprint! on! the!
political!attitudes!of!its!citizens!that!did!not!cease!to!exist!with! the!Fall!of!the!Berlin!
Wall,! making! many! nostalgic! about! the! autocratic! past.! Some! have! connected! this!
so-called! “Ostalgie”! to! anti-democratic! resentment,! which! is! widespread! in! East!
Germany.! The! former! GDR! is! not! an! exception.! Anti-democratic! political! attitudes!
last!usually!longer!than!the!autocratic!regime!in!which!they!developed.!Yet,!the!GDR!
represents! a! particular! type! of! autocracy! that! placed! heavy! emphasis! on! equal!
education,! a! comprehensive! health! system,! and! a! wide! distribution! of! socio-
economic! benefits! among! the! working! class.! Other! regimes! are! less! generous! -! in!
economic!and!political!terms!-!towards!their!citizens.!
Against!this!backdrop,!our!article!is!motivated!by!the!question!to!what!extent!
ruling! strategies! of! autocratic! regimes! influence! the! political! attitudes! of! their!
citizens,! even! after! these! authoritarian! regimes!broke! down.! In! particular,! our!
research! sheds! light! on! the! mechanism! of! authoritarian! nostalgia! and! anti-
democratic!sentiments!that! are! a! product!of! authoritarian! socialization.! To! achieve!
this,! we! bring! two! strands! of! research! into! a! dialogue.! While! the! comparative!
authoritarianism! literature! has! focused! mainly! on! the! inner! workings! of! non-
democratic! rule! (Gandhi,! 2008;! Svolik,! 2012),! it! paid! less! attention! to! the! role! of!
ordinary! citizens.! However,! this! is! the! starting! point! of! the! second! strand! of!
literature,!the!legacy!literature,!which!is!mainly!interested!in!the!effect!that!previous!

!
!
3!
!
!
non-democratic! rule! has! on! political! beliefs! and! attitudes! –! once! democracy! is!
installed! (Bernhard! and! Karakoc! 2007;! Neundorf,! 2010;! Pop-Eleches! and! Tucker,!
2017).! Yet,! it! is! surprising! that! the! legacy! literature! remains! rather! mute! towards!
addressing!the!effect!of!variation!in!autocratic!ruling!strategies!on!political!attitudes.!!
Theoretically,! we! rely! on! political! socialization! theory! and! argue! that! the!
political!environment! and! the!ruling! strategy! that!someone!experiences! during! the!
so-called! “formative! years”! not! only! impact! on! a! citizen’s! contemporary! political!
attitudes,! but! also! leaves! a! lasting! imprint! on! her! political! attitudes! in! later! life!
(Mannheim,!1928;!Krosnick!and!Alwin,!1989;!Sears!and!Funk,!1999).!In!other!words,!
the!socio-political!experience!as! a! young!adult!coins!how!one!assesses!politics! later!
in! life.! More! concretely,! we! are! interested! in! the! legacy! effect! that! different!
authoritarian!ruling!strategies!have!on!the!political!attitudes!of!citizens,!in!particular!
towards!democracy.!Focusing!on!the!legacy!here!further!allows!us!to!infer!about!the!
public!support!created!by!these!various!ruling!strategies!during!the!dictatorship.!!
We!propose! a! typological! distinction! between! inclusionary! and! exclusionary!
strategies.! Building! upon! Bueno! de! Mesquita! et! al.’s! work! (2003),! we! distinguish!
between!political!and!economic!dimensions!of!inclusion!and!exclusion!in!autocracies.!
We! argue! that! inclusionary! autocracies! tend! to! redistribute! more! of! their! political!
and! economic! resources! towards! their! citizens! in! order! to! create! a! broad! public!
support! base.! In! contrast,! exclusionary! autocracies! follow! the! opposite! route! and!

!
!
4!
!
!
channel!political!influence!and!economic!benefits!to!a!small!group!of!privileged!(and!
therefore!loyal)!individuals!who!help!the!leader!survive!in!power.2!!
!We! show! that! these! two! different! regime! strategies! of! inclusion! and!
exclusion!affect!the!long-term!political!attitudes!of!ordinary!citizens.!To!demonstrate!
the!heterogeneity!of!the!legacy!effect! and! to! arrive! at! a!nuanced!empirical!picture,!
we! test! our! theoretical! argument! with! two! complementary! empirical! strategies.!
First,! we! examine! differences! in! political! attitudes! of! citizens! who! were! socialized!
under!different!autocratic!ruling!strategies!on!the!one!hand,!and!who!were!brought!
up!under!democracy! on! the! other!hand! (between-regime! comparison).! Second,!we!
further! examine! differences! in! political! attitudes! between! individuals! who! were!
socialized! under! the! same! autocratic! regime,! yet! had! different! socio-political!
statuses,! i.e.! belonging! to! an! included! group! that! profits! from! the! regime! or! being!
particularly! discriminated! against! and! excluded! from! power! (within-regime!
comparison).!! !
! The! empirical! analysis! is! based! on! a! newly! created,! harmonized! public!
opinion! dataset! that! combines! 1,070! (country! x! wave!x! study)3!existing! surveys! for!
70! countries! from! around! the! world! and! data! on! authoritarian! regimes’! ruling!
strategies!from!the!Varieties!of!Democracy!(V-Dem)!dataset!(Coppedge!et!al.,!2016).!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!This! conceptualization! does! not! exclude! repression,! nor! are! we! oblivious! to! violence! being! an!
inherent! feature! of! authoritarian! politics! (Svolik,! 2012).! Rather,! by! focusing! on! the! provision! of!
public!goods,!while!holding!repression!constant,!we!simplify!the!focus!of!our!theoretical!argument.!!
Thereby! we! are! better! able! to! disentangle! the! long-term! effect! of! certain! policies! on! citizens.!
Importantly,! repression! and! inclusiveness! seem! be! distinct! strategies.! Using! data! from! Varieties! of!
Democracy!(V-Dem;!more!details!below)!shows!that!the!correlation!between!providing!public!goods!
and!hard! repression!is!only! R=0.37!in!autocracies.! Hard!repression!correlates! also!only!moderately!
with!providing!more!access!to!political!power!in!autocracies!(R=0.34).!!!
3!The! data! is! based! on! ten! different! cross-national! studies! such! as! the!W orld! Value! Survey! or! the!
Latinobarometer!that!all!have!been!collected!in!several!waves!at!different!points!of!time.!

!
!
5!
!
!
We! use! hierarchical! age,! period,! cohort! (HAPC)! models! to! estimate! the! effect! of!
these!strategies!on!citizens’!attitudes!towards!democracy!today.!!
We! find! that! people! who! were! socialized! in! exclusionary! regimes! are! more!
supportive!of!democracy!compared!to!citizens! from!more!inclusionary!regimes,! and!
even!democracies.! As! the! policies! of!autocratic! regimes! become! more! inclusionary!
this! finding! is! reversed.! Citizens! from! inclusionary! regimes! are! less! satisfied! with!
democracy! compared! to! citizens! from! exclusionary! regimes! and! democracies.! We!
also! find! a! mutual! reinforcement! effect! between! political! and! economic! inclusion.!
This! means! that! if! an! authoritarian! regime! is! economically! inclusive! by!providing!
public! goods! to! its! citizens,! being! politically! inclusive! and! incorporating! a! broad!
variety! of! societal! groups! into! political! power,! significantly! decreases! later!
democratic! support.! The!within-regime! analysis! further! supports! our! theoretical!
expectation!that!authoritarian! ruling!strategies!matter!for!the! formation!of!citizens’!
political!attitudes.!!
This!research!contributes!to!existing!literature!in!three!crucial!ways.!First,!we!
propose! a! new! typological! distinction! between! inclusionary! and! exclusionary!
autocracies.!By!so!doing,!we!focuses!on!the!role!of!ordinary!citizens!under!autocratic!
rule.! Second,! we! are! able! to! increase! considerably! the! scope! of! former! studies! on!
authoritarian!nostalgia!that!have!mainly!concentrated!on!post-Communist!regimes.!
It! is! the! first! global! analysis! that! includes! 70! countries.! Third,! we! are! able! to! test!
rigorously! the! legacy! effect! that! different! autocratic! ruling! strategies! have! on!
citizens’! political! attitudes.! As! such,! our! research! has! important! implications! for!
understanding! the! development! of! democratic! dissatisfaction! and! anti-democratic!

!
!
6!
!
!
resentments!that!might!be!already!anchored!in!the!minds!of!the!people!even!before!
democracy!has!been!installed.!!
Inclusionary!and!exclusionary!authoritarian!regimes!!
We!argue!that!dictators!fall! on!a!continuum! between!two!types! of!ruling!strategies:!
inclusionary! and! exclusionary.! Our! conception! of! inclusionary! and! exclusionary!
autocracy! goes! beyond! the! recent! institutional! focus! in! comparative!
authoritarianism.! Instead! of! focusing! on! the! institutional! and! elite! power!
architecture! (Geddes,! et! al.,! 2014;! Hadenius! and! Teorell! 2007)! and! the! effect! of!
formal!and!informal!institutions!in!autocratic!settings!(Gandhi!2008;!Magaloni!2008;!
Schedler!2013;!Svolik!2012),!we!focus!on!examining!the!effect!on!ordinary!citizens!of!
inclusion!and!exclusion!from!political!power!and!economic!benefits.4!
We! define! an! inclusionary! regime! as! a! regime! that! relies! on! a! broad! public!
support! base.5! These! regimes! incorporate! various! social,! economic! and! ethnic!
groups!into!their! power!structure!by!ensuring! a!wider!redistribution!of! political!and!
socio-economic! benefits! to! the! population.! This! strategy! aims! at! minimizing! the!
threats!that!can! emanate! from!within!the!society!by!buying!off! the! opposition!with!
political!and!economic!concessions!that!are!available!only!if!they!support!the!regime.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4!Please!refer!also!to!Appendix!7!in!which!we!plot!the!distribution!of!inclusionary!and! exclusionary!
strategies!by!the!three!main!regime!types!(one-party,!military,!personalist!regimes)!of!Geddes!et!al.!
(2014).!!
5!We!do! not!aim!to! explore!the!reasons!why!some!dictators!are!more!inclusive!than!others,!or!why!
they! need! a! broader! ruling! coalition! to! stay! in! power.! Rather,! we! are! interested! in! providing! a!
comprehensive!typological!distinction!of!authoritarian!ruling!strategies.!

!
!
7!
!
!
In! contrast,! we! define! an! exclusionary! regime! as! a! regime! with! a! narrow!
societal!basis!that!excludes!from!power!most!social,!religious,!and!ethnic!groups.! Its!
power!stems!from!a!narrow!set!of!actors!that!obtain!exclusive!benefits.!Exclusionary!
regimes! rely! more! on! redistributing! particularistic! goods! to! the! members! of! the!
ruling! elite,! while! actively! restricting! the! access! in! power! and! economic!
redistribution!to!other!groups!from!within!society.6!!
This! conceptualization! of! autocratic! ruling! strategies! borrows! conceptually!
from! Bueno! de! Mesquita! et! al.! (2003)! selectorate! theory.! The! selectorate! benefits!
from! the! redistributive! policies! of! the! regime! as! it! provides! the! regime! with! the!
necessary! support! to! extend! its! survival.! However,! since! not! all! members! of! the!
selectorate! can! participate! in! autocratic! governance,! autocrats! rely! on! an! inner!
sanctum! of! elites,! the! winning! coalition,! that! endows! the! autocrat! with! sufficient!
power! to! remain! in! power! (Svolik! 2012;! Geddes! et! al.! 2014).! Members! of! the!
selectorate!that!provide! valuable! service,! and! develop! a!network!of! support! within!
their!local!organizations! and! communities! can!climb! the! political! ladder! and!obtain!
positions!in!the!winning!coalition.!Previous!research!in!comparative!authoritarianism!
has!concentrated!on!the!role!of!this!winning!coalition,!but!has!under-theorized!the!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6!It! could! be! reasonably! assumed! that,! in! result,! inclusionary! autocracies! are! more! equal! than!
exclusionary! autocracies.! Yet,! it! is! beyond! the! scope! of! this! paper! to! contribute! to! the! ongoing!
nuanced!discussion!about!the!effect!of!inequality!and!redistributive!policies!as!drivers!or!hindrance!
to! democratization.! While! Boix! (2003)! argued! in! favor! of! a! negative! linear! relationship! between!
inequality!and!the!probability!to!democratize,!Acemoglu!and!Robinson!(2006)!proposed!an!inverted!
U-shape.!In!turn,!Haggard!and!Kaufmann!(2016)!recently!cautioned!that!we!should!not!overestimate!
distributive! conflicts! as! a! driver! for! democratization.! Moreover,! Ansell! and! Samuels! (2014:! 2)!
challenged!the!“redistributivist!thesis”!and!focused!on!elite!competition!instead,!arguing!that!when!
rising! disenfranchised! groups! accumulate! income,! this! results! in! higher! income! inequality! which!
again!leads!to! growing!demands!for!regime! change! as!these!new!economic! groups! want!to!insure!
their!status!against!autocratic!arbitrariness.!!

!
!
8!
!
!
effect! of! the! governing! strategies! autocrats! use! to! ensure! the! loyalty! of! its!
selectorate.!!
We!use!the! selectorate! theory!as!an!important!theoretical!springboard.7! We!
build!upon!it!and!derive!two!separate!dimensions.!We!distinguish!explicitly!between!
(1)!political!and!(2)!socio-economic!inclusion!and!exclusion!strategies.!When!it!comes!
to!the!political! inclusion,! we! argue! that!dictators!regulate! access! to! political! power!
by! making! use! of!decisive! “qualities”! such! as! ethnic! origin,! religious! belief,!
organizational,! and/or! class! membership! (e.g.! military! generals,! workers! in!
Communist! regimes).! The! dictator! serves! as! the! gate-keeper! that! decides! on! the!
basis!of!these!specific!attributes!whom!to!include!in!power.!The!dictator!can!adopt!a!
more! inclusive! ruling! strategy! by! widening! his! support! base! and! incorporate! more!
societal! groups! in! power,! or! he! can! restrict! it! to! a! very! few,! hand-picked! people!
whose!support!is!necessary!and!sufficient!to!ensure!autocratic!survival.!
Similarly,! granting! and! withholding! socio-economic! benefits! can! be! used! by!
autocrats!to!ensure!the! loyalty! of!the!selectorate!and!winning!coalition.! Like! access!
to!power,!this!dimension!can!be!narrowed!down!to!very!few!or!can!be!spread!more!
equally!among!citizens.!In!other!words,!the!co-optation!efforts!take!place!either!on!a!
restricted! elite! level! and! target! strategically! important! business! and! military!
personnel,!or!it!can!reach!to!the!masses!by!gaining!specific!support!among!the!wider!
population! (Kim! and! Gandhi,! 2010).! As! such,! economic! strategies! of! inclusion! and!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7!We!see!three!major!dimensions!in! which!we!deviate!from! the!original!selectorate! theory.! First,!we!
differ!in!the!explanatory!aim.!We!are!not!interested!in!explaining!regime!survival,!but!are!interested!
in! the! long-term! effects! of! different! ruling! strategies! on! political! attitudes.! Second,! we! do! not!
develop!a! universal!theory!that! holds!across! democratic!and!autocratic! regimes,!but! focus!only!on!
the! autocratic! pole.! Third,! in! our! conceptualization! we! introdu ce! the! explicit! distinction! between!
economic!and!political!inclusion/exclusion!instruments.!!

!
!
9!
!
!
exclusion!range!from!the!provision! of! public! goods! that! do!not!discriminate!against!
any! social! groups! to! a! particularistic! approach! of! distributing! material! benefits! to!
very!few.8!
!
Regime!Type!and!Their!Effect!on!Ordinary!Citizens!
From!these! two! opposing! ruling! strategies,! we! can! now! formulate! expectations! on!
how! inclusionary! and! exclusionary! regimes! affect! their! citizens’! political! attitudes.!
Inclusionary! regimes! try! to! win! the! hearts! and! minds! of! their! people,! while!
exclusionary! regimes’! survival! hinges! on! the! loyalty! of! very! few! elite! members.!
Inclusionary! autocracies! act! through! a! wide! redistribution! of! socio-economic!
resources! and! political! power! and! build! a! dense! network! of! support! in! society.!
Furthermore,!we!argue!that!inclusionary!regimes!are!proactive!in!instilling!a!climate!
of! pro-regime! support! amongst! its! citizens,! one! in! which! the! regime! is! seen! as!
benevolent!for!offering!the!citizens!benefits!that!would!otherwise!be!inaccessible.!In!
exclusionary!regimes,!the!dictator!is!more!concerned!with!maintaining!the!loyalty!of!
its! ruling! elite,! making! sure! that! any! member! of! the! ruling! coalition! does! not!
threaten! his! position! in! power.! In! result,! exclusionary! regimes! dismiss! ordinary!
citizens!from!influencing!politics!and!exclude!them!from!economic!redistribution.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8!If!we! assume! independent!dimensions,! inclusionary! regimes!are!those! that! score! high! in!terms! of!
political!and!economic!inclusion.!Exclusionary!regimes,!in!contrast,!are!those!regimes!that!score!low!
in! political! and! economic! inclusion.! As! such,! these! two! types! are! extreme! or! ideal! types.! We! are!
aware! that! by! cross-tabulating! the! two! dimensions,! “hybrid”! regimes! emerge! that! either! score!
high/low!or! low/high!on!political!and!economic! inclusion.!In! Appendix!10,!we! provide!an!overview!
of!the!empirical! distribution!across!these! four! types!of!authoritarian! rule.!We!also!show! empirical!
evidence!for! the!respective!legacy! effect!of!all! four!types!of! authoritarian!rule!on! later!democratic!
satisfaction.!

!
!
10!
!
!
Political(socialization(and(the(making(of(generations(
We! expect! that! citizens! who! are! exposed! to! an! inclusionary! regime! to! be! more!
supportive! of! the! regime! as! these! regimes! actively! try! to! develop! a! pro-regime!
sentiment!amongst!its!citizens!by!providing!them!with!benefits!in!exchange!for!their!
support! for! the! regime.! Unfortunately,! we! are! usually! not! able! to! observe! regime!
support! during! existing! dictatorships,! as! representative! and! comparable! public!
opinion! research! is! almost! impossible! during! authoritarian! regimes! (Kuran,! 1997).9!
Yet,! we! argue! here! that! this! is! not! necessary.! Instead,! we! use! the! theoretical! and!
methodological! approach! of! cohort! analysis,! which! allows! the! identification! of!
distinct! characteristics! of! those! generations! that! were! socialized+ under! different!
political! regimes.! Generations! thereby! function! like! fossils! that! carry! evidence! of! a!
long-gone!past.!Here,!we!assume!that!the!political!preferences!of!whole!generations!
that! grew! up! under! inclusionary! or! exclusionary! regimes! have! been! shaped! and!
remain! prevalent! in! the! population,! especially! for! those! that! experienced! these!
regime!during!the!so-called!formative!years!during!adolescence.10!!
These!expectations!build!on!the!theory!of!political!socialization,!which!argues!
that! fundamental! values! are! acquired! largely! in! early! adulthood.! The! theory! goes!
back! to! the! seminal! work! of! Karl! Mannheim! and! has! been! later! refined! and!
empirically! tested! (Mannheim,! 1928;! Krosnick! and! Alwin,! 1989;! Sears! and! Funk,!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9!Some!notable!exceptions!are!the!work!by!Geddes!and!Zaller!(1989)!on! Brazil;!Hainmueller! and!Kern!
(2009)!on! East!Germany!and!some!recent!work!on!China! (e.g.!Wang!2017).!However,!these!studies!
rely!on!unique!national!surveys!and!hence!do!not!allow!for!variation!on!regime!strategies.!!!
10!Some!have! argued!that!later-life! learning!is!also!important!for! the!formation!of!political!attitudes,!
even!if!these!studies!show!that!early!learning!still!has!the!strongest!effects!(Pop-Eleches!and!Tucker,!
2017;!Dinas!and!Northmore-Ball,!2017).!As!we!focus!on!early!socialization!(during!dictatorships)!and!
ignore!later-life!learning!(during!democracy)!this!should!make! our!results!more!conservative,!as! we!
do!not!account!for!the!potential!revision!of!political!attitudes!during!democratic!times.!!!!!

!
!
11!
!
!
1999).! Young! citizens,! it! is! believed,! are! not! yet! set! in! their! political! ways! and! are!
subsequently! more! easily! influenced! by! external! factors! such! as! the! nature! of! the!
political!regime!in!which!they!live!(Bartels!and!Jackman,!2014).!Political!socialization!
theory!argues!that!after!the!formation!period!in!early!adulthood,!these!attitudes!and!
preferences! remain! relatively! intact! and! constant.! Fundamental! change! is! rare!
(Jennings,!1989;!Sears!and!Valentino,!1997).!
We!assume!that!citizens’!political!attitudes!that!developed!under!autocracies!
are! imprinted! through! the! ruling! strategies! of! the! regime.! As! such,! we! expect! to!
observe! differences! between! the! political! attitudes! of! citizens! socialized! in!
inclusionary! regimes! and! exclusionary! regimes.! More! precisely,! citizens! from!
inclusionary! autocracies! will! be! more! supportive! of! that! regime,! which! in! turn! is!
expected! to! lead! to! higher! nostalgia! if! the! regime! is! overthrown.! If! citizens!
experience!an!inclusionary!authoritarian!ruling!strategy!in!their!formative!years,!they!
might!value! the! gains!of! autocratic! inclusion!higher! than! potential!liberal! values! of!
democratic!systems.!!
Conversely,! the! majority! of! citizens! that! experienced! exclusionary! ruling!
strategies!during!their!formative!years!will!be!less!nostalgic!about!the!autocratic!past!
and!hence!are!expected!to!embrace!democratic!values.!They!did!not!profit!from!the!
former!autocratic!regime! as! they!were!exempted!from!political! power! and!material!
benefits.! As! such,! they! value! the! potential! gains! and! promises! of! democratic!
societies! higher! compared! to! the! previous! autocratic! situation.! After!
democratization,! they! perceive! themselves! now! on! an! even! playing! field! that!
provides!equal!chances!for!economic!success!and!political!participation.!!

!
!
12!
!
!
Finally,! we! should! contrast! citizens’! political! attitudes! that! grew! up! in!
democratic!and!autocratic!societies.!We!assume!that!citizens!that!were!socialized!in!
democracies!should! be! generally! more!supportive! of! democracy! than! citizens! from!
former!autocracies!since!they!developed!democratic!attitudes!and!preferences!early!
on! in! their! life! by! living! in! a! democracy! during! their! formative! years! (Fuchs-
Schündeln!and!Schündeln,!2015).!!
Based! on! the! theory! of! political! socialization! under! different! regime! forms,!
we!formulate!the!following!hypothesis:!!
Hypothesis+ 1+ (H1):+ Generations+ that+ were+ socialized+ in+ inclusionary+ autocracies+ are+
more+ supportive+ of+ that+ regime+ and+ are+ therefore+ less+ positive+ with+
democracy+than+generations+ that+ grew+up+in+exclusionary+autocracies+
or+in+democracies.+
We! further! hypothesize! that! the! two! dimensions! of! inclusion! -! political! and!
economic!-!interact!and!mutually!strengthen!each!other.!We!argue!that!support!for!
the! authoritarian! regime! and! the! subsequent! nostalgia! and! dissatisfaction! with!
democracy! becomes! stronger! when! high! economic! inclusion! during! the! formative!
years!is!met!with!high!political!inclusion.!We!expect!political!and!economic!inclusion!
to!have!a!stronger!effect!together!than!in!isolation.!We!argue!that!a!doubly!inclusive!
situation! in! which! citizens! are! included! politically! and! economically! included!
amplifies!support!for!the!authoritarian!regime.!This,!in!turn,!translates!into!a!growing!
skepticism! with! democracy.! Against! this! backdrop,! we! formulate! a! reinforcement!
effect!in!hypothesis!2.!!

!
!
13!
!
!
Hypothesis+ + (H2):+ High+ level+ of+ economic+ inclusion+ coupled+ with+ high+ political+
inclusion+has+a+negative+effect+on+democratic+support.++!
Hypotheses!1! and!2!refer! to!differences!between!regimes.!We!expect!to!find!
clear!generational!differences!in!terms! of! political! preferences! of! people! who! grew!
up! under! different! regimes! within! the! same! country! and! between! different!
countries.!However,!all!autocratic!societies!are!heterogeneous!to!some!extent.!The!
selectorate!defines!who!is!included!and!excluded!from!politics.!It!defines!who!might!
potentially!profit!from!the!regime!and!who!is!discriminated!against.!To!be!a!member!
of!the!selectorate! constitutes!a!necessary!condition!for!profiting! from!an!autocratic!
regime.!!
We! define! insiders! of! the! selectorate! as! the! potential! “winners”! of! an!
autocratic! regime,! which! are! more! included! in! terms! of! political! and! economic!
benefits,!while!outsiders!of!the!selectorate!are!“losers”.!While!the!members!of! the!
selectorate! are! addressed! politically! and! profit,! at! least! potentially,! from! socio-
economic! redistribution,! the! latter! group! has! no! access! to! power! or! material!
benefits.! Against! this! backdrop,! we! can! further! break! down! our! argument! about!
inclusion! and! exclusion.! We! expand! the! between-regime! comparison! to! the!
composition! of! society! within! an! existing! regime.! We! would! expect! that! specific!
groups! that! were! included! in! the! power! and! socio-economic! benefit! structure! (i.e.!
winners)! are! more! supportive! of! the! former! regime! than! those! that! have! been!
excluded!for!social,!ethnic,!or!religious!reasons!(i.e.!losers).!Those!suppressed!groups!
within! a! regime! should! be! more! resistant! to! the! regime! socialization,! as! they!
experience! first-hand! the! exclusive! nature! of! the! regime! (Pop-Eleches! and! Tucker!

!
!
14!
!
!
2017).! Further,! we! would! expect! them! to! be! more! positive! about! the! democratic!
transition!as!they!gained!the!most!from!the!democratization.!In!this!light,!we!derive!
the!third!hypothesis:!
Hypothesis+ 3+ (H3):+ Social+ and+ ethnic+ groups+ included+ in+ the+ selectorate+ of+ an+
autocratic+ regime+ are+ more+ supportive+ of+ the+ autocratic+ regime+ and+
therefore+ less+ positive+ with+ democracy+ than+ social+ and+ ethnic+ groups+
excluded+from+it.!
!
Research!design!
In!order!to!test! our! hypotheses,! we!conduct!a!comprehensive!analysis!of!70! (post-)!
authoritarian! countries! during! the! entire! 20th! century! from! around! the! globe! that!
experienced!variations!of!inclusionary!and!exclusionary!regimes.!As!discussed!above,!
we! identify! the! effect! of! autocracies! on! their! citizens! by! comparing! generations!
within! the! same! country! and! between! countries! that! were! exposed! to! varying!
contexts! during! their! formative! years.! This! empirical! phenomenon! of! varying!
socialization!experiences!within!the!same!country!or!regime!gives!us!the!opportunity!
to!study! the! lasting!imprint! of! political!regimes,! even! after!their! existence.! We!are!
further!able!to!contrast!groups!of!generations!that!grew!up!under!dictatorships!and!
those!that!came!of!age!under!democracy.!!
To! achieve! this! empirical! test,! we! need! to! distinguish! three! co-linear! time!
trends:! age,! period,! and! cohort! (APC)! effects.! A! person! could! have! positive! or!
negative!views!of!democracy!because!she!is!young!-!the!so-called!life-cycle!or!ageing!

!
!
15!
!
!
effect,!or!because!she!lives!in!a!country!that!faces!a!big!political!corruption!scandal!-!
the!so-called!period!effect!that!affects! everyone! no! matter! their!age!or!birth!year!-!
or!because!she!was!socialized!at!a!certain!point! in! history! -! the! cohort! effect.! Here!
we! are! mainly! interested! in! the! cohort! effect,! which! we! argue! contains! the!
socialization! effect! of! political! regimes.! This! methodological! approach! allows! us! to!
indirectly!test!the!impact!autocratic!ruling!strategies!have!on!the!mass!public.!!!
We!conduct!two!sets!of!empirical!tests!to!investigate!our!three!hypotheses.!
Firstly,! we! test! our! theory! contrasting! inclusionary! and! exclusionary! regimes! by!
contrasting!them!to!democracies!as!a!baseline!(H1!and!H2).!Second,!we!conduct!two!
within-regime!analyses!where!we!sub-divide!the!population! into!winners!and!losers!
of!former!authoritarian!regimes,!which!tests!the!direct!of!effect!of!profiting!from!an!
autocratic!regime!or!being!particularly!discriminated!(H3).!!
Individual-level(data(
To! test! our! hypotheses,! we! merge! existing,! publicly! available! survey! data! from!
numerous!countries! from! around!the! globe! -!both! well-established! democracies!as!
well!as!former!dictatorships.!We!chose! the! datasets! that! have!been!designed!to!be!
fielded! in! several! countries,! which! ensures! that! questions! are! less! country-specific!
but!rather!to!travel!across!borders.!Furthermore,!all!studies!have!been!conducted!as!
academic!studies!and!hence!adhere!to!a!certain!standard.!Moreover,!we!only!chose!
studies! that! included! questions! related! to! democratic! attitudes! and! political!
engagement.!The! newly!created!harmonized!public! opinion!dataset!combines!1,070!
(country! x! wave! x! study)!existing! surveys! for! 70! countries! from! around! the! world!

!
!
16!
!
!
with! a! total! of! 1,422! different! country-cohorts.11! We! harmonized! the! data! of! the!
following!public!opinion!surveys!(including!the!years!that!they!were!fielded):!
• World!Values!Survey!(WVS),!1981-2014!
• Latinobarometer!(LB),!1995-2015!
• Asian!Barometer!(ANB),!2001-2014!
• Afrobarometer!(AFB),!1999-2015!
• Americas!Barometer!(AB),!2004-2014!
• European!Values!Study!(EVS),!1981-2010!
• European!Social!Survey!(ESS),!2002-2014!
• Eurobarometer!(EB),!1970-2002!
• Central!&!Eastern!European!Barometer!(CEEB),!1990-97!
• Comparative!Study!of!Electoral!Systems!(CSES),!1996-2015!
!
Pooling!all!these!datasets!together!gives!us!about!1.3!million!respondents!for!
which!we!have! valid!data!on!two! dependent!variables!and!all!control! variables.!The!
different!survey!questions!included!in!the!diverse!datasets!were!harmonized!so!that!
a!joint!analysis! is!possible.!More!details!on! the!question!of!harmonization!decisions!
can!be!found!in!Appendices!3!and!4.!
Dependent(variables:(Authoritarian(nostalgia(and(democratic(support((
In! order! to! measure! the! impact! of! inclusionary! and! exclusionary! regimes! had! on!
people’s!hearts!and!minds,!we!ideally!want!to!measure!support!for!the!authoritarian!
regime.!Unfortunately,! it!is!not!possible! to!measure!regime!support!in!a!direct!way,!
as!public! opinion! surveys!are! usually! not! available.! An! indirect! measure!for! regime!
support! is! however! whether! people! feel! nostalgic! for! these! regimes! once! they! are!
overthrown.!Using!the!third!wave!(1999/2000)!of!the!EVS!we!can!use!a!question!on!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11!We!only!include!countries!for!which!we!have!at!least!three!surveys!that!cover!at!least!10!years.!This!
is!an!important!prerequisite!to! estimate! HAPC! models,!introduced! below.!The!list!of! countries! and!
the!number!of!respondents!per!country!can!be!found!in!Appendix!1.!

!
!
17!
!
!
evaluating!the!former!Communist!regime!as!good!or!bad12!for!14!Central!and!Eastern!
European!countries.13!As!we!have!postulated!in!our!theory,!we!expect!that!nostalgia!
for!the! previous!authoritarian!regime!affect!the!evaluation!of!democracy.14!The!EVS!
data!allows!us!to!explore!the!relationship!between!authoritarian!nostalgia!(support)!
and!democratic!support,!which!we!are!able!to!measure!across!time!and!a!large!set!of!
countries.!!
We!assume! that! the! higher! nostalgia!with! the! Communist! regime! the! more!
critical!people!would!be!with!democracy.!Figure!1!plots!this!correlation!with!our!two!
dependent!variables!–!“satisfaction!with!democracy”!(Fig.!1.A)!and!“democracy!is!the!
best!form!of! government”! (Fig.!1.B)!-!using!our! 14! countries!and!three!generations,!
those! that! grew-up! before,! during! or! after! the! Cold! War.! Plotting! the! average!
nostalgia!and!democratic! support!for!each!country-cohort,! Figure!1!shows!nostalgia!
is!weakest!among!the!generation!that! grew-up!after!the!end! of!Communism,!which!
is! what! we! would! expect! based! on! our! theory.! The! individual-level! correlation!
between!satisfaction!with!democracy!and!authoritarian!nostalgia!is!r=-0.43,!which!is!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12!The!exact!question!wording!to!evaluate!today’s!political!system!is!as!follows:!“People!have!different!
views! about! the! system! for! governing! this! country.! Here! is! a! scale! for! rating! how! well! things! are!
going:!1!means!very!bad;!10!means!very!good”.!
13!These!include:!Bulgaria,!Belarus,!Czech!Republic,!Estonia,!East!Germany,!Hungary,!Latvia,!Lithuania,!
Poland,!Romania,!Russia,!Slovak!Republic,!Slovenia,!and!Ukraine.!
14!In!order!to!test!our!hypotheses!it!is!essential!to!identify!the!cohort!effects!properly!and!distinguish!
these! from! aging! effects.! However,! the! data! that! directly! m easures! authoritarian! nostalgia! is! not!
suitable!for!this.!Firstly,! having! data! only! from! one! point! in! time!does!not!allow!the!separation!of!
age!and!cohort! effects,!which!is! crucial!in!our! theoretical!framework! of!authoritarian!socialization.!
Secondly,!the!EVS!data!only!includes!former!Communist!countries,!which!do!not!give!us!variation!on!
the!key!independent!variable!-!regime!inclusiveness.!The!regimes!were!too!similar!in!this!respect.!

!
!
18!
!
!
strong.! The! correlation! is! even! stronger! between! democracy! as! the! best! form! of!
government!and!Communist!nostalgia!(r=-0.68).15!!
!
Figure!1:!Correlation!between!Communist!nostalgia!and!democratic!support!
The! findings! of! Figure! 1! supports! our! assumption! that! using! measures! of!
democratic!support!are!suitable!proxies!for!authoritarian!support!(nostalgia).!For!the!
remainder! of! the! paper! we! therefore! use! measures! of! democratic! support,! which!
have!a!higher!longitudinal!and! geographic! coverage! and! hence! allow! us! to!test!our!
three!hypotheses!more!accurately.!!
Political!support!is!one!of!the!key!factors!in!the!development!of!a!democratic!
political!culture!(Almond!and!Verba,!1963;!Easton,!1965).!The!aim!is!to!measure!the!
extent! to! which! citizens! support! the! democratic! system! using! the! satisfaction! with!
the! way! democracy! works.! We! thereby! assume! that! the! expression! of! satisfaction!
asks!respondents!to! evaluate!the!performance!of! the!political!system!(Norris,!1999;!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15!Appendix! 5! includes! further! exploration! of! the! measure! of! authoritarian! nostalgia,! including! its!
prevalence!and!generational!differences.!

!
!
19!
!
!
Linde! and! Ekman,! 2003).16! Further,! asking! citizens! about! the! ‘‘satisfaction! with!
democracy’’! is! less! abstract! than! the! usual! question! of! support! for! ‘‘democracy! as!
the!best!way!of!government’’,!which!we!do!however!use!in!a!separate!test,!too.!!
In!the!datasets!that!were!harmonized!for!this!study,!respondents!were!asked!
uniformly! how! satisfied! are! you! with! the! way! democracy! works! in! your! country.17!
Response!categories!however!varied!from!4!to!11.!The!variable!was!standardized!to!
0!to!100,! whereas! lower! values!mean!less!satisfaction! with! democracy.! To! account!
for!the!specific!effects!due!to!study! design! or! questionnaire! design,! we! include! the!
study!(e.g.! WVS,!ESS,!etc.)!as!a!control!variable!into!the!model,! which!also!accounts!
for!the!difference!in!response!categories.18!!!
Individual-level(control(variables(
We! control! for! the! gender! of! respondents,! the! education! level! (primary! or! less,!
secondary,! post-secondary)19! and! a! dummy! variable! whether! a! respondent! is!
working!as!opposed! to! being! unemployed,!retired!or! any! other! reason! why!people!
do!not!work.20!+
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16!In! the! analysis! presented! below ! we! refrain! from! including! countries! in! the! analysis! th at! are! not!
classified! as! democratic! at! the! time! of! the! survey.! We! believe! that! it! is! not! meaningful! to! ask!
respondents!to!evaluate!how! the! democratic! system!works!in!their! country! if!they!do!not! live!in!a!
democracy.! Using! this! restriction! reduces! the! sample! by! 21! countries! for! which! data! would! be!
available.!The!results!are!not!sensitive!to!the!inclusion!of!these!contemporary!autocracies.!
17!The!question!wording!and!response!categories!in!each!study!are!listed!in!Appendix!3.!!
18!The!estimates!of!these! are!not! reported!in!the!results!tables,!but!are! available!upon! request!from!
the!authors.!!
19!For! this! we! use! the! categorical! variable!that! measures! a! person’s! highest! educational! degree.! In!
some!datasets!education!was!measured!as! years!of!education! or!age!of! leaving!school.!The!coding!
scheme! to! classify! respondents! into! the! three! education! groups! based! on! this! is! explained! in!
Appendix!3.!Combing!the!education!variables!(categorical!and!measured!from!years)!leaves!only!2%!
still!missing.!
20!Unfortunately,! it! is! not! possible! to! control! a! person’s! income! or! economic! well-being! beyond!
working,!as!the!measures!were!too!diverse!to!be!harmonized.!

!
!
20!
!
!
Measuring(inclusionary(and(exclusionary(regimes(
Data! on! the! inclusionary! and! exclusionary! regime! dimensions! comes! from! the!
Varieties! of! Democracy! (V-Dem)! project! (Coppedge! et! al.,! 2016).21! The! unit! of!
observation! in! our! sample! is! country-year! (1915-2015),! for! the! 70! countries! for!
which!we!have!survey!data.!!
! We!capture! political! inclusiveness! by!calculating! the! average! score! between!
two!indicators:!power!distribution!by!social!group!and!by!socio-economic!status.!The!
former! variable! captures! whether! any! social! group22! is! more! politically! relevant!
compared!to!other!social!groups!in!that!country.!It!is!an!ordinal!measure!that!ranges!
from! monopoly! of! one! group! (value=0)! to! all! social! groups! having! equal! political!
power! (value=4).23! The! later! variable! captures! whether! more! wealth! and! income!
translates! into! more! political! power! for! citizens! and! groups.! It! is! also! an! ordinal!
variable!ranging! from!wealthy!people!enjoying!monopoly!over!political!power!(0)!to!
political!power!being!more!or!less!equally!distributed!across!economic!groups!(4).!
Economic!inclusiveness!of!regimes!is!captured!using!a!measure!of!the!type!of!
expenditures!used!by!the!regime.!It!is!an!ordinal!variable!ranging!from!particularistic!
spending! targeted! towards! specific! societal! actors! (0)! to! public! spending! being!
intended!to!benefit!all!groups!within!a!society,!including!the!poor!or!underprivileged!
(4).!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21!The!V-Dem!project!collects!data!on!political!institutions!with!the!help!of!more!than!3,000!country-
experts.!The!V-Dem! project!uses!a!Bayesian! item!response!model! to! increase!the!reliability!of!the!
coding!and!eliminate!as!much!of!individual!coders’!bias.!Due!to!the!richness!and!high!quality!of!the!
data!we!prefer!V-Dem!over!other!data.!It! sh ould! moreover! be! noted! that! the! level! o f! agreement!
between!V-Dem!and!other!datasets!is!over!90%!(Lührmann!et!al.,!2018).!
22!A!social!group!can!be!delimited!within!a!country!by!caste,!ethnicity,!language,!race,!region,!religion,!
or!some!combination!of!theses.!
23!See!part!A6!of!the!online!appendix!for!a!full!description!of!these!variables.!

!
!
21!
!
!
As! the! hypotheses! also! focus! on! the! distinction! between! autocracies! and!
democracy,!we! use! an! indicator! for! regime! type!that! is! based! on! V-Dem’s! electoral!
democracy!index,!whereby!the!absence!of!democracy!measures!autocracy.!The!index!
is!continuous!and!ranges!between!0!and!1,!where!higher!values!indicate!democracy.!
We! follow! Lindberg! (2016)! and! dichotomize! this! measure! where! a! regime! with! a!
value!of!the!index!equal!or!above! 0.67! is! considered! a! democracy! and! an! autocracy!
otherwise.!!
!
Figure!2:!Average!political!power!and!economic!inclusion!by!regime!type!!
Figure!2!shows! the!distribution!of!regimes! based!on!the!average!measure!of!
political! power! and! economic! inclusiveness! by! regime! type.! The! countries! in! the!
bottom! left! corners! in! Figure! 2! are! regimes! the! exclude! citizens! based! on! social!
group! membership! and! wealth,! and! also! whose! public! goods! spending! is!
particularistic.!We!observe!that,!on!average,!democracies!tend!to!have!higher!levels!

!
!
22!
!
!
of! inclusion! into! power! and! more! public! goods! provision.! Conversely,! autocracies!
that! exclude! citizens! based! on! socio-economic! status! or! social! group! membership!
also! tend! to! use! more! particularistic! spending! rather! than! public! goods! provision.!
This!pattern!is! consistent!with!the!logic!of! the!selectorate!theory!as!regimes!will! be!
more! likely! to! rely! on! public! goods! provision! as! the! size! of! their! selectorate! and!
winning!coalition!increases!(Bueno!de!Mesquita!et!al.,!2003).!!
! All! variables! are! continuous,! except! the! dummy! variable! that! measures!
whether! the! regime! was! an! autocracy! or! democracy.! The! macro! variables! are!
averaged! across! five-year! intervals! from! 1915! to! 2015! and! matched! to! the!
corresponding! national! generation! that! came! of! age! during! a! particular! five-year!
period.24!+
Macro(control(variables(
Several!variables!are!included! in! the!models!to!rule!out!the!possibility! that! citizens’!
democratic!satisfaction! is!not!explained!by!the!current!state!of!affairs!in!their!polity!
and!economy!(Karp!el!al.,!2003;!Wagner!et!al.,!2009).!First,!we!include!the!economic!
development!level! by! including! GDP!per! capita! at! the! 2011!PPP! value! of! the!dollar!
(source:!World!Bank),!as!we!expect!that!economic!performance!of!the!regime!affects!
people’s!reported!satisfaction!with!democracy!(Lipset,!1960;!Krieckhaus!et!al.,!2013).!
Second,! we! include! the! current! level! of! democracy,! as! the! type! of! democratic!
political! system! in! which! citizens! live! affects! their! views! of! democracy! (Wells! and!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
24!1915!is!the! starting! point,! as! we!do!not!have!a!sufficient!number! of! individual-level! observations!
that! belong! to! generations! born! before! 1900! and! h ence! were! socialized! before!1915.! Separating!
cohorts! into! five-year! birth! groups! is! standard! practice! in! cohort! analysis! (Fienberg! and! Mason,!
1979;!Mason! et!al.,!1973).!As!we!do! a!cross-national!analysis!with!70!countries!it!is!not! possible!to!
separate!cohorts!in!more!meaningful!groups!that!overlap!with!historical!events.!!

!
!
23!
!
!
Krieckhaus,! 2006;! Anderson! and! Guillory,! 1997).! Third,! we! include! the! age! of! the!
democratic! system! because! the! amount! of! time! an! individual! has! lived! in! a!
democracy! might! affect! a! citizens’! democratic! attitudes! (Fuchs-Schündeln! and!
Schündeln,!2015).!Finally,!we!include!the!level!of!political!corruption25!(Wagner!et!al.!
2009),! as! citizens! engage! in! comparing! how! well! democracy! deals! with! corruption!
compared!to!autocracies!(Rose-Ackerman!1996).!
The(model(
As! outlined! above,! we! take! a! generational! perspective! to! test! our! hypotheses! and!
thereby!rely!on!an!age,! period,! cohort! (APC)! model.! The! most!important!covariates!
are!therefore,!firstly,! the! age! of!the!respondents,!which!we!include! as! age! in!years.!
Secondly,!we!measure!cohorts!in!five-year!groupings!when!respondents!turned!15,26!
assuming! that! this! is! the! time! of! socialization! when! the! political! regime! has! the!
strongest!and!lasting!impact!on!its!citizens!(Bartels!and!Jackman,!2014).!Finally,!we!
include! the! year! of! the! survey! to! capture! the! period! effect.! The! problem! of!
estimating!these!three!time!effects!simultaneously!is!the!identification!problem,!as:!
Cohort+=+Survey+Year+-+Age+
Yang! and! Land! (2006)! proposed! to! solve! this! identification! problem! by!
including!cohort!clusters!(in!our!case!five-year!groups)!and!survey!years!as!random!
effects!into!a!Hierarchical!Age-Period-Cohort!(HAPC)!model.!In!this!multilevel!model!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
25!See!section!A6!of!the!appendix!for!a!more!detail!description!of!the!variables!mentioned!above.!
26!We!test!the!sensitivity!of!this!specification!by!firstly!changing!the!cohort!grouping!and!secondly!the!
age!of!the!formative!years.!The!results!are!discussed!below!in!the!robustness!test!section!as!well!as!
in!Appendix!12.!

!
!
24!
!
!
we!consider!periods!and!cohorts!as!cross-classified!contexts!in!which!individuals!are!
nested.!Including!macro-level!variables!that!capture!the!cohort!context!(inclusionary!
versus!exclusionary!autocracy!at!age!15)!as!well!as!the!period!context!(current!level!
economic!and!political!measures!in!the! same!year!as!survey!is!conducted)!allows! to!
test! the! effect! of! these! context! variables! on! democratic! attitudes.! The! model! is!
specified!as!
𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡!"#$ = 𝛼!"# + 𝛽! 𝐴𝑔𝑒!" + 𝛽! 𝑋!"
!
!!!
+
ϒ
! 𝐶+
!
!!!
𝜀!"#$
where!we!model!support!for!democracy!of!respondent’s!i+who!belongs!to!cohort+j,!
was! interviewed! in! year+ t! and! lives! in! country! c+ as! a! function! of! her! age! and! our!
individual-level! control! variables! X.! We! further! include! country-fixed! effects! to!
account! for! potential! country-specific! differences,! such! as! responding! to! survey!
questions.!The!most!important!part!of!this!model!is!the!random!intercept!which!𝛼!"#,!
can!be!written!as:!
𝛼!"# = 𝛾!+𝛾!𝐴𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑐
!+ 𝛾!𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑙!+ 𝛾!𝐴𝑢𝑡𝑜𝑐
!𝑥 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑙!+𝛾!
!
!!!𝑉
!" + 𝑢!!!+!𝑢!!!!
where!
ϒ
! measures!the!grand!mean.!
ϒ
!-
ϒ
!!measure!the!impact!of!the!each!cohort’s!
formative!context,!measured!as! five-year! average!contexts!when!respondents!were!
between! 15! and! 20! years! old,! a! specification! which! is! scrutinized! in! a! series! of!
robustness!tests.!We!test! H1! with!an!interaction!between!the!level!of!inclusiveness!
(political!or!economical)!and!whether!the!country!at!the!time!was!an!autocracy.!If!H1!
is! correct,! we! expect!
ϒ
!!to! be! negative!and! significant.! The! vector! V! measures! the!
current! period! effects,! which! measured! on! the! country-level! at! the! year! of! the!

!
!
25!
!
!
survey.!Here!we!treat!our!dependent!variables!as!continuous,!estimating!linear!HAPC!
models.!!!
Global!analysis:!Between!regime!variation!!
In! this! section,! we! present! the! empirical! results! of! a! global! cohort! analysis! of! the!
impact! of! autocratic! inclusiveness! on! democratic! support! that! utilizes! the! between!
regime! differences,! with! some! people! having! experienced! an! autocracy! and! some!
not!within!the!same!country!and!across!countries.!!
Descriptive(analysis!
First,!we!graphically!explore! the! relationship! between!inclusiveness!and!democratic!
support.! Figure! 3! plots! the! average! satisfaction! with! democracy,! our! main!
dependent!variable,!for!each!of!the!1,422!cohorts!in!our!62!countries.!We!graphically!
distinguish!between!those!generations!that!grew!up!in!an!autocratic!(panels!A!and!C)!
or!democratic!system!(panels!B!and!D)!according!to!the!level!of!political!(top!panels)!
and!economic!inclusion!(bottom!panels).!
As! Figure! 3! clearly! shows,! cohorts! that! grew! up! in! more! inclusive!
dictatorships! -! whether! economically! or! politically! -! are! less! likely! to! evaluate! the!
democratic! system! as! positive! compared! to! cohorts! that! were! socialized! in! more!
exclusive!regimes.!We!compare!these!results!to!democracies!that!give!us!a!reference!
point!of!the!relationship!between!inclusiveness!and!democratic!support.!As!the!two!
right!panels!in!Figure!3!confirm,!the!relationship!is!reversed!in!democracies.!Cohorts!
that! grew! up! in! more! inclusive! democracies! are! also! more! positive! towards! the!
functioning!of!the!democratic!system!today.!

!
!
26!
!
!
!
!
Figure!3:!Mean!satisfaction!with!democracy!(by!country-cohort)!over!political!and!
economic!inclusion!during!cohort’s!formative!years!(at!c)!
In! the! next! section,! we! use! HAPC! models! to! test! whether! the! graphical!
pattern!shown!in!Figure!3!holds!when!we!use!more!rigorous!models!that!account!for!
age,!period!and!cohort!effects!as!well!as!include!important!control!variables!on!both!
the!micro!and!macro!level.!!
Results(HAPC(Models(
We!estimate!a!hierarchical!Age,!Period,!Cohort!(HAPC)!model!as!introduced!above!to!
predict! a! respondent! level! of! democratic! support,! which! varies! from! 0! to! 100,!
whereas! higher! values! indicate! higher! support.! Including! an! interaction! effect! of!
inclusionary!strategies!and!whether!the!country!was!an!autocracy!at!the!time!each!
cohort!was!socialized!tests!hypothesis!1.!Table!1!reports!the!impact!of!two!!

!
!
27!
!
!
!
Table!1:!Linear!HAPC!model!predicting!satisfaction!with!democracy!!
!
M1!–!Pol.!Power!
!
M2!–!Public!good!
!
M3!–!Interaction!
!
coef.!
s.e.!
!
coef.!
s.e.!
!
coef.!
s.e.!
Age!
0.086***!!
(0.005)!
!
0.094***!!
(0.004)!
!
0.086***!!
(0.004)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Socialization!Context!(at!c)!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Autocracy!
6.815***!!
(0.867)!
!
6.358***!!
(0.736)!
!
-14.850***!!
(1.969)!
Political!power!
2.681***!!
(0.337)!
!
!
!
!
-6.541***!!
(0.810)!
Autocracy!x!political!power!
-4.864***!!
(0.289)!
!
!
!
!
7.384***!!
(0.838)!
Public!good!!
!
!
!
3.307***!!
(0.236)!
!
-4.670***!!
(0.755)!
Autocracy!x!Public!good!!
!
!
!
-4.174***!!
(0.229)!
!
7.640***!!
(0.809)!
Pol.!Power!x!public!good!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2.676***!!
(0.266)!
Autoc.!x!pol.!Power!x!publ.!Good!!
!
!
!
!
!
-4.040***!!
(0.297)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Current!context!(at!t)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Level!of!democracy!
-34.547***!!
(8.561)!
!
-34.656***!!
(8.560)!
!
-34.684***!!
(8.548)!
Age!of!democracy!
-0.180***!!
(0.045)!
!
-0.184***!!
(0.045)!
!
-0.181***!!
(0.045)!
Log!GDP!(per!C)!
2.923***!!
(0.737)!
!
2.864***!!
(0.737)!
!
2.934***!!
(0.736)!
Political!corruption!
-2.766!
(7.548)!
!
-2.947!
(7.547)!
!
-2.829!
(7.536)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Individual-level!controls!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Female!
-0.399***!!
(0.047)!
!
-0.400***!!
(0.047)!
!
-0.401***!!
(0.047)!
Education!(ref:!primary)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Secondary!
0.290***!!
(0.065)!
!
0.282***!!
(0.065)!
!
0.290***!!
(0.065)!
Post-Secondary!
2.317***!!
(0.077)!
!
2.315***!!
(0.077)!
!
2.321***!!
(0.077)!
Working!
1.329***!!
(0.053)!
!
1.332***!!
(0.053)!
!
1.320***!!
(0.053)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Country!FE!
yes!
!
!
yes!
!
!
yes!
!
Data!FE!
yes!
!
!
yes!
!
!
yes!
!
Intercept!
45.119***!!
(10.257)!
!
43.958***!!
(10.235)!
!
62.083***!!
(10.391)!
Variance!Component!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Cohort!(1900-2010)!
2.437***!!
(0.079)!
!
2.415***!!
(0.079)!
!
2.046***!!
(0.068)!
Period!(1973-2015)!
5.758***!!
(0.149)!
!
5.757***!!
(0.149)!
!
5.749***!!
(0.149)!
N!(of!respondents)!
1,245,690!
!
!
1,245,690!
!
!
1,245,690!
!
N!(of!countries)!
62!
!
!
62!
!
!
62!
!
AIC!
11,584,451!
!
!
11,584,437!
!
!
11,584,211!
!
Significance:+*+p<0.1;+**+p<0.05;+***+P<0.01.+Data:+Harmonized!survey!data!from!1,070!national!
datasets.!List!of!datasets!in!Appendix!2.!V-Dem,!1915-2015.!!
Note:!Entries!are!regression!coefficients!and!their!standard!errors!of!a!HAPC!model.!The!dependent!
variable!varies!from!e.g.!0=”not!satisfied!at!all”!and!100=”completely!satisfied”.!!
!
dimensions!of!regime!strategies!on!satisfaction!with!democracy,!our!first!dependent!
variable.!Model!1!presents!the!results!of!the!impact!of!access!to!political!power.!The!

!
!
28!
!
!
results! confirm! our! hypothesis.! The! more! access! autocracies! provided! to! their!
citizens! the! lower! the! satisfaction! with! democracy! today! (
ϒ
!=-4.864).! With! every!
unit! increase! in! access! to! political! power,! democratic! satisfaction! is! 2.183! lower!
among!generations!of!former!dictatorships.!The!main! effect! of! the! dummy! variable!
capturing! the! regime! type! relates! to! autocracies! that! were! completely! politically!
exclusionary! (holding! all! other! variables! at! their! mean),! which! produces! higher!
democratic! satisfaction! levels! even! than! compared! to! cohorts! that! grew-up! in!
democracies!(
ϒ
!=6.815).!The!same!pattern!is!confirmed!for!the!second!dimension!of!
inclusiveness!-!access! to!political!resources!via!public!good! provision!–!presented!in!
Model!2.!All!effects!are!statistically!significant!on!the!1%!level.!
!
Figure!4:!Predicted!satisfaction!with!democracy!(A+B)!and!agreement!that!
democracy!is!best!form!of!government!(C+D)!by!regime!socialization!
!
Note:!The!prediction!is!based!on!a!linear!HAPC!model.!Full!results!shown!in!Table!1.!The!results!
presented!in!panel!C!and!D!are!reported!in!Appendix!8.!
!

!
!
29!
!
!
!
These! effects! are! further! illustrated! in! Figure! 4,! which! plots! the! predicted!
values! of! the! two! dependent! variables,! for! the! varying! levels! of! political! and!
economic!inclusion!distinguishing!for!having!been!socialized!in!a!democracy!(dashed!
line)!versus!an!autocracy!(solid!line).!Figures!4.A!and!4.B!plot!the!predicted!values!of!
satisfaction!with!democracies,!which!is!based!on!M1!and!M2!of!the!results!presented!
in! Table! 1.! For! example,! Figure! 4.A! shows! a! steep,! negative! slope! for! autocracies.!
Satisfaction! with! democracy! is! predicted! to! be! at! 52! points! (so! positive)! in! former!
extremely!politically!exclusionary! regimes!(score=0).!However,!if! a!respondent!grew!
up! in! a! very! politically! inclusionary! regime! (score=4),! predicted! satisfaction! with!
democracy!is!8.732!points!lower.!We!can!also!compare!this!effect!to!those!that!grew!
up! in! democracies.! Here! as! one! might! expect,! we! find! a! positive! effect.! The! more!
access!to!political!power!or!economic!resources!were!available!in!people’s!youth!the!
more!positive!they!seem!to!be!about!democracy!today.!
Figures!4.C! and! 4.D! further! plot! the! main! results! for! our! second!dependent!
variable,!whether!people!agree!that!democracy!is!the!best!form!of!government.!The!
results! are! less! strong! for! this! variable,! however,! H1! is! nevertheless! confirmed.! As!
predicted!by!our!theory,!those!exposed!to!more!inclusive!regimes!are!more!critical!
with! democracy,! which! we! interpret! as! a! form! of! nostalgia! and! support! for! the!
previous!dictatorship.!
In!the!next!step!we!turn!to!our!test!of!Hypothesis!2,!which!postulates!that!the!
political!and!economic!dimension!of!inclusiveness!reinforce!each!other.!We!test!this!
hypothesis!using!a!three-way!interaction!between!the!values!of!our!two!dimensions!
and!the!regime!type! at! the!time!when!respondents!were!socialized.! The! results!are!

!
!
30!
!
!
presented!in! Model!3!of!Table!1.!Interpreting!three-way!interactions!is!not!straight-
forward!and!we! therefore! focus!on!the!graphical!interpretation!presented! in! Figure!
5.!Figure!5!plots!the!marginal!effects!of!access!to!political!power!on!satisfaction!with!
democracy! for! different! levels! of! public! good! provision.! Again,! we! distinguish!
between! the! regime! type! -! democracies! (dashed! line)! and! autocracies! (solid! line).!
The! marginal! effects! can! be! interpreted! as! the! regression! coefficient! for! political!
power!inclusiveness.!!
As! Figure! 5! demonstrates,! in! autocracies! that! rely! on! excessive! public! good!
provision! (value=4),! increasing! political! power! will! lead! to! a! negative! impact! on!
satisfaction!with!democracy.!Given! the! marginal! effect! of! about! 4.8,!going!from!no!
political!access!to!full!access,!would!decrease!democratic!satisfaction!by!19.2!points!
on!a!0-100!scale.!This!impact!of!political!inclusiveness!is!weaker!in!countries!that!are!
less!economically!generous,!which!confirms!hypothesis!2.!!
Interestingly,!Figure!5!also!reveals!that!if!an!autocracy!relies!on!the!provision!
of!particularistic!goods!only!(value=0),!increasing!access!to!political!power!will!have!a!
positive! effect! on! democratic! satisfaction.! Here! the! positive! legacy! effect! of!
economic! exclusiveness! seems! to! outweigh! the! negative! effect! of! higher! political!
inclusiveness.! The! effect! is! however! relatively! small! and! significant! only! on! the! 5%!
level.!In!appendix!9!we!further!present!these!results!plotting!the!marginal!effects!of!
public!good!provision!against!political!power.27!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
27!In! Appendix! 10! we! present! add itional! results! replicating! the! analysis! testing! H3! by! us ing! a! four-
category! regime! typology! of! politically! and! economically! exclusionary! versus! inclusionary! regimes!
with!two!hybrid!types!in!the!middle.!The!results!confirm!the!findings!presented!above.!Authoritarian!
regimes!that!were!both!inclusive!in!their!access!to!political!power!as!well!as!widely!provided!public!
good! have! the! most! critical! citizens! with! democracy! today.! This! confirms! our! reinforcement!
hypothesis.!!

!
!
31!
!
!
!
!
Figure!5:!Marginal!effects!of!access!to!political!power!on!satisfaction!with!democracy!
by!public!good!provision!!
Note:!The!prediction!is!based!on!a!linear!HAPC!model.!Full!results!shown!in!M3!in!Table!1.!
!
Robustness(tests(
We! test! the! sensitivity! of! our! results! using! a! series! of! additional! tests,! which! are!
presented!in!Appendices!11!and!12.!Firstly,!we!exchange!our!measure!of! economic!
inclusiveness! by! using! income! at! the! time! of! socialization! instead! of! public! good!
provision.28! We! replace! the! level! of! economic! inclusiveness! of! the! regime!
(particularistic!vs!public!goods!provision)!with!the!level!of!inequality!of!the!following!
reason:!the!level!of!inequality!of!a!regime!should!be!the!product!of!the!redistributive!
policies!of!the!regime.!More!simply,!if!a!regime!provides!more!public!goods,!then!the!
level! of! inequality! should! be! lower! compared! to! cases! when! the! regime! provides!
particularistic! goods.! If! that! is! true,! then! we! should! observe! the! following:! citizens!
socialized! under! higher! inequality! should! be! more! satisfied! with! democracy!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
28!Income!inequality!is!measured!using!the!Gini! coefficient!based! on!Haber!and!Menaldo!(2011)! and!
updated!by!V-Dem!to!today!(Coppedge!et!al.!2016).!

!
!
32!
!
!
compared!to!citizens!socialized!under!lower!inequality.!The!analysis!using! inequality!
shows!that!satisfaction!with!democracy!of!post-1945!cohorts!increase!as!the!level!of!
inequality!of!their!regime!increases.!
Secondly,! other! characteristics! of! authoritarian! regimes! could! drive! their!
legacy! on! democratic! attitudes.! We! therefore! re-run! the! analysis! including! two!
additional! factors! to! account! for! the! characteristics! of! regimes,! when! different!
generations!were!socialized.!Firstly,!we!account!for!physical!repression,!measured!by!
torture!and!political!killings.29!Autocracies!often!use!hard!repression!as!another!tool!
to! control! the! mass! population.! The! level! of! repression! also! could! affect! the!
inclusiveness!of!the!regime,!with!more!exclusive! regimes! using! more! physical! force!
than!inclusive!regimes.!We!therefore! add! this! control! variable! to! our!main!models,!
presented! in! Table! 1,! Model! 3,! predicting! satisfaction! with! democracy.! The! three-
way!interaction!effect!between!the!two!dimensions!of!inclusiveness!and!growing-up!
in!a!dictatorship! is! slightly!reduced!(from!b=-4.040,!p<0.000! in! M3!in!Table!1!to! b=-
3.640,! p<0.000).! This! differences! is! however! not! significant.! This! indicates! that!
indeed!some!of!the!effect!of!regime!inclusiveness!is!through!the!use!of!repression,!
which! has! a! negative! effect! on! democratic! satisfaction.! The! less! repressive! the!
regime! was! during! a! respondent’s! formative! years,! the! more! positive! she! is! about!
democracy!(b=4.080,!p<0.001).!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
29!We! use! the!physical! integrity!index! from! V-Dem! that! ranges! from! 0! to! 1,! whereas!lower! values!
indicate!more!repression.!More!information!in!Appendix!6.5.1.!!

!
!
33!
!
!
! Further,! we! account! for! the! level! of! economic! development! at! the! time! of!
regime!socialization!measured!using!logged!GPD!(per!capita).30!We!could!argue!that!
the! level! of! political! and! economic! inclusiveness! depends! in! part! how! developed! a!
country!is!in! general.!In!poor!countries,! public!provision!of!services!and! inclusion!of!
ordinary! citizens! into! the! political! process! might! be! more! important! than! in! very!
developed!countries,!where! citizens! are!less!dependent!on!state! provision.! In!order!
to!test!this! argument,!we!include!logged!GDP! (per!capita)!in!the!model! as!a!control!
variable! (Table! A11,! M3.1).! Controlling! for! economic! development! significantly!
reduces! the! three-way! interaction! effect,! which! tests! H2! (b=-2.080,! p<0.000).! This!
implies! that! some! of! the! legacy! impact! of! authoritarian! ruling! strategies! is!
dependent!on!the!level!of!economic!development.!!
We! explore! this! further! by! repeating! the! analysis! on! the! subset! of! cohorts!
that!grew!up!in!autocracies!and!interacted!the! level! of! economic! inclusiveness! that!
they!were!exposed!to!and!the!nation’s!logged!GDP!(Table!A11,!M3.2).!The!impact!of!
public!good! provision!is!the! strongest!for!mid-level! countries!and!insignificant!when!
countries! are! very! poor! or! very! rich.! Poor! countries! will! not! be! able! to! credibly!
supply! public! goods! to! its! citizens! and! in! very! rich! countries! it! might! not! matter!
whether! the! regime! provides! goods! or! not,! as! citizens! might! just! generally! profit!
from!the!wealth!of! the! country.! Importantly,! the! results! do!confirm!the!hypothesis!
that! more! economically! inclusive! regimes! produce! long-term! negative! legacies! on!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
30!As!our!macro!data!goes!back!to!1915,!we!had!to!compile!historical!GDP!using!1990!value!of!Geary-
Khamis! dollar! from! the! Maddison! project.!In! this! model! we! excluded! the! m easure! of! current! (at!
time! of! survey)! measure! of! logged! GDP,! as! this! is! highly! correlated! with! past! GDP,! when!
respondents! where! 15! years! old! (R=0.78),! w hich! shows! the! strong! path-dependency! in! economic!
development.!!

!
!
34!
!
!
democratic! satisfaction,! especially! in! countries! at! the! mid-range! of! economic!
development,!where!governmental!actions!might!be!most!influential.!!
Thirdly,! we! changed! the! sample! that! we! use! in! our! analysis,! by! applying! a!
more!restrictive!inclusion!criteria!for!cohorts!by!excluding!242! cohorts! (14! percent)!
that!have!fewer!than!50!observations.!These!relatively!empty!cells!are!more!prone!to!
outliers.!Re-running!the!analysis!of!M3,!shown!in!Table!1,!confirms!our!results!that!
the! more! inclusive! autocracies! are! during! respondents’! formative! years,! the! less!
positive!they!are!with!the!democratic!system!(see!Table!!A11,!Model!4).!!
Lastly,!we!tested!the!sensitivity!of!our!cohort! specification! by! firstly! altering!
the! age! at! which! we! assume! the! formative! years! to! take! place! and! secondly,!
changing!the!cohort!groupings.!The!results!for!both! robustness! tests! are! presented!
in!Appendix! 12.!Regarding!the!first!test,!we!estimate!models!that!match! the!regime!
ruling!strategies!when!respondents!were!1)!5-10!years!old;!2)!10-15!years!old;!3)!15-
20!years!old!(the!specification!used!for!the!main!results);!4)!20-25!years!old;!5)!25-30!
years!old;!and!6)!30-35! years! old.! It! does! not!really!matter!at!what!age!someone!is!
exposed! to! certain! regime! strategies.! The! results! are! robust! for! all! different!
specification! of! the! formative! years.! However,! we! decided! to! follow! previous!
theoretical!and!empirical!evidence!to!determine!the!age!of!the!formative!years!to!be!
at!between!15!and!20!(Bartels!and!Jackman,!2014).!
In! a! second! test! we! changed! the! cohort! grouping! by! testing! whether! the!
results!are!sensitive! to! specifying!the!length!of!the! formative! years!as!2,!5,!8! or! 10-
year!intervals!at!the!age!of!15.!This!varies!our!number!of!country-cohorts!from!3,607!
to!785.! As! the!results! of! Appendix!12.2! show,! our! findings! are! not! sensitive! to! the!

!
!
35!
!
!
cohort!length.! For! the! main!models! presented! above! we!however! decided! to! keep!
the!5-year!cohorts,!as!this!is!standard!in!cohort!analysis!(Fienberg!and!Mason,!1979;!
Mason!et!al.,!1973).!
Within!regime!variation!-!Winners!and!losers!of!autocracies!
After!having!established!that!authoritarian!ruling!strategies!have!a!lasting!imprint!on!
citizens’!democratic!attitudes!across!countries,!we!now!present!two!empirical!tests!
to!investigate!the!within+regime!heterogeneity!of!varying!experiences!of!people!that!
experienced! the! same! ruling! strategy.! In! order! to! test! hypothesis! 3,! we! firstly!
investigate!eleven! post-Communist! countries! by!focusing! on! the! working!class! as! a!
social!group! that! very! much! profited! from! the! regime,! while! religious! people!were!
the! most! suppressed! in! practicing! their! beliefs.! Secondly,! we! use! ethnic! power!
divisions!as!another!example!of!winners!and!losers!of!dictatorships.!In!some!regimes,!
certain!ethnic!groups!are!dominant!in!holding!political!power,!while!other!groups!are!
discriminated.31!!(
Within-Regime(Analysis(I:(Working(Class(vs.(Religion(in(Former(Communist(Regimes(
!
Communist! ideology! is! based! on! secularization! and! the! empowerment! of! the!
working! class.! This! creates! clear! winners! –! working! class! –! and! losers! –! religious!
people! –! of! communist! regimes.! We! test! whether! this! led! to! varying! levels! of!
democratic!support! in! the! post-Communist!era! in! eleven! Central!Eastern! European!
countries! using! the! data! from! the! European! Social! Survey! (ESS)! only.! The! ESS!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
31!The!list!of!countries!included!in!both!within-regime!analyses!is!presented!in!Appendix!13.!!

!
!
36!
!
!
included! in! five! waves! (2004! to! 2012)! the! question! about! the! occupation! of! the!
respondent’s!father!at!the! age! of! 14.! We! thereby!contrast!those! that! come! from! a!
working! class! with! the! rest.! The! rationale! of! using! father’s! occupation! is! that! we!
firstly! assume! that! the! social! class! position! during! the! formative! years! is! most!
important!for!crystalizing!a!sense!of!belonging!to!the!regime.!More!precisely,!people!
that! grew! up! in! a! working! class! family! are! expected! to! have! been! socialized! into!
belonging!to! the!selectorate!of! the!communist!regimes.!Hence,!they!are!likely!to!be!
more!critical!with!the!democratic!system!today,!as!they!might!feel!that!they!lost!out!
in!the!transition!compared!to!socialist!times.!!
Secondly,! we! use! father’s! occupation! rather! than! the! respondent’s! own!
occupation,!as!there!is!potential!social!mobility!and!we!can!hence!not!know!whether!
a! person’s! current! social! class! corresponds! to! the! social! class! of! the! time! of!
socialization.!We!contrast!these!winners!of!socialism!with!religious!people!that!were!
very!much!repressed!by!the!state!driven!secularization!of!socialist!societies!(Mueller!
and!Neundorf,!2012).!Here!we!measure!religion! simply!by!denomination!comparing!
those!that!are!not!religious!with!those!that!are!Christians.!
The! results! of! these! analyses! are! reported! in! Table! 2.! Here! we! interact!
whether! a! respondent! belongs! to! the! winners! or! losers! with! a! dummy! variable!
whether! this! person! grew! up! during! the! Communist! regime.! The! results! are!
illustrated!in!Figure!6.!!
!
! !

!
!
37!
!
!
Table!2:!Linear!regression:!Satisfaction!with!democracy!(Eastern!Europe!only)!
!
M1:!Social!class!
M2:!Religion!
!
Coef.!
se!
Coef.!
se!
Age!!
0.004!
(0.011)!
-0.006!
(0.008)!
!
!
!
!
Socialization!context!(at!c)!
!
!
!
Autocracy!(Communism)!
-5.742***!!
(0.483)!
-4.314***!
(0.389)!
Father!worker!
-4.461***!!
(0.441)!
!
!
Autocracy!x!father!worker!
2.353***!!
(0.507)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Religion!(ref:!none)!
!
!
!
!
Christian!
!!
!
0.485!
(0.405)!
Muslim!
!!
!
4.315*!
(2.229)!
Other!
!!
!
0.117!
(2.794)!
Autocracy!x!
!
!
!
!
Christian!
!!
!
1.773***!
(0.445)!
Muslim!
!!
!
2.263!
(2.477)!
Other!
!!
!
1.483!
(3.365)!
!
!
!
!
!
Individual-level!controls!
!
!
!
!
Female!
-0.540**!!
(0.216)!
-0.710***!
(0.194)!
Education!(ref:!primary)!
!
!
!
!
Secondary!
-2.774***!!
(0.673)!
-2.391***!
(0.555)!
Post-secondary!
0.684!
(0.708)!
1.764***!
(0.594)!
Working!
0.148!
(0.251)!
0.316!
(0.225)!
Income!(ref:!bottom!20%)!
!
!
!
Income:!20-40%!
2.610***!!
(0.321)!
2.676***!
(0.283)!
Income:!40-60%!
4.803***!!
(0.329)!
4.831***!
(0.297)!
Income:!60-80%!
4.337***!!
(0.331)!
4.169***!
(0.298)!
Income:!80-100%!
2.322***!!
(0.401)!
2.574***!
(0.350)!
Country!FE!(N=11)!
Yes!
!
Yes!
!
Year!FE!
Yes!
!
Yes!
!
Intercept!
35.218***!!
(0.928)!
25.746***!
(0.904)!
N!!
48,294!
!
60,139!
!
R2!
0.093!
!
0.090!
!
Significance:+*+p<0.1;+**+p<0.05;+***+P<0.01.+!
Note:!The!prediction!is!based!on!a!linear!regression!with!country!FE,!controlling!for!gender,!education!
and!working.!Central!European!countries!only!(Bulgaria,!Czech!Rep.,!East!Germany,!Estonia,!Hungary,!
Latvia,!Lithuania,!Poland,!Romania,!Slovakia,!Ukraine);!Data:!ESS,!2004-2012.!
!
First!of!all,!we!see!generally!much!lower!levels!of!satisfaction!with!democracy!
for!the!generation!that!grew!up!under!communisms!contrasted!to!those!that!belong!
the!post-Communist!generation!that!grew!up!in!democratic!times.!Nevertheless,!the!
pattern! emerging! from! Figure! 6! clearly! confirms! Hypothesis! 3.! Respondents! that!
were!raised!in!a!working!class!family!are!most!critical!with!democracy!today,!while!

!
!
38!
!
!
those! that! are! religious! are! significantly! more! satisfied! with! democracy.! The!
difference!between!winners!and!losers!is!small,!but!significant.!!
!
Figure!6:!Predicted!Satisfaction!with!democracy!by!social!background,!religion!and!
regime!socialization!
Note:!Predictions!and!95%!confidence!intervals!are!based!in!the!results!shown!in!Table!2.!!
!
Within-Regime(Analysis(II:(Ethnic(Political(Power(Relationship(((
Our! second! within-regime! analysis! focuses! on! ethnicity! as! a! source! for! creating!
winners!and!losers,!i.e.!membership!in!the!autocratic!selectorate.!For!this!purpose,!
we!rely!on!data!from!the!World!Values!Survey,!which!included!a!detailed!measure!of!
ethnicity! as! well! as! the! dependent! variable! in! Wave! 4! (1999-2004).! We! match! the!
ethnicity!code!of!the!WVS!to!that!of!the!data!of!Ethnic!Power!Relations!(EPR)!project!
(Vogt!et!al.,!2015).!The!EPR!provides!annual!data!(1946-2013)!on!politically!relevant!
ethnic! groups,32! their! relative! size! as! a! share! of! the! country! population,! and! their!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
32!Ethnicity! is! defined! as! a! subjective!experience.! It! is! a! sense! of! commonality! based! on! a! belief! in!
common!ancestry!and!shared!culture.!Ethnic!groups! are!considered! to!be!relevant!if!either!at!least!

!
!
39!
!
!
access! to! power.! We! included! in! our! data! only! the! groups! that! could! be! clearly!
identified! to! avoid! collapsing! too! much! EPR! heterogeneity! into! one! category.33!
Finally,!we! have!77!ethnic!groups!from!21!countries.!In!order!to! adjust!for!sampling!
of!different!groups,!we!correct! the! results! by! using! population! weights!provided!by!
the!WVS.!
EPR!codes!the!access!to!power!of!ethnic!group!on!an!ordinal!scale,!with!three!
main!categories,!which!are!then!divided!into!sub-categories.34!Here!we!contrast!only!
two!types!of!political!power!ethnic!groups!can!have.!Firstly!a!group!can!be!dominant!
by! ruling! alone! (EPR! classification:! monopoly! or! dominance)! or! a! group! can! be!
discriminated! by! being! excluded! from! power!(EPR! classification:! powerless! or!
discriminated).!We!do!not!count!self-exclusion!as!a!form!of!discrimination.!!
Table!3!reports!the!results!of!a!linear!regression!on!satisfaction!of!democracy,!
where! we! identify! whether! a! respondent! belongs! to! an! ethnic! group! that! was!
discriminated! or! dominant! during! an! autocratic! regime! at! the! time! of! socialization!
(Model!1).!In! Model! 2! we! further! measure!the!size! of! the! discriminated! (M2a)! and!
dominant! group! (M2b).! Again! we! interact! these! variables! with! the! political! regime!
(democratic!vs.!autocratic)!at!time!of!adolescence.!The!results!confirm!Hypothesis!2,!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
one!significant!political!actor!claims!to!represent!the!interests!of! the!group! in!the! national!political!
arena!or!if!group!members!are!systematically!and!intentionally!discriminated!in!the!political!sphere.!
33!For!instance,!in!Georgia,!EPR!identifies!the!following!ethnic!groups:!Georgians,!Armenians,!Azeri,!
Ossetians! and! Abhkazians.! In! contrast,! WVS! has! two!categories:! Georgians! and! others.! Then,!the!
Georgian!ethnic!group!can!be!easily!identified!and!matched!with!the!EPR!data!on!power!relations.!
However,!the!remaining!four!ethnic!groups!cannot!be!collapsed!into!one!category!because!it!would!
mean!to!conflate!powerless!groups!(Armenian!and! Azeri)!with!self-excluded!groups!(Ossetians! and!
Abhkazians).!
34!See!Appendix!6.6!for!the!exact!classification!of!ethnic!power!position!by!the!EPR.!!

!
!
40!
!
!
as! people! that! belong! to! a! discriminated! group! at! time! of! the! autocracy! are!
significantly!more!positive!with!democracy!today.!
Table!3:!Linear!regression:!Satisfaction!with!democracy!and!ethnic!power!
!
M1:!Dominant!vs.!
!
Size!of!group:!
!
discriminated!
!
M2a:!Discriminated!!
!
M2b:!Dominant!
!
Coef.!
s.e.!
!
Coef.!
s.e.!
!
Coef.!
s.e.!
Age!
0.046*!!
(0.024)!
!
0.052**!!
(0.023)!
!
0.041*!
(0.024)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Socialization!Context!(at!c)!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Autocracy!
-0.472!
(0.900)!
!
-1.164!
(0.905)!
!
0.728!
(1.190)!
Discriminated!(vs.!dominant)!
1.005!
(1.269)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Size!of!discriminated!group!
!
!
!
0.302!
(5.226)!
!
!
!
Size!of!dominant!group!
!
!
!
!
!
!
-0.074!
(1.560)!
Autocracy!x!ethnic!group!
3.174**!!
(1.456)!
!
20.595***!!
(5.442)!
!
-0.751!
(1.733)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Individual-level!controls!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Female!
-0.567!
(0.617)!
!
-0.413!
(0.603)!
!
-0.612!
(0.619)!
Education!(ref:!primary)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Secondary!
0.936!
(0.799)!
!
1.631**!!
(0.806)!
!
0.745!
(0.795)!
Post-Secondary!
0.922!
(0.843)!
!
1.587*!!
(0.852)!
!
0.631!
(0.836)!
Working!
0.469!
(0.657)!
!
0.562!
(0.645)!
!
0.338!
(0.659)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Country!FE!(N=21)!
yes!
!
!
yes!
!
!
yes!
!
Intercept!
34.330***!!
(2.157)!
!
34.332***!!
(2.159)!
!
34.205***!
(2.251)!
N!(of!respondents)!
13,436!
!
!
13,436!
!
!
13,436!
!
AIC!!
124,599!
!
!
124,396!
!
!
124,631!
!
Significance:+ *+ p<0.1;+ **+ p<0.05;+ ***+ P<0.01.+ Data:! WVS,! wave! 4! only.!Weighted! by! population!
weight.!!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
41!
!
!
+
Figure!7:!Predicted!Satisfaction!with!Democracy!by!ethnic!power!position!and!
regime!socialization!
Note:!Predictions!and!95%!confidence!intervals!are!based!in!the!results!shown!of!Model!1!in!Table!3.!+
+
These!effects!are!illustrated!in!Figures!7!and!8.!As!Figure!7!shows,!there!is!a!6!
points! difference! in! democratic! satisfaction! between! those! that! belong! to! the!
dominant! group! and! those! that! belong! to! the! discriminated! group.! Turning! to! the!
size!of!the!ethnic!group!in!Model!2!and!Figure!8,!it!is!striking!how!strong!the!effect!is!
especially! if! a! large! group! was! suppressed.! If! a! minority! ethnic! group! ruled! an!
autocracy! and! the! discriminated! group! is! in! the! majority,! satisfaction! with!
democracy! is! much! higher.! This! clearly! supports! the! idea! that! there! is! a! feeling! of!
liberation!for!such!a!discriminated!group.+
+

!
!
42!
!
!
+
Figure!8:!Predicted!Satisfaction!with!Democracy!by!size!of!ethnic!power!position!and!
regime!socialization!
Note:!Predictions!and!95%!confidence!intervals!are!based!in!the!results!of!Models!2a!and!2b!shown!in!
Table!3.!+
Conclusion!and!discussion!
This! article! proposed! a! distinction! between! inclusionary! and! exclusionary! ruling!
strategies!of!autocracies!that!cast!a!long!shadow!on!political!attitudes!even!after!the!
regime! broke! down.! We! argue! that! citizens’! political! attitudes! towards! democracy!
are! shaped! by! the! policies! of! the! authoritarian! regime! in! which! they! spent! their!
formative!years.!Our!theoretical!expectations!were!that!citizens!who!were!socialized!
in! more! inclusionary! regimes! are! more! critical! with! democracy! than! citizens! who!
spent! their! formative! years! in! exclusionary! regimes.! The! intuition! behind! this!
expectation! was! that! inclusionary! regimes! are! better! at! creating! general! regime!
support! of! citizens! by! a! wider! redistribution! of! political! and! economic! resources.!
Further,!we!also!expected!to!observe!within!regime!differences!in!political!attitudes,!

!
!
43!
!
!
as!citizens! who! were! part! of!the! winning! group! of!autocracy!are! less! satisfied! with!
democracy!than!members!of!the!losing!group.!
! These!expectations!were!tested!using!hierarchical!age,!period,!cohort!(HAPC)!
models! with! harmonized! public! opinion! data,! regime! data! from! V-Dem! and! ethnic!
group!data!from!the!Ethnic!Power!Relations!data.!The!results!support!our!contention!
that! people! who! were! socialized! in! exclusionary! regimes! are! more! supportive! of!
democracy! compared! to! citizens! socialized! in! exclusionary! regimes,! and! even!
democracies.! Also,! we! find! that! citizens! that! are! part! of! the! winning! group! in! an!
autocracy!are!less!satisfied!with!democracy!compared!to!citizens!who! were! part! of!
discriminated!groups.!We!interpret!these!democratic!attitudes!as!an!indicator!about!
the!nostalgia!for!the!old!authoritarian!regime.!!
! This!study!offered!a! micro! perspective!of!authoritarian!politics!by!examining!
the!governance!strategies!used!to!build!a!loyal!citizenry.!Further,!it!showed!the!long-
term! effects! of! authoritarian! politics! and! their! legacy! long! after! the! regime! has!
collapsed.! These! results! indicate! that! we! should! pay! more! attention! to! the! role! of!
ordinary! citizens! in! autocracies! and! that! political! attitudes! towards! democracy! are!
shaped!long!before!citizens!even!experience!democracy.!
!
! !

!
!
44!
!
!
Bibliography!
!
Almond,!G.!and!Verba,!S.!(1963)!The+Civic+Culture:+Political+Attitudes+and+Democracy+
in+Five+Nations.!Princeton:!Princeton!University!Press.!!
Anderson,! C.! J.,! &! Guillory,! C.! A.! (1997)! 'Political! institutions! and! satisfaction! with!
democracy:! A! cross-national! analysis! of! consensus! and! majoritarian!
systems'.!American+Political+Science+Review,!91(1):!66-81.!
Acemoglu,! D.,! and! Robinson! R.! R! (2006)! Economic+ Origins+ of+ Dictatorship+ and+
Democracy.!New!York:!Cambridge!University!Press.!
Ansell,! Ben! W.! and! Samuels,! D.! J.! (2014)! Inequality+ and+ Democratization.+ An+ Elite-
Competition+Approach.!New!York.!Cambridge!University!Press.!
Bartels,! L.! and! Jackman,! S.! (2014)! 'A! generational! model! of! political! learning',!
Electoral+Studies+33:!7–18.!!
Beck,! N.,! Katz,! J.! N.! and! R.! Tucker! (1998)! 'Taking! time! seriously:! Time-series-cross-
section!analysis!with!a!binary!dependent!variable'!American+Journal+of+Political+
Science,!42(4):!1260-1288.!
Bernhard,!M.!and!Karakoç,!E.!(2007)!'Civil!Society!and!the! Legacies! of! Dictatorship',!
World+Politics+59(4):!539-567.!
Boix,! C.! (2003)! Democracy+ and+ Redistribution.! Cambridge:! Cambridge! University!
Press.!
Bueno!de!Mesquita,!B.,!Smith,!A.,!Siverson,!R.!M.,!and!Morrow,!J.!D.!(2003)!The+Logic+
of+Political+Survival.!Cambridge:!MIT!Press.!
Coppedge,! Michael,! John! Gerring,! Staffan! I.! Lindberg,! Svend-Erik!Skaaning,! Jan!
Teorell,! David! Altman,!Frida! Andersson,!Michael! Bernhard,! M.! Steven! Fish,!
Adam!Glynn,! Allen! Hicken,! Carl! Henrik! Knutsen,! Kelly! McMann,!Valeriya!
Mechkova,! Farhad! Miri,!Pamela! Paxton,! Daniel!Pemstein,!Rachel!
Sigman,!Jeffrey!Staton,!and!Brigitte!Zimmerman.! 2016.!“V-Dem!Codebook!v6.”!
Varieties!of!Democracy!(V-Dem)!Project.!!!
Dinas,!E.!and!Northmore-Ball,!K.!(2017)!'The!Ideological!Shadow!of!Authoritarianism',!
Paper! presented! at! the! ECPR! Joint! Session! at! the! University! of! Nottingham,!
April!25-29,!2017.!
Easton,!D.!!1965.!A+systems+analysis+of+political+life.!New!York,!J.!Wiley.!
Fienberg,! S.E.,! Mason,! W.M.,! 1979.! 'Identification! and! estimation! of! age–! period–
cohort! models! in! the! analysis! of! discrete! archival! data'.! Sociological+
Methodology+10:!1–67.!!

!
!
45!
!
!
Fuchs-Schündeln,! N.! and! M.! Schündeln.! 2015.! On! the! endogeneity! of! political!
preferences:! Evidence! from! individual! experience! with! democracy.! Science!
347(6226):!1145-1148.!!!
Gandhi,! J.! (2008)! Political+ Institutions+ under+ Dictatorships.! Cambridge:! Cambridge!
University!Press.!
Geddes,! B.! and! Zaller,! J.! (1989)! 'Sources! of! Popular! Support! for! Authoritarian!
Regimes'.!American+Journal+of+Political+Science,!33(2):!319-347.!
Geddes,!B.!(1999)! ‘What! Do! We! Know!About! Democratization! After! Twenty! Years’.!
Annual+Review+of+Political+Science,!2:!115–144.!
Geddes,! B.,! Wright,! J.! and! Frantz,! E.! (2014)! ‘Autocratic! Breakdown! and! Regime!
Transitions:!A!New!Data!Set’.!Perspectives+on+Politics,!12(2):!313–331.!!
Haber,! S.! and! Menaldo,! V.! (2011)! ‘Do! natural! resources! fuel! authoritarianism?! A!
reappraisal! of! the! resource! curse’.! American+ Political+ Science+ Review,+105(1),!
1–26.!!
Hadenius,! A.! and! Teorell,! J.! (2007)! ‘Pathways! from! Authoritarianism’,! Journal+ of+
Democracy.!18(1):!143–157.!
Haggard,!S.!and! Kaufman,!R.!R.!(2016)!Dictators+ and+ Democrats.+Masses,+Elites,+and+
Regime+Change.!Princeton:!Princeton!University!Press.!!
Hainmueller,! J.! and! Kern,! H.L.! (2009),! 'Opium! for! the! Masses:! How! Foreign! Media!
Can!Stabilize!Authoritarian!Regimes'.!Political!Analysis,!17(4):!377-399.!
Jennings,! M.K.! 1989.! The! Crystallization! of! Orientations.! In! Continuities+ in+ political+
action,!Samuel!H.!Barnes,! Jan! W.!van!Deth,!and!M.!Kent! Jennings,! eds.,!Berlin!
and!New!York:!de!Gruyter.!!
Karp!J.,!Banducci! S.,! and! S.!Bowler!(2003)!'To!know!it! is! to!love!it?!Satisfaction!with!
democracy!in! the! European! Union'.! Comparative+ Political+ Studies,! 36(3):! 271-
292.!!!!!
Kim,! W.! and! Gandhi,! J.! (2010)! ‘Coopting! Workers! under! Dictatorship’.! Journal+ of+
Politics,!72(3):!646–658.!!
Krieckhaus,!J.,! Son,! B.,! Bellinger,! N.! M.,! &! Wells,! J.! M.! (2013).! ‘Economic! inequality!
and!democratic!support‘.!Journal+of+Politics,!76(1):!139-151.!
Krosnick,! J.! A! and! Alwin,! D.! F.! (1989)! 'Aging! and! susceptibility! to! attitude! change'.!!
Journal+of+Personality+and+Social+Psychology!57(3):!416-425.!
Kuran,! T.! (1997)! Private+ Truths,+ Public+ Lies:+ The+ Social+ Consequences+ of+ Preference+
Falsification.!Cambridge,!MA:!Harvard!University!Press.!
Lindberg,!S.!I.!(2016)!'Ordinal!Versions!of!V-Dem’s!Indices:!When! Interval! Measures!
Are! Not! Useful! for! Classification,! Description,! and! Sequencing! Analysis!
Purposes'.!Geopolitics,+History,+and+International+Relations!8(2):!76–111.!!

!
!
46!
!
!
Linde,!J.!and!J.! Ekman! (2003)! ‘Satisfaction! with!Democracy:!A!Note! on! a! frequently!
used!Indicator!in!Comparative!Politics’.!European+Journal+of+Political+Research!
42!(3):!391–408.!!
Lipset,!S.!M.!(1960)!Political+Man.!London:!Heinemann.!
Lührmann,! A.,! Tannenberg,! M.,! and! Lindberg,! S.! I.! (2018)! 'Regimes! of! the! World!
(RoW):! Opening! New! Avenues! for! the! Comparative! Study! of! Political!
Regimes'.!Politics+&+Governance,!6(1).!
Magaloni,! B.! (2008)! ‘Credible! Power-Sharing! and! the! Longevity! of! Authoritarian!
Rule’.!Comparative+Political+Studies,!41(4/5):!715–741.!
Mannheim,!K.!(1928)!'Das!Problem!der!Generationen'.!Kölner+Vierteljahreszeitschrift+
für+Soziologie,!7:!157-184!and!309-330.!
Mason,! K.O.,! Mason,! W.M.,! Winsborough,! H.,! Poole,! W.! (1973)! 'Some!
methodological! issues! in! cohort! analysis! of! archival! data'.+ American+
Sociological+Review,!38(2):!242–258.!
Mueller,! T.! and! Neundorf,! A.! (2012)! ‘The! role! of! the! state! in! the! repression! and!
revival!of!religiosity!in!Central!Eastern!Europe’.!Social+Forces,!91(2):!559-582.!!
Neundorf,!A.!(2010)!'Democracy!in!transition:!A!micro!perspective!on!system!change!
in!post-Soviet!societies'.!Journal+of+Politics,!72(4):!1096!-1108. !
Norris,! Pippa.! (1999)! Critical+ Citizens:+ Global+ Support+ for+ Democratic+ Government.!
Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.!!
Pop-Eleches,!G.!and!Tucker,!J.!(2017)! Communism's+Shadow:+Historical+Legacies+and+
Contemporary+Political+Attitudes.!Princeton:!Princeton!University!Press.!
Rose-Ackerman,! S.! (1996)! 'Democracy! and! ‘grand’corruption'.!International+ Social+
Science+Journal,!48(149):!365-380.!
Schedler,! A.! (2013)! The+ Politics+ of+ Uncertainty:+ Sustaining+ and+ Subverting+ Electoral+
Authoritarianism.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.!
Sears,!D.O.! and! Valentino,! N.A!(1997)! 'Politics! Matters:! Political!Events! as! Catalysts!
for!Preadult!Socialization'.!American+Political+Science+Review+91(1):!45–65.!!
Sears,! D.O.! and! C.L.! Funk! (1999)! 'Evidence! of! the! Long-Term! Persistence! of! Adults’!
Political!Predispositions'.!Journal+of+Politics+61(1):!1-28.!!
Svolik,! M.W.! (2012)! The+ Politics+ of+ Authoritarian+ Rule.! New! York,! NY:! Cambridge!
University!Press.!
The!Maddison-Project,!http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-
project/home.htm,!2013!version.!
Vogt,!M.,! Bormann,! N.C.,!Rüegger,!S.,! Cederman,!L.E.,! Hunziker,! P.! and!L.! Girardin.!
(2015)! ‘Integrating! Data! on! Ethnicity,! Geography,! and! Conflict:!The! Ethnic!

!
!
47!
!
!
Power! Relations! Data! Set! Family’.! Journal+ of+ Conflict+ Resolution,! 59(7):! 1327-
1342!
Wagner,! A.! F.,! Schneider,! F.,! and! Halla,! M.! (2009)! ‘The! quality! of! institutions! and!
satisfaction! with! democracy! in! Western! Europe—A! panel! analysis’.! European+
Journal+of+Political+Economy,!25(1):!30-41.!
Wang,! C-C.! (2017)! ‘Political! socialization! and! democratic! beliefs! change:! A! panel!
study! of! Chinese! students! studying! in! Taiwan’.! Democratization,! 24(1):! 138-
156.!
Wells,! J.! M.,! and! Krieckhaus,! J.! (2006)! ‘Does! national! context! influence! democratic!
satisfaction?! A! multi-level! analysis‘.!Political+ Research+ Quarterly,!59(4):! 569-
578.!
Yang,! Y.! and! K.C.! Land.! (2006)! ‘A! Mixed! Models! Approach! to! Age-Period-! Cohort!
Analysis! of! Repeated! Cross-! Section! Surveys:! Trends! in! Verbal! Test! Scores’.!
Sociological+Methodology+36:!75–97.!!