Catch Us If You Can: Election Monitoring and International Norm Diffusion
SusanD.Hyde Yale University
Why has the decision to invite foreign election observers become an international norm? More generally, how do international normsdevelop in the absence of incentivesfor cooperation or activismbynormentrepreneurs?Motivatedbythecaseofelection 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.
ntil 1962, there were no recorded cases of in- reports from monitors have been linked to domestic up- ternational election observation in sovereign rising and electoral revolutions, reductions in foreign aid, U states.1 Today, election monitoring is widely re- exclusion from international forums, and other forms of ferred to as an international norm, and it is rare for internationally imposed sanctions. Given the potential any country to hold an election without inviting inter- costs associated with inviting observers and being inter- national observers.2 Nearly 80% of all national elections nationally condemned for election fraud, the fact that so are now monitored, but puzzlingly, many leaders invite many leaders of sovereign states continue to invite in- foreign observers and orchestrate electoral fraud in front ternational observers presents an empirical puzzle. Why of them.3 As illustrated in Figure 1, the global rate of ob- has the decision to invite foreign election observers—and served elections increased substantially between the late the corresponding international involvement in clearly 1980s and 2006, even while increasing numbers of elec- domestic political processes—become a widely accepted tions were criticized by international observers.4 Negative international norm? More generally, how do international
Susan D. Hyde is Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Department of Political Science, Yale University, PO Box 208301, New Haven, CT 06515 ([email protected]). I wish to thank David Lake, Emily Beaulieu, Eric Bjornlund, Carew Boulding, Sarah Bush, Gary Cox, David Cunningham, Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham, Keith Darden, Alex Debs, Daniela Donno, Karen Ferree, Clark Gibson, Peter Gourevitch, Julia Gray, Miles Kahler, Judith Kelley, Robert Keohane, Pierre Landry, Ellen Lust, Jason Lyall, Nikolay Marinov, Helen Milner, Irfan Nooruddin, Angela O’Mahony, Jon Pevehouse, Bruce Russett, Elizabeth Saunders, Ken Scheve, Ken Schultz, Duncan Snidal, Allison Sovey, Dustin Tingley, Jessica Weiss, and the participants in workshops at Columbia, Emory, Harvard, NYU, Princeton, Yale, University of Arizona, University of Michigan, and University of Rochester. 1For replication data, see http://hyde.research.yale.edu. Data on election observation were collected with the support of the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, the Brookings Institution, Yale’s MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies and the Institute for Social and Policy Studies, and Princeton’s Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance. 2I define a norm as a “shared standard of behavior appropriate for actors with a given identity” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998; Florini 1996; Katzenstein 1996; Klotz 1995). For discussions of the norm of international election observation, see Bjornlund (2004), Carothers (1997), Kelley (2008a), Rich (2001), and Santa-Cruz (2005). 3Prior to 1962, several plebiscites in nonsovereign or disputed territories were internationally supervised (Beigbeder 1994; Wambaugh 1920, 1933), as were several elections in occupied countries in the immediate post-WWII period. 4An observer report is coded as Negative if, in a postelection statement or final report, foreign observers seriously questioned the winner of the election or the legitimacy of the process. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 55, No. 2, April 2011, Pp. 356–369