The British Effect: Is colonial legacy a contributing factor to post-colonial democratization?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The drivers of democratic success are well-studied and comprise a complex topic with a plethora of economic, environmental, and historical factors given to explain the relative degree of democratic performance across countries. Amongst the factors that account for democratic success is the role of colonialism and whether colonial history and identity has contributed (or not) to the onset of liberal democracy in former colonies of former European imperial powers. Specifically, writers such as Lange (2004) and Ferguson (2004) have argued that former British colonies have enjoyed higher levels of democratic success than former colonies of other European colonial powers such as France or Spain. Following a statistical analysis that measures the extent of democratic success across eighty-five former colonies, according to two prevalent indices that analyze levels of freedom and democratic success (Freedom House and The Economist Intelligence Unit), I found that the correlation between democratic success and colonial history was not significant across the data set and instead has been limited to a few specific exceptions. The study finds that a specific form of settler colonialism and related institutional building in particular countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) was instrumental in contributing to isolated cases of democratic consolidation. However, after controlling for those exceptional cases, I conclude that there is not a meaningful democratic outperformance of former British colonies vis-à-vis the former colonies of France, Spain, and the other European colonial powers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".