Between 1950 and 1990, across a dataset covering 135 countries, not a single democracy with a per capita income above $6,055 collapsed. Adam Przeworski and his collaborators drew that line, in 1985 purchasing-power-adjusted dollars, and their work remains the landmark empirical study of democratic survival. The threshold is defined by its boundary case: Argentina’s income in 1975, one year before a military coup against Isabel Perón ended its democracy at the richest level of any breakdown in the dataset.
The finding sounds reassuring, but it tells you only where democracies were safe within a specific forty-year window. It says nothing about what the money was purchasing, the mechanism underneath the correlation. And it was measured through 1990, before three decades of documented democratic erosion in wealthier states complicated what “breakdown” even means.
The poverty trap
The pattern is blunt. Below the threshold, democracies died constantly: 39 of 69 poorer democracies collapsed during the study period. Above it, 32 democracies accumulated more than 700 country-years of survival without a single failure. The correlation is among the strongest in all of comparative politics.
What is the money buying? Przeworski’s own answer is tentative, and it turns on costs. Wealth seems to soften the fights over distribution that tear democracies apart, and in a rich society the capital stock is large, interconnected and slow to rebuild once damaged. A coup changes who governs, and it can also wreck the legal framework that protects contracts, investments and property. The richer a society, the more actors stand to lose from that wreckage.
The military officer in a rich country isn’t inherently more loyal to constitutional order than his counterpart in a poor one. On this argument he faces a different calculation: seizing power risks cratering the stock market, triggering capital flight and wrecking the legal infrastructure the economy runs on. A poor agrarian economy can ride out a change of government. A complex industrial one has far more to break.
Economic crisis does not simply cancel that protection. In the original data, democracies above the threshold lived through 252 years of economic contraction without a single breakdown; the crises that toppled democracies hit poorer ones. Argentina in 1975 sat right at the boundary, and its democracy fell amid hyperinflation, rampant political violence and a government that had lost control, with few powerful actors committed to democracy for its own sake.
What counts as a democracy?
Przeworski's threshold finding depends entirely on how you define "democracy" and "breakdown." His dataset uses a dichotomous classification: a country either is or isn't a democracy in a given year. Freedom House uses a three-tier system of Free, Partly Free and Not Free. V-Dem uses continuous scoring on multiple dimensions. Whether Hungary after 2019 looks like an exception to the wealth threshold depends entirely on which classification you use. Freedom House downgraded it to "Partly Free" in 2019. V-Dem's Liberal Democracy Index shows sustained decline from 2010. A dichotomous coding such as Boix, Miller and Rosato's still counted it a democracy through 2020. One country in one decade gets three different verdicts, so the threshold's precision rests on a definitional choice that is less settled than the finding makes it appear.The dataset also has a temporal boundary that matters more the further we move from it. Przeworski’s study ends in 1990. The wealth-survival pattern has broadly held in the data through 2020. But the growing record of democratic backsliding in wealthier states has forced a question the original study didn’t face: does gradual erosion through legal means count as breakdown?
The threshold has also sprung leaks since 1990. Thailand’s 2014 military coup toppled a democracy that was, in real terms, richer than Argentina in 1975, and the Boix-Miller-Rosato data code Turkey’s 2016 slide into autocracy as a breakdown at an even higher income. Such cases remain rare, so the threshold is still a strong guard against classic coups and marks where democracies are largely safe from tanks. It says nothing about what protects them from their own elected governments, the slow, legal kind of democratic death that Hungary after 2010 made famous.
Not just the money
Above the wealth threshold, or among countries at similar income levels, what else separates the democracies that survive from those that don’t? The institutional design literature offers an answer, and then argues with itself about it.
Juan Linz made the case against presidentialism with three arguments. First, rigidity: a president serves a fixed term, and short of impeachment or a coup, there is no constitutional mechanism to remove a failing executive. Parliamentary systems have the vote of no confidence — an exit valve that lets the system adjust without rupturing. Second, dual legitimacy: when a president and legislature both claim separate electoral mandates and disagree, there is no constitutional mechanism for resolution. The system deadlocks, and deadlock in a young democracy invites extra-constitutional solutions. Third, zero-sum elections: the presidency is winner-take-all, so losers get nothing, which gives them powerful incentives to refuse the result.
Linz observed that the vast majority of stable democracies were parliamentary, among them Britain, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Belgium, the older Commonwealth democracies. The United States was the conspicuous exception, and he treated it as exactly that: a single case, however successful, that proved the system could work under specific conditions, not that it would work generally.
José Antonio Cheibub challenged the thesis head-on. His study of every democracy that existed between 1946 and 2002 argued that presidential democracies fail more often because of where presidentialism happens to exist, not because of its institutional design. Presidential constitutions were adopted overwhelmingly in countries with a legacy of military rule, above all in Latin America, and democracies that follow military dictatorships are fragile whatever their constitution. Account for that military legacy, and the survival gap between presidential and parliamentary democracies disappears. On this reading the higher failure rate is a selection effect.
The same institution, presidentialism, produced stable democracy in the United States for more than two centuries. In Chile it produced generations of constitutional continuity, which Linz himself counted as the second-longest presidential record anywhere, until a coup ended it in 1973. Whatever the rules contribute, they did not decide those endings on their own.
Federalism may add a layer of protection: federal systems provide additional veto points that can slow institutional capture. Hungary, unitary and parliamentary, demonstrated how rapidly a supermajority government can reshape institutions when no subnational level resists. But the relationship between federalism and democratic durability remains ambiguous in the comparative literature; federal systems also produce regional autocrats and governance paralysis.
The measurement problem
Linz and Cheibub disagree about presidentialism and also about how to count democratic death. Linz's analysis relies on historical comparison and structural reasoning; Cheibub's relies on statistical controls across a dataset spanning many countries with specific coding rules for what constitutes a democratic breakdown. Different coding decisions (when exactly does a democracy end? does gradual erosion count?) produce different survival rates, which produce different conclusions about institutional effects. That methodological dispute is why the substantive one cannot be resolved by looking at more data.The rules beneath the rules
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt identify two informal norms that do the work formal constitutions cannot.
The first is mutual toleration: competing parties recognise each other as legitimate rivals with an equal right to govern, rather than as enemies, existential threats or traitors. They are opponents you’d rather beat but can live with losing to.
The second is forbearance: the restraint politicians exercise in not deploying their institutional powers to their fullest legal extent. A governing majority may have the votes to pack a court, gerrymander districts, defund opposition media, or appoint loyalists to every oversight body, and still choose not to, because the norm says you don’t.
What sets both norms apart is that they cannot be enforced. They are not written down, courts can’t compel them, and no formal sanction follows their violation. They hold because every actor expects every other actor to hold them: a coordination equilibrium that works only until one side defects and forces the other to choose between unilateral compliance and response. The moment the first defection goes unpunished, the equilibrium shifts.
In Britain, norms of parliamentary restraint accumulated over centuries of negotiated conflict between crown and parliament, an accommodation that hardened into professional habit because neither side could make a decisive victory stick. Parliament abolished the monarchy outright in 1649, and the experiment did not last. Each side learned that total victory was unstable, so they developed habits of coexistence that eventually became indistinguishable from principle. The process took centuries and required stalemate.
In the United States, Levitsky and Ziblatt make an uncomfortable observation about American democratic stability: the normative consensus held, in significant part, because it excluded Black Americans from political participation. The most politically volatile conflicts in the country were kept outside the system. Democratic norms weren’t tested on the hardest cases because the hardest cases weren’t admitted to the democracy. Bipartisan civility in Congress was achievable, in part, because both parties agreed on what didn’t need to be discussed. When the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act finally democratised the country fully, they also polarised it, and that polarisation posed the greatest challenge to mutual toleration since Reconstruction.
Countries with shorter democratic histories haven’t had time to build these habits. Nobody is born with forbearance; it forms through repeated practice over decades, sometimes centuries. And a norm that took generations to establish can be seriously tested in a single electoral cycle, and a test that goes unpunished becomes the new baseline.
The first defeat
Wealth, institutions and norms converge most dangerously at one specific point in a democracy’s life, the first serious electoral defeat for an incumbent.
In an unbroken run of regular elections, on average it takes nine elections before the first peaceful transfer of power from a governing party to an opposition party. Once the first transfer occurs, the second takes an average of 3.4 elections and the third 2.3. Each handover makes the next come faster, and once the habit is acquired it tends to stick, though not always: Chile had seen five alternations before its democracy fell in 1973.
But that first time is unlike any other moment in a democracy’s life. An incumbent facing defeat for the first time cannot know whether the incoming opposition will comply with democratic norms once in power. The opposition cannot know whether the incumbent will yield. Neither side has evidence to rely on, only the formal rules, and formal rules alone have never been sufficient anywhere. The coordination game has never been played before, so both sides are guessing.
Think about it from the incumbent’s position. You have controlled the state apparatus: the police, the military, the intelligence services, the treasury. You are being asked to hand all of that to people you may believe will abuse it. Every norm of forbearance is untested and every promise of mutual toleration unproven. The formal constitution says you must go. But constitutions are pieces of paper enforced by the same institutions you currently control. The temptation to find a reason to stay, whether by declaring the election fraudulent, invoking emergency powers or allowing the military to intervene on your behalf, is built into the situation.
Democratic systems that make political defeat survivable are more stable at this juncture, because they lower the stakes of losing. They insulate former officeholders from prosecution, preserve opposition party resources and keep the winner from controlling the judiciary and the media. Systems that make defeat total, where the winner controls prosecutorial machinery, the media and judicial appointments, raise those stakes to the point where defection from democratic norms becomes rational even for actors who believe in them. Whatever the incumbent’s character, the question is whether the system makes yielding power cheaper than holding it.
Three deaths
Three democracies died, each with a different configuration of the variables and each through a different mechanism. The framework accounts for the first two cleanly and fits the third badly.
Weimar Germany. The wealth variable predicted vulnerability correctly. By early 1932, the Great Depression had pushed registered unemployment past six million, roughly a quarter of the labour force. Germany was well below any plausible version of Przeworski’s threshold. On the cost argument, the catastrophe did more than impoverish the country: with the productive economy already in ruins, a break with democracy had far less left to destroy.
The institutional failure was Article 48, the emergency-decree provision that was supposed to be exceptional. President Hindenburg invoked it sixty times in 1932 alone. By the time Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933, governing by emergency decree had displaced parliamentary legislation as the routine mode of government. The Reichstag had effectively stopped governing Germany before Hitler arrived to finish the job.
The Enabling Act, passed in March 1933 by 444 votes to 94, was a constitutional amendment adopted by constitutional supermajority. All 94 no votes came from the Social Democrats. Every other party present voted yes, including the Centre Party, whose leader Ludwig Kaas had obtained personal assurances from Hitler. The 81 Communist deputies could not vote at all, because their mandates had been annulled under the Reichstag Fire Decree, and SA men lined the chamber as the votes were cast. The mainstream parties that provided the votes belong at the centre of the story, alongside the party that used them.
The norm failure was multilateral. Mutual toleration had collapsed across the entire party system, not only among the Nazis. The Centre Party’s vote for the Enabling Act was what Levitsky and Ziblatt’s framework predicts: a rational calculation by actors who had already accepted that opponents were threats rather than legitimate rivals. To them, accommodation seemed survivable and resistance did not.
Chile 1973. It too sat below the wealth threshold and suffered an institutional failure, but through a different mechanism. Salvador Allende was elected in September 1970 with 36.3 percent of the vote in a three-way race, a plurality rather than a majority. Under the 1925 constitution, that sent the choice between the top two to Congress, which confirmed Allende only after he accepted a statute of constitutional guarantees. Once he was in office, though, the fixed term left nothing that could adjust to his minority status: no vote of no confidence and no early-election provision.
When the Chamber of Deputies voted 81 to 47 on August 22 for a resolution declaring the government in breach of the constitution, it was a declaration, not an impeachment, and had no power to remove Allende. Its force was political: it publicly delegitimised the government in terms the military would use twenty days later to justify intervention.
The norm failure in Chile was bilateral, a fact the standard narrative tends to leave out. Allende’s coalition pushed constitutional boundaries: tolerating land and factory seizures that ran ahead of the law and using legal loopholes to take over firms Congress had never voted to nationalise. His opponents hardened just as fast: the Nixon administration and the Chilean hard right tried to stop him taking office at all, and by late 1971 the Christian Democrats, who had voted to confirm him, had broken with his government. All of this unfolded amid economic destabilisation in which the CIA had a documented hand. Neither side treated the other as a legitimate rival operating within shared rules; each treated the other as an existential threat that justified extraordinary measures.
Mutual toleration had failed on both sides before the first shot was fired on September 11, 1973. The coup remains what it was — a military seizure that opened seventeen years of dictatorship in which thousands were killed or disappeared, and it cannot be equated with whatever constitutional violations preceded it. Analytically, though, Chile shows that a democracy can fall without a single authoritarian villain, once mutual toleration has failed on enough sides at the same time that a military takeover can pass for a settlement.
Hungary post-2010. It is the hardest case for the framework. In 2010 it was an EU member state with a per capita income of about $21,700 at purchasing-power parity, roughly one and a half times Argentina’s 1975 level in real terms, and comfortably above Przeworski’s threshold. The framework doesn’t cleanly predict what happened next.
In 2010 Fidesz won 263 of 386 parliamentary seats, a two-thirds constitutional supermajority, with 52.7 percent of the popular vote: a product of Hungary’s electoral system rather than a proportional mandate. Under the Hungarian constitution, a two-thirds majority carries the power to amend the constitution itself. Before its first term was out, Fidesz had written a new fundamental law, expanded the Constitutional Court from 11 to 15 members and handed Parliament the choice of its president, forced sitting judges into early retirement by cutting the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 62, and rewritten the electoral system and its districts. Almost all of it was done by the book, through the two-thirds majority. The exception shows how far the book was stretched: in November 2012 the EU Court of Justice ruled the judicial retirement purge unlawful age discrimination. By 2014, the redrawn system had taken effect: Fidesz received 44.9 percent of the vote and kept its two-thirds supermajority with 133 of 199 seats.
What failed in Hungary was forbearance. A parliamentary supermajority tests that norm hardest, because it makes legal the institutional moves constitutions are supposed to prevent. Political scientist Nancy Bermeo calls it “executive aggrandizement”: the incremental and legal accumulation of institutional advantage by an incumbent facing no normative check on what its majority permits. In Levitsky and Ziblatt’s terms, it is forbearance abandoned. Elections continued and parties competed, but on a playing field Fidesz had redesigned.
Hungary forces an extension of the framework. The wealth threshold largely protects against tanks, but not against a government that captures institutions one legal amendment at a time, slowly and through constitutional procedure. No single step looked like a coup, and binary codings still disagree over whether, and when, Hungary crossed the line into autocracy. Each individual move can be defended on its own terms; the cumulative effect cannot.
Three cases, quantified
V-Dem's Liberal Democracy Index scores show what quantitative measures captured and missed. Germany's Weimar Republic scored just under 0.5 in the late 1920s, a middling democracy by the index's standards, before collapsing to near zero by 1934. Chile sat in the same range in the early 1970s before its sharp drop in 1973. Hungary's trajectory is different: a gradual decline from approximately 0.7 in 2010 to below 0.4 by 2019, never hitting the sharp discontinuity that characterises coup-based breakdown. The quantitative measures track Hungary's erosion year by year. They also show why dichotomous classifications, democracy or not, struggle with a decline that was continuous. The threshold model, built for binary events, sees nothing until the line is crossed.The April 2026 Hungarian election, in which Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party won 141 of 199 seats and Orbán conceded defeat after sixteen years, suggests democratic erosion is not always irreversible. Whether one election can undo a decade of institutional capture is a question Hungary is now testing.
What the data cannot answer
The $6,055 threshold looked like a clean, reassuring answer to where democracies are safe. What the money is buying is three interacting conditions: development above the level that makes breakdown prohibitively costly; institutional design that constrains power rather than merely distributing it on paper; and normative habits of forbearance and mutual toleration that have survived enough stress tests to harden into something approaching professional reflex. When all three hold and reinforce each other, holding together is cheaper than falling apart.
What the framework cannot tell you, and what no one’s dataset answers, is whether those conditions can be rebuilt once they’ve eroded.
Recovery does happen. Of the episodes of autocratization since 1900 that have run their course, in democracies and autocracies alike, roughly half ended in a U-turn, and most of those U-turns restored democracy or improved on it.
But that research measures regime-level outcomes, scores going up or down. The asymmetry between formation and erosion is documented, but the recovery literature cannot answer the harder question underneath: whether norms of forbearance and mutual toleration, once seriously damaged, can be deliberately reconstructed, or only grown again over generational time through the kind of repeated practice Przeworski’s alternation data describes.
Gen AI Disclaimer
Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.
Media
Key Sources and References
Adam Przeworski, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990, Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804946
Nicholas H. Dimsdale, Nicholas Horsewood and Arthur van Riel, “Unemployment in Interwar Germany: An Analysis of the Labor Market, 1927–1936,” The Journal of Economic History 66(3), 2006, pp. 778-808. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050706000325
Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, “Modernization: Theories and Facts,” World Politics 49(2), 1997, pp. 155-183. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1997.0004
Adam Przeworski, “Acquiring the Habit of Changing Governments Through Elections,” Comparative Political Studies 48(1), 2015, pp. 101-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014543614
Adam Przeworski, “Peaceful transitions of power have been rare in modern states, but once the habit has been acquired it sticks,” LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) blog, November 26, 2014. https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/71612/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-Peaceful%20transitions%20of%20power%20have%20been%20rare%20in%20modern%20states%20but%20once%20the%20habit%20has%20been%20acquired%20it.pdf
Scott Mainwaring, “Democratic Breakdown in Argentina, 1976,” chapter draft for When Democracy Breaks, Tobin Project. https://tobinproject.org/sites/default/files/assets/Chapter%209%20-%20Argentina%20-%20Mainwaring.pdf
Juan J. Linz, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 51-69. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-perils-of-presidentialism/
José Antonio Cheibub, Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy, Cambridge University Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813344
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, Crown, 2018. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/
Nancy Bermeo, “On Democratic Backsliding,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2016, pp. 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012
Alfred Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 10, No. 4, October 1999, pp. 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1999.0072
Jason Brownlee and Kenny Miao, “Why Democracies Survive,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 33, No. 4, October 2022, pp. 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2022.0052
Carles Boix, Michael Miller, and Sebastian Rosato, “A Complete Data Set of Political Regimes, 1800–2007,” Comparative Political Studies 46(12), 2013, pp. 1523-1554. Updated through 2020 via Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012463905 · https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FENWWR
Marina Nord, Fabio Angiolillo, Martin Lundstedt, Felix Wiebrecht and Staffan I. Lindberg, “When autocratization is reversed: episodes of U-Turns since 1900,” Democratization 32(5), 2025, pp. 1136-1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2448742
Bolt and van Zanden, Maddison Project Database 2023, GDP per capita, via Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-project-database
V-Dem Institute, V-Dem Dataset, University of Gothenburg; Liberal Democracy Index via Our World in Data. https://www.v-dem.net/ · https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/liberal-democracy-index
“An Act for the abolishing the Kingly Office in England and Ireland,” 17 March 1649, Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, British History Online. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp18-20
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Article 48,” Holocaust Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/article-48
Deutsches Historisches Museum, “Das Ermächtigungsgesetz” and “Weltwirtschaftskrise,” LeMO. https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/ns-regime/etablierung-der-ns-herrschaft/ermaechtigungsgesetz.html · https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/industrie-und-wirtschaft/weltwirtschaftskrise.html
“Expanded Chronology of the Fall of Salvador Allende,” MIT OpenCourseWare, 17.55J Introduction to Latin American Studies, Fall 2006. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/17-55j-introduction-to-latin-american-studies-fall-2006/a28ae3090766ee73908abec3ab273123_ses11_hand3.pdf
“La polémica por acuerdo de 1973 de la Cámara contra Allende,” The Clinic, August 22, 2023. https://www.theclinic.cl/2023/08/22/declaracion-acuerdo-1973-salvador-allende-camara-diputados-pc-oposicion/
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XXI, Chile, 1969–1973, compiled by James McElveen and James Siekmeier, United States Department of State, Office of the Historian. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v21
Amnesty International, “Augusto Pinochet’s Chile,” Facts & Figures, AI Index AMR 22/009/2013, 10 September 2013. https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/amr220092013en.pdf
World Bank, GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) — Hungary, World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=HU
Inter-Parliamentary Union, PARLINE, “Hungary: Elections in 2010” and “Hungary: Elections in 2014.” http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2141_10.htm · http://archive.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2141_14.htm
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on the New Constitution of Hungary, CDL-AD(2011)016, June 2011. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2011)016-e
Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment in Case C-286/12, Commission v Hungary, 6 November 2012 (Press Release No 139/12). https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-11/cp120139en.pdf
Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2019: Hungary Country Report, February 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary/freedom-world/2019
bne IntelliNews, “Final Hungarian election results confirm supermajority for Tisza,” April 2026. https://www.intellinews.com/final-hungarian-election-results-confirm-supermajority-for-tisza-438174/
Architect of the Capitol, “Declaration of Independence” (John Trumbull). https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/declaration-independence
