Where has democracy helped the poor? Democratic transitions and early-life mortality at the country level

When do democratic transitions reduce or increase child mortality? Exploring the role of non-violent resistance

What explains variation across countries in the effect of democratization on child mortality rates? Democratic transitions, on average, improve health outcomes but there is substantial variation across countries in whether democratization leads to lower-than-expected child mortality post-transition. As yet, there is no convincing quantitative explanation for this variation. In this paper, we argue that whether you have a protest-led or violence-led democratic transition alters the trajectory of child mortality post-transition. Our paper makes two contributions. First, we offer a more detailed account of how the type of resistance movement promoting regime change affects health post-transition. We also draw on novel data to categorise the movements producing democratic transitions as violent or peaceful, moving beyond earlier work which operationalised peaceful democratizations in terms of battle-related deaths. Second, we extend earlier research by examining whether the nature of the democratization movement constitutes a necessary cause of higher or lower-than-expected child mortality following democratization. Across 51 transitions, countries that have a protest-led transition have lower-than-expected child mortality rates after the transition to democracy than countries with other kinds of movements (β = -0.17, p = 0.003). Countries with violence-led transitions, meanwhile, have, on average, higher-than-expected child mortality rates after their transition (β = 0.20, p = 0.001). These associations hold when we adjust for covariates (including all possible combinations of various confounding variables). We also find evidence that protest-led transitions may be a necessary condition for avoiding increased child mortality post-transition. Finally, we conduct a deviant case analysis of transitions that appear to be contrary to our theory, finding that these cases are likely instances of measurement error. Democratization may not always improve health, but such health improvements are more likely when regime change is protest-led. This is because such movements are more likely to build broad coalitions committed to consensual politics post-transition, a critical feature of successful democracies.

Political discourse, denialism and leadership failure in Brazil's response to COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for healthcare systems and political leaders across the globe. In this case study of Brazil, we argue that leadership failings at the highest level contributed to Brazil's relatively high and escalating death rates during 2020. Drawing on an analysis of a large amount of textual documentation drawn from media reports, we emphasise the role and consequences of President Jair Bolsonaro's political discourse and prioritisation of the economy. We focus on the first wave that swept across the globe between January and late June of 2020, arguing that Bolsonaro underplayed the seriousness of the epidemic, leveraged misinformation as a political strategy, promoted pseudoscience, and undermined the Ministry of Health. He also confronted subnational governments for adopting lockdown measures - a move that enabled him to blame regional governors for the short-term economic costs of COVID-19 related restrictions. We suggest that his denialist approach to climate change paved the way for his subsequent denialism of the seriousness of COVID-19 and for his undermining of social distancing, mask-wearing and other preventative responses supported by science. These sobering findings highlight the role that national leaders can play in undermining scientific approaches to both public health and the environment.