Natural experiment reveals how labor control strategies impact elites' support for democratization in Argentina.
Why do some economic elites support democratization while others oppose? I argue elites’ strategies of labor control play a key role. Economic elites included in authoritarian ruling coalitions benefit from state-backed labor repression, making a democratic transition especially costly. Excluded elites generally benefit less from state-condoned repression and instead pursue co-optive control, providing select concessions designed to monitor and influence worker activities (e.g., employer-sponsored unions). Since co-optation is more easily transferred to democratic contexts, it reduces the risks associated with a democratic transition. Excluded elites are thus more likely to support democratization. I evaluate this argument using a natural experiment that leverages random variation in economic elites’ exclusion from the authoritarian ruling coalition in turn-of-the-twentieth-century Argentina. I employ a novel measure of support for democratization based on an original dataset of local, pro-democracy committees. The findings contribute to scholarship on regime change by examining when economic elites—key authoritarian stakeholders—support democratization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anna F. Callis (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: