Replication Data for \"Do Parliamentary Systems Enhance Democratic Resilience?\"

This study revisits the classic debate over whether parliamentary or presidential systems better sustain democracy—but with a critical innovation: it tests whether economic development conditions this relationship. Using an original dataset covering 149 countries from 2000 to 2023, I find no average difference in democratic stability between system types. However, presidential systems are significantly more stable than parliamentary ones in low-income contexts (below approximately $14,200 GDP per capita), while differences vanish in wealthier countries. This interaction resolves long-standing contradictions in the literature and aligns with Przeworski et al.’s (2000) hypothesis that institutional form matters most when state capacity is limited. Democratic resilience is measured as volatility—the standard deviation of V-Dem liberal democracy scores—capturing gradual erosion rather than binary regime collapse. Results are robust across alternative dependent variables, subsample analyses, and model specifications. The findings suggest that institutional design advice must be context-sensitive, particularly in the Global South.