Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis

Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797" }, "headline": "Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis", "datePublished": "2022-07-18T13:43:01", "dateModified": "2025-10-01T09:55:12", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hamidou Issaka Diori" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Anchana NaRanong" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The reintroduction of multiparty democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa during the early 90s and the persistent poor human development performance of the region, have sparked several controversies regarding the need for such a political system in Africa. In the extant literature, these controversies have been characterized by fierce theoretical debates as to whether multiparty democracy influences human development and the scholarly contention that social cohesion, rather than this form of democracy leads to development. Objectives The present study examines these controversies along with the perception of Sub-Saharan African populations concerning the democratic transition and its impact on their well-being. To this aim, the following objectives have been formulated: to determine the effect of multiparty democracy on human development; to determine the effect of social cohesion on human development; and to determine the effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. Methods A panel data analysis of 35 countries was conducted between 1995 and 2019 to test the research hypotheses. Fixed-effects and system generalized methods of moments estimations were used to control for specific characteristics. Results The study found that, multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and the interaction between these two variables have a positive long-term effect on human development. More importantly, the study revealed that social cohesion decreases the negative influence of multiparty democracy on human development. Conclusions Overall, the findings of this study suggest that multiparty democracy is likely to improve the well-being of the populations of Sub-Saharan Africa if the degree of social cohesion is sufficiently high. As such, social cohesion is critical in terms of the extent to which multiparty democracy wields influence on human development outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Based on these conclusions, the study calls for comprehensive policy interventions—ranging from institutional reforms to the implementation of home-grown policies—to achieve sustained human development in the region. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797", "name": "Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan..." } } ] } Home Browse Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Diori HI and NaRanong A. Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Hamidou Issaka Diori https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0080-8563 1,2 , Anchana NaRanong 1 Hamidou Issaka Diori https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0080-8563 1,2 , Anchana NaRanong 1 PUBLISHED 01 Oct 2025 Author details Author details 1 Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA), National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), 148 Moo 3, Seri Thai Road, Khlong Chan, Bang Kapi, Bangkok, 10240, Thailand 2 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Walailak University, 222 Thaibury, The Sala, 80160, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand Hamidou Issaka Diori Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Anchana NaRanong Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Political Communications gateway. Abstract Background The reintroduction of multiparty democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa during the early 90s and the persistent poor human development performance of the region, have sparked several controversies regarding the need for such a political system in Africa. In the extant literature, these controversies have been characterized by fierce theoretical debates as to whether multiparty democracy influences human development and the scholarly contention that social cohesion, rather than this form of democracy leads to development. Objectives The present study examines these controversies along with the perception of Sub-Saharan African populations concerning the democratic transition and its impact on their well-being. To this aim, the following objectives have been formulated: to determine the effect of multiparty democracy on human development; to determine the effect of social cohesion on human development; and to determine the effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. Methods A panel data analysis of 35 countries was conducted between 1995 and 2019 to test the research hypotheses. Fixed-effects and system generalized methods of moments estimations were used to control for specific characteristics. Results The study found that, multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and the interaction between these two variables have a positive long-term effect on human development. More importantly, the study revealed that social cohesion decreases the negative influence of multiparty democracy on human development. Conclusions Overall, the findings of this study suggest that multiparty democracy is likely to improve the well-being of the populations of Sub-Saharan Africa if the degree of social cohesion is sufficiently high. As such, social cohesion is critical in terms of the extent to which multiparty democracy wields influence on human development outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Based on these conclusions, the study calls for comprehensive policy interventions—ranging from institutional reforms to the implementation of home-grown policies—to achieve sustained human development in the region. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords multiparty democracy, social cohesion, human development, Africa, Sub-Saharan region Corresponding Author(s) Hamidou Issaka Diori ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Hamidou Issaka Diori Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Diori HI and NaRanong A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Diori HI and NaRanong A. Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.2 ) First published: 18 Jul 2022, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.1 ) Latest published: 01 Oct 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The current version of this article is different from the previously published one in two ways essentially: 1. The Abstract, Introduction, and Results parts have been revised for more clarity and nuance. The entire work should be a more compelling and understandable piece for the intended audience, now. 2. The literature has been improved with relevant recent studies. The current version of this article is different from the previously published one in two ways essentially: 1. The Abstract, Introduction, and Results parts have been revised for more clarity and nuance. The entire work should be a more compelling and understandable piece for the intended audience, now. 2. The literature has been improved with relevant recent studies. To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table. READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa, a region of forty-six countries according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and with a combined population of over 1.29 billion inhabitants as of 2024 ( Statista, 2025 ), has long been considered the least developed area in Africa and the world. The causes of this underdevelopment are believed to be dysfunctional political institutions and governance, recurring conflicts, rampant corruption, resource mismanagement, among other debilitating social concerns. In order to help the region develop, if that were the real intention, aid donors in the West (countries and institutions alike) decided to impose multiparty democracy on the whole region. Hence, to act out their decision, these groups have linked most parts of international assistance to political system change in Sub-Saharan Africa, claiming that, democracy (the new system) would reduce the potential of conflicts in the region and foster good governance which, in turn, would stimulate development ( Chabal, 2002 ; Fombad, 2021 ). However, the events of the past three decades in this region of Africa conflict with such a narrative ( Chabal, 2002 ; Fombad, 2021 ). The new system has a priori , neither led to social and political stability, nor better forms of governance, let alone development. On the contrary, the inception of multiparty democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa and the resulting poor human development outcomes have sparked several controversies regarding whether the system has had, or is having some tangible effects on the well-being of the population. Other forms of controversies have emerged on the continent as well. Among the most recurrent, one is concerned with the true intent of Western governments for pushing for democratic transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa, given that a similar system had already collapsed after independence and turned most or all African countries into some variant of a “one-party state” ( Alence, 2004 ; Fombad, 2021 ). It is worth recalling here that independence in former French and British protectorates and colonies was followed by pluralist polls which suddenly revived the dormant social divisions and animosity within the regions. The explanations provided at the time by authorities in those ancient colonies regarding the reasons why their countries had turned to one-party systems stressed the peril of electoral competition. Those very rationales are today considered as mere alibis used to circumvent democratic transitions in Africa, as the reasoning behind them remain as valid now as it was at independence ( Chabal, 2002 ; Fombad, 2021 ). Regardless of the intentions underlying the push for political system change, multiparty democracy in SSA is yet to trigger sound political development from monopartism or monopoly to pluralism and perfect competition. In most African countries, as Chabal has indicated (2002), those who vie for political power belong to a small group of politicians that have been “in the business” for ages. Moreover, in numerous instances, the sitting ruler has arranged to cling to power via manipulation, authoritarianism, and persuasion ( Alence, 2004 ; Chabal, 2002 ; Fombad, 2021 ). In short, the new political system (or democracy, as it should be called) has barely led to renewal for the elite, better modes of governance or improvement in quality of life in SSA. Hence, exploring these controversies, in conjunction with Sub-Saharan Africans’ perspective of the democratic transition and its effect on their well-being, remains of particular interest. To this end, the current study holds three primary objectives: (1) to determine the effect of multiparty democracy on human development; (2) to determine the effect of social cohesion on human development; and (3) to estimate the effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. Panel data was then gathered from thirty-five countries in SSA between 1995 and 2019 to test the research hypotheses. The present study contributes to the literature on multiparty democracy and human development by proposing a hands-on theoretical model of democratic reform implementation that goes beyond the current models advocated in the existing studies. This conceptual model may enable future researchers to comprehend how and why democracy and human development remain increasingly challenging to African countries. The proposed model stipulates that any political change, regardless of the party that advocates it or the apparent level of diligence attached, must first be initiated by consolidating social cohesion. The present study also contributes to discussions on the foreign assistance literature by improving upon existing studies that have failed to include the nature of African politics in their analysis. The quantitative aid studies are only heedful of the effects of foreign assistance on democratic development in recipient countries following the organization of elections. Few attempts have been made to extend beyond generic political games to grasp the organization of African political systems, the neo-patrimonial character, ethnic and communal considerations, and their effect on the accomplishment of tangible human development. In suggesting a practical model of policy reform implementation and improving upon the existing literature on democracy and development in Africa, great contributions will be made in the search for sustainable development in SSA and the world since the improvement in one particular region may create positive effects in other parts of the globe. In sum, the present contributions are a breakthrough in research on the effect of democracy and human development in the context of SSA. Unlike other studies on the same issue, this work is the first to incorporate the concept of social cohesion in research on the relationship between regime type and socioeconomic or human development. In addition to that, the authors successfully challenged the existing beliefs that attributes lack of human development in SSA Africa primarily to political stressors such as regime type and instability. Moving beyond this conventional view, the study presents a comprehensive reassessment of the causes of underdevelopment and their broader social, political, and economic implications for sustained human development in the Sub-Saharan region. On the whole, the contributions of this study are of particular significance to scholars in the field of political science, development studies or sociology, as well as professional politicians and state leaders. They are relevant and timely for the development of a region that suffers from widespread socio-economic crisis and political disorder. The remainder of this study proceeds as follows: Section 2 critically reviews the relevant theories associated with the relationship shared by multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development. Section 3 introduces the research methodology, the techniques of data collection, and methods for analysis. Section 4 identifies the key findings derived from the data which were examined and presented in accordance with the technique described in the third section. Finally, section 5 culminates the study with a conclusion and recommendations. Theoretical background Two theoretical paths were adapted for testing the hypotheses of the current study, namely, the regime type and poverty theory and the social cohesion theory. The regime type and poverty theories Regime type and poverty theories are founded on the presumption that a close relationship exists between the mode or type of a country’s government and the standard of living of its people. Moreover, these theories imply that democracy has the potential to improve the living standards of the lowest income groups, while nondemocracy lowers the standards ( Acemoglu, Naidu, Restrepo, & Robinson, 2019 ; Altman & Castiglioni, 2009 ; Besley & Kudamatsu, 2006 ; Blaydes & Kayser, 2011 ; Deacon, 2009 ; Eterovic & Sweet, 2014 ; Gerring et al. , 2015 ; Gerring, Thacker, & Alfaro, 2012 ; Haggard & Kaufman, 2008 ; Hanson, 2015 ; Kudamatsu, 2012 ; Liotti, Musella, & D’isanto, 2018 ; McGuire, 2013 ; Miller, 2015 ; Sen, 1999 ; Sen, 1981 ). Three theories are at the center of the regime type and poverty model ( Ross, 2006 ), two of which are associated with the works of Sen (1999 , 1981) on the causes of famine and poverty ( Ross, 2006 ). In his works, Sen first argued that democracy enables the poor to inflict sanctions on governments that enable famines to occur, through electoral processes, and that political leaders would act judiciously to prevent famines and avoid sanctions ( Ross, 2006 ). Secondly, Sen argued that democracies are relatively better than nondemocracies in terms of their capacity to disseminate information from remote and poor areas to the central administration due to the freedom of the press. Thus, according to him, even when leaders of a democratic and a nondemocratic government are equally devoted to preventing the occurrence of famine, democratic leaders are more likely to know precisely when action is required ( Ross, 2006 ). The third theory suggests that a democratic system would make more expenses in terms of welfare benefits for the poor, as compared to nondemocratic regimes. Hence, several scholars opine that democracies expend more on services and public goods as the electoral process compels them to, while non-democratic governments face no such constraint ( Ross, 2006 ). A priori , there are good indications that these theories are at least partially correct - democratic regimes appear to be more concerned about social goods and services than non-democratic governments. Indeed, historical studies have shown a partial correlation between suffrage extension and the size of government welfare spending both in the US ( Gouveia & Masia, 1998 ) and more generally in the Western and Latin American countries ( Kristov, Lindert, & McClelland, 1992 ; Lindert, 1994 ). In addition, a study of 44 African countries by Stasavage (2005) has outlined a strong substantiation that democracy has augmented government spending on education, while a series of analyses of Latin American countries has found that democracy is highly correlated with higher spending on health, education, and social security ( Avelino, Brown, & Hunter, 2005 ; Brown & Hunter, 2004 ; Kaufman & Segura-Ubiergo, 2001 ). However, even if democratic governments increase social expenditure, a posteriori, they do not improve infant or child mortality rates, which are considered by many to be the most accurate and comprehensive indicators of social welfare among the poor ( Ross, 2006 ). Thus, the literature on democracy and development appears to demonstrate conflicting views regarding the plausible effects of multiparty politics on the well-being of people. Until recently, the most commonly held view in this context has been that multiparty democracy ameliorates human development ( Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 , 2020 ). This view has been observed in various scholarly works ( Altman & Castiglioni, 2009 ; Besley & Kudamatsu, 2006 ; Blaydes & Kayser, 2011 ; Brown & Mobarak, 2009 ; Deacon, 2009 ; Eterovic & Sweet, 2014 ; Haggard & Kaufman, 2008 ; Hanson, 2015 ; Kudamatsu, 2012 ; McGuire, 2013 ; and Miller, 2015 ) for instance. Lately, however, the commonly held view that the well-being of individuals is influenced by democracy has been fiercely challenged and debunked, with numerous quantitative and qualitative studies conducted to corroborate the absence of a tangible association between regime type and diverse aspects or measures of human development ( Diori & NaRanong, 2023 ; Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 , 2020 ; McGuire, 2006 ; Ross, 2006 ; Shandra, Nobles, London, & Williamson, 2004 ). Further, given recent factual analysis, some of the arguments in favor of the above opinion are questionable. While most people generally believe that democracy would result in higher social expenditures, which, in turn, would improve the welfare of the poor, it has been noted that there is little to no relationship between public spending and human development beyond the context of the OECD countries ( Filmer & Pritchett, 1999 ; McGuire, 2006 ). In bids to reconcile these two views and to probe deeper into the relationship between democracy and human development, Gerring et al. (2012) have introduced the possibility that the developmental effects of democracy may be longer-term, characterized by a distal rather than proximal causal relationship. Hence, these authors opine that empirical works must test the relationship between the two variables while accounting for the time lag of the model. Owing to further research and a series of statistical checks with the infant mortality rate (IMR) as the main measure of human development, in conjunction with two hypotheses (the first, replicating the traditional causal model that links IMR to a country’s achievement or level of democracy in the previous year; and the second, measuring democracy with a “stock” indicator that captures a country’s regime history from 1900 to the observation year), Gerring et al. (2012) have found that the contemporary level of a country’s democracy has a weak association with enhanced human development, while a country’s historical experience with democracy has a strong and robust influence on human development. Hence, the researchers concluded that democracy does ameliorate human development only in cases where it is considered a historical or “stock” phenomenon. In simple terms, this implies that if a democratic system of governance is upheld over a longer period, its net effect will be resolute for the welfare of its citizens. Where one stands today depends essentially upon where one has been ( Gerring et al. , 2012 ). In the context of the present study, the measure of human development extends beyond the infant mortality rate to relate to the quality of life, improvement in personal income, environmental conditions, and healthcare and education attainment ( Seers, 1979 ). Hence, it is difficult to suggest that sustained or meaningful human development has occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus far, multiparty democracy has not eradicated poverty or hunger in the region, which are incompatible with any form of development. The measures of human development as well as the other variables used in the present study can be found under Underlying data ( Diori & NaRanong, 2022 ). Social cohesion theory In his work entitled “The quest for good governance and development in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Chabal (2002) quoted the NEPAD (New Partnership for African Development), declaring that peace, quality governance, socio-political stability, institutional consolidation, and the rule of law are necessary for investment and economic growth. Moreover, NEPAD is of the opinion that the aforementioned factors necessary for growth can only be derived from democracy, which has long been considered by Western development agencies and donors as the main precondition for the “takeoff” of any nation intending to transition from a state of underdevelopment to development. However, such a perception of democracy and its impact on development has been met with strong criticism. Today, it is an open secret that democracy in SSA has neither brought about social cohesion and political stability, nor better institutions and economic growth, which are normally considered the prerequisites for any development. This idea was supported by Easterly et al. (2006) , who provided substantial proof to show how social equity and group cohesion can lead to better institutions and economic growth. For these researchers, strengthening cohesion within society by creating and maintaining quality institutions that benefit all members and lower socio-economic cleavages is imperative for countries struggling with growth ( Easterly et al. , 2006 ). Social cohesion within a country is critical for establishing the trust and civic participation required to enact specific reforms as citizens must accept the short-term depravations that naturally arise from reform implementations before the situation ameliorates in due course ( Easterly et al. , 2006 ). This study drew on Easterly et al. ’s theory of social cohesion, institutions, and growth (2006). Social cohesion theory was deemed suitable for this study as it emphasizes the reasons for which multiparty democracy has rarely fostered human development in the SSA region. Hence, the search for tangible effects of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on the development of the SSA region occurred in line with the theoretical lens offered by Easterly et al. (2006) as well as the regime type and poverty theories. The same methodological lenses were utilized to address the research hypotheses, which consisted of testing the short-run and long-term upshots of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on the well-being of the people in SSA. As for the literature on social cohesion and human development, it has not been prolific regarding the relationship between the two concepts. Few theoretical and empirical attempts have been made to establish a linkage, both direct and indirect, between the two concepts. In a study that aimed to explore the potential effects of social cohesion on human development using state legitimacy as a mediator between the two variables, Seyoum (2020) finds that social cohesion has a direct and an indirect effect on the well-being of people, i.e., human development. Using data from 180 countries and the state fragility index as a proxy of social cohesion, the latter study identifies several aspects of a socially cohesive state with a significant influence on poverty alleviation and sustained development ( Seyoum, 2020 ). However, decreased or absent social cohesion was found to generate a lack of successful institutions, which, in failed states, are characterized by political and economic rules and regulations that frequently promote indecency and undermine the fair distribution of public wealth ( Easterly et al. , 2006 ; Seyoum, 2020 ). Although resources may proliferate in a failed state, they are seldom used to address public poverty or improve the health system. Hence, the consequence of state fragility would eventually be felt in education (e.g., poor school systems and facilities, the lack of quality and quantity of teaching materials), healthcare (poor healthcare systems and facilities, and inadequate treatment), and income distribution (inequality and discrimination in GDP per capita, unequal access to state resources). The findings consider a tangible relationship between the inadequate provision of goods and public services with state failure and fragility; hence, Amate-Fortes, Guarnido-Rueda and Molina-Morales (2017) conclude that the incapacity of the state to provide for security, necessary goods, and services also has a negative effect on economic growth, and consequently, on human development. A similar study by Rotberg (2010) finds that in instances where a state fails, its population disperses, human capital is drained, and the total production and per capita income start to dwindle. State failure results in governments failing to account for their citizens and, at times, being unwilling to formulate policies to reduce poverty and advance human development. In short, failed states suffer from a dearth of good governance, ranging from the establishment of credible institutions to the consolidation of democratic achievements, in addition to a dearth of rule of law and equity. Furthermore, a 2018 OECD report has found that state fragility is mainly caused by a lack of cohesion within a society as well as its fractionalization into groups with opposing identities and daily struggles. In the absence of social cohesion, even the elites, who are to unite such groups, tend to be factionalized, regarding the state as a means of personal profit rather than a politically organized unit that may be developed for common interests. Inequalities and ethnic fractionalization are current challenges that Sub-Saharan Africa faces due to the dreadful disparities between the rich and the poor. Ethnic fractionalizations and various types of inequality operate as channels through which considerable social unrest can erupt ( Easterly et al. , 2006 ). In summary, social cohesion is proven to be indispensable for SSA countries to transit to human development. Its absence may cause dire social pathologies that may not only have an effect on economic issues but also endanger the subsistence and viability of society at large ( Durkheim, 1897 ; Larsen, 2014 ; Orazani, Reynolds & Osborne, 2023 ). Nowadays, it is unanimously agreed that human development not only depends on economic issues but also on numerous social consensuses to be met. Methods Study design The present study uses a panel data technique to determine the effect of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development in SSA. Panel data analyses are correlational research strategies entailing a methodical examination of possible relations between a set of variables. They are utilized to determine if variations in an outcome or criterion variable are related to possible changes in one or more predictor variables. This is exactly the case of this study where efforts were made to determine whether the variations in human development measures are attributed to the regime type (multiparty democracy) in use in the SSA region, or to the presence or absence of social cohesion, while controlling for other possible determinants. The panel data approach was selected in this study to address the research hypotheses, developed as follows: H1 : Multiparty democracy has a positive effect on human development. H2 : Social cohesion has a positive effect on human development. H3 : The interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion has a positive effect on human development. In hypothesis 1, a distinction is made between the long- and short-term effects of multiparty democracy on human development. This hypothesis is consistent with the literature on democracy and development, where an immediate relationship and a log-run effect between the two variables are often observed. This may be viewed through the lens of “supply” (post-electoral government provisions and stimulus packages) or “demand” (advances in human development as demanded by voters). In either observation, multiparty democracy may have a short-term relationship or effect on human development. Alternatively, with regard to the distal effect of multiparty democracy on human development, this effect may manifest as an increase in economic growth, which eventually leads to higher per capita income, higher achievement in health, education, etc. In this optic, it is possible to affirm that the effects of multiparty democracy on human development are not immediate; rather, they present themselves in the longer run. Countries must enjoy economic growth first before their populations receive the benefits attached to the same. This long-run effect is also echoed in H1. In hypothesis 2, however, the empirical evidence offered by extant literature indicates a long-term relationship between social or community cohesion and human development. This is observed via the attainment of quality institutions first, where the latter induces economic growth, subsequently bringing about an improvement in human development (see Easterly et al., Social Cohesion, Institutions, and Growth theory - section 2). Similarly to H1, hypothesis 3 exhibits a twofold relationship; one that is immediate and the other long term, in relation to the interaction effect between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. These relations are observed through “supply” and “demand”, as explained in hypothesis 1. The assumption of all of the hypotheses suggests a positive, rather than negative relationship, between multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development. This is in line with most theories and empirical research findings in the literature on these relations. Sampling The population of this study comprises the member states of the SSA region that have experienced democracy for a long period of time. There are 46 countries in total in SSA according to the UNDP. The sample (a non-probability convenience one of 35 Francophones, Anglophones, and Portuguese language speaking countries) was made up of all of the countries in SSA that have had a minimum of 25 years of democratic experience. As for the sampling frame, it constitutes the Eastern, Western, Central, and Southern African countries, and is representative of the four sub-regions of the main Sub-Sahara region (see Table 1 below). Table 1. List of SSA countries included in the sample. Country Independence Began democracy Experience with democracy Angola 11/11/1975 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Benin 01/08/1960 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Botswana 30/09/1966 ca. 1966 ca. 53 years Burkina Faso 05/08/1960 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Burundi 01/07/1962 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Cameroon 01/01/960 ca. 1990 ca. 29 years Cape Verde 05/07/1975 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Central African Rep. 13/08/1960 ca. 1993 ca. 26 years Comoros 06/07/1975 ca. 1975 ca. 44 years Republic of Congo 15/08/1960 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Cote d’Ivoire 07/08/1960 ca. 1990 ca. 29 years Equatorial Guinea 12/10/1968 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Eritrea 24/05/1993 ca. 1993 ca. 26 years Gabon 16/08/1960 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Ghana 06/03/1956 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Guinea 02/10/1958 ca. 1993 ca. 26 years Guinea Bissau 24/09/1975 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Kenya 12/12/1963 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Lesotho 04/10/1966 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Liberia 26/07/1847 ca. 1985 ca. 34 years Madagascar 26/06/1960 ca. 1975 ca. 44 years Malawi 06/07/1964 ca. 1993 ca. 26 years Mali 20/06/1960 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Mauritania 28/11/1960 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Mauritius 12/03/1968 ca. 1968 ca. 51 years Mozambique 25/06/1975 ca. 1990 ca. 29 years Namibia 21/03/1990 ca. 1990 ca. 29 years Niger 03/08/1960 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years Senegal 04/04/1960 ca. 1960 ca. 59 years Sierra Leone 27/04/1961 ca. 1991 ca. 28 years South Africa 31/05/1910 ca. 1990 ca. 29 years Tanzania 09/12/1961 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Togo 27/04/1960 ca. 1992 ca. 27 years Zambia 24/10/964 ca. 1990 ca. 29 years Zimbabwe 18/04/1980 ca. 1980 ca. 39 years Data collection Secondary data about four dependent variables (human development index, infant mortality, life expectancy, and basic drinking water), five independent variables of interest (multiparty democracy 1 and 2, political rights, civil liberties, and social cohesion), and four control variables (GDP per capita, institutional quality, population growth, and political stability), were employed in the present study to test the research hypotheses. These data, which consisted of socio-economic development and human capital indicators of 35 SSA countries for the years 1995-2019 (see Diori & NaRanong, 2022 ), were compiled from diverse sources such as the 2020 United Nations Development report ( UNDP, 2020 ), for data pertaining to human development; the 2021 World Bank World Development Indicators ( World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2021 ), for data on infant mortality, life expectancy, and basic drinking water; the Freedom House annual survey of civil liberties and political rights ( Freedom House, 2021 ); and Marshall and Gurr (2018) for data on democracy. The data for social cohesion was sourced from the State Fragility Index and Matrix ( Marshall & Elzinga-Marshall, 2020 ) while data on governance and political stability was sourced from Kaufmann and Kraay (2020) . Other data regarding population growth was sourced from the United Nations 2019 World Population Prospects ( UNDESA, 2020 ); the data for economic growth was sourced from the 2020 World Bank national account databank ( World Bank National Accounts Data, 2020 ); while data for per capita GDP was sourced from the Maddison Project Database ( Bolt & van Zanden, 2020 ). This approach is consistent with the literature, ensuring that findings were of the same standard as previous empirical studies on multiparty democracy and human development. As far as the time span of the collected data is concerned, one may note that the year 1995 represents three to four years after a full democracy was established in most SSA countries that were sampled in this study. The year 2019 represents the latest year data were available for most or all countries in the sample, and all variables. The full dataset, the data tables, and the link to the data sources can be found under Underlying data ( Diori & NaRanong, 2022 ). Data analysis Panel data was used in this investigation to address the research purpose, consisting in finding out whether multiparty democracy and social cohesion have some effects on human development. Three different techniques were utilized to ensure that the data met all of the assumptions of the regression analysis. First, measures of central tendency were used—mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum—in order to probe the normality and linearity of the dataset ( Table 2 ). Secondly, correlation matrix ( Table 3 ) was used to check whether the variables were strongly correlated. Thirdly, Breush-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg and Wooldridge tests ( Table 4 ) were carried out to look at issues concerning heteroscedasticity and serial correlation. In order to control for the specific characteristics, two estimation techniques were used: panel fixed-effects (FE), and an instrumental variable in the system generalized methods of moments (system-GMM) estimation. The aforementioned panel data estimations were most appropriate for this study for several reasons. First, because they helped to explain how multiparty democracy and the social cohesion variables within each Sub-Saharan country affect human development over time, and by so doing, they allow for the heterogeneity and individuality of each country with respect to the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Second, with the combination of cross-section and time series observations, these panel data estimations allowed for additional information, greater variability, less collinearity, greater degrees of freedom, and thus more efficiency. Third, they permitted the detection and measurement of the effects of unobserved country specific effects and therefore reduced the bias in the estimated coefficients. It is worth noting however that, while the fixed-effect technique was used to control for unobserved country-specific heterogeneities such as structural characteristics, historical differences and time-invariant shocks, the system GMM was used to deal with endogeneity issues and to check for the robustness of the findings. System GMM was chosen and utilized in this study because of its use of internal instruments as parts of the independent variables ( Arellano & Bond, 1991 ). Finally, note also that, data about some of the variables used in the analysis were incomplete for some countries and time periods, making this panel data unbalanced. The problem was addressed using the Stata 15 software which handled the missing data issue automatically. Model specification The specification of the statistical models within the study was based on the review of the associated theories. Four different measures of multiparty democracy were included in the basic models, with two in the dynamic models. Of the four measures of democracy, three were sourced from the most popular institution, Freedom House, while one was drawn from Polity 5. As previously indicated, this approach remains consistent with the existing literature, as several scholars have utilized at least two of the same measures for the variable of democracy (see Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ). Hence, multiparty democracy 1 (the Freedom House measure of democracy) is termed Democ1, while multiparty democracy 2 (the Polity 5 measure of democracy) has been termed Democ2. Democ1 was reduced to its component levels with two more measures and variables having been added to the analysis - political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL). The choice of the fifth independent variable, social cohesion (SC), was also consistent with the literature (see Amate-Fortes et al. , 2017 ; Easterly et al. , 2006 ; OECD, 2018 ; Rotberg, 2010 ; Seyoum, 2020 ). The dependent variables in this study were the human development index (HDI), the variable of interest, and three of its proxies: infant mortality (IMR), life expectancy (LEXP), and basic drinking water (BASW). With the exception of the fourth variable, basic drinking water (BASW), which was created by the authors of this study, infant mortality, life expectancy, and human development index are considered prominent in the context of human development research (see Altman & Castiglioni, 2009 ; Besley & Kudamatsu, 2006 ; Blaydes & Kayser, 2011 ; Deacon, 2009 ; Hanson, 2015 ; Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ; Kudamatsu, 2012 ; McGuire, 2006, 2013 ; Miller, 2015 ; Ross, 2006 ; Shandra et al. , 2004 ). The interaction between multiparty democracy 1 and social cohesion was termed Democ1SC, while Democ2SC referred to the interaction between multiparty democracy 2 and social cohesion. Finally, the decision was made to control for institutional quality (IQ), per capita GDP (GDPPC), population growth (PGR), and political stability (PS) to curb their influence on the dependent variable, which may have caused a bias in the statistical results. The basic models are specified as follows: (1) HDI , it = β 1 democ , it + β 2 pr , it + β 3 cl , it + β 4 iq , it + β 5 gdppc , it + β 6 pgr , it + β 7 ps , it + αi + ui (2) HDI , it = β 1 sc , it + β 2 iq , it + β 3 gdppc , it + β 4 pgr + β 5 ps , it + αi + uit (3) HDI , it = β 1 democ , it + β 2 sc , it + β3 democsc it + β 4 iq , it + β 5 gdppc , it + β 6 pgr + β 7 ps , it + αi + uit For infant mortality (IMR,it), life expectancy (LXP,it), and basic drinking water (BASW,it), which represent the other dependent variables, the same equation was used along with the independent variables. The dynamic panel models are specified as follows: (4) HDI , it = hdi , it – 1 + β 1 democ , it + β 2 sc , it + β3 democsc it + β 4 iq , it + β 5 gdppc , it + β 6 pgr + β 7 ps , it + αi + uit For infant mortality (IMR,it), life expectancy (LXP,it), and basic drinking water (BASW,it), which represent the other dependent variables, the same equation and independent variables were used. − HDI, it represents the human development index for entity i at time t, while hdi,it – 1 is its one-year lag variable. − Democ stands for multiparty democracy, with β1 as its coefficient. − SC stands for Social Cohesion and β2 is its coefficient. − DemocSC stands for the interaction between democracy and social cohesion, with β3 as its coefficient. − IQ stands for institutional quality, with β4 as its coefficient. − GDPPC stands for per capita GDP, with β5 as its coefficient. − PGR stands for population growth, with β6 as its coefficient. − PS stands for political stability, with β7 as its coefficient. − α i (i=1 … .n) is the unknown intercept for each country (n entity-specific intercepts). − u it is the term of error. Results The current study seeks to bridge some gaps in the literature on multiparty democracy and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa and to address the scholarly contention that social cohesion, rather than democracy begets development. Owing to in-depth investigations, the study provides new insight into the causes of inadequate development, along with some policy measures to help improve the well-being of Sub-Saharan African populations. The empirical findings of this study are organized and presented in accordance with the following research objectives: (i) to determine the effect of multiparty democracy on human development; (ii) to determine the effect of social cohesion on human development; and (iii) to determine the effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. The results of the diagnostic checks pertaining to the descriptive statistics, the correlation matrix, and the Breush-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg and Wooldridge tests of heteroscedasticity and serial correlation are documented in the following subsections. Descriptive statistics The descriptive statistics in Table 2 show the potential presence of outliers for variables such as infant mortality: mean (65.389) and standard deviation (27.56); life expectancy: mean (56.217) and dispersion of (6.934); and basic drinking water: mean (63.065) and low dispersion of (15.223). The data indicated that certain countries perform better than others with regard to particular variables. However, owing to the large data observation (822), the outliers did not significantly violate the normality assumption. Table 2. Descriptive statistics for 35 countries in SSA. Variable Obs Mean Std.Dev. Min Max HDI 822 .483 .108 .24 .804 Democ1 875 4.047 1.595 1 7 SC 840 14.07 4.862 0 24 IQ 735 -.721 .624 -1.88 1.06 GDPGR 861 4.41 7.674 -36.39 149.97 PGR 867 2.473 .951 -.64 7.9 PS 735 -.381 .794 -2.7 1.22 Coastal 875 .714 .452 0 1 PR 875 4.106 1.847 1 7 CL 875 3.985 1.436 1 7 Democ2 841 4.385 3.33 0 10 BASW 628 63.065 15.223 19.89 99.86 LR 825 4.616 2.108 .9 10.2 GDPPC 840 4120.237 6317.462 378 47562 IMR 875 65.389 27.56 12.5 164 LEXP 840 56.217 6.934 37.08 74.51 Democ1SC 840 61.729 35.504 0 168 Democ2SC 840 52.698 42.283 0 161 Matrix of correlation Table 3 illustrates that the correlation between multiparty democracy 1 and political rights on one side, and the correlation between multiparty democracy 1 and civil liberties on the other side, are very high, with respective values of 0.97 and 0.96. To resolve this issue of multicollinearity, the concerned variables were separated in the estimation models. Table 3. Correlation matrix. Variables hdi dem1 sc iq gdpgr pgr ps co pr cl dem2 bsw lr gdppc imr lexp DemocSC HDI 1.000 Democ1 -0.316 1.000 SC -0.798 0.624 1.000 IQ 0.545 -0.742 -0.727 1.000 GDPGR 0.009 -0.147 -0.051 0.056 1.000 PGR -0.320 0.359 0.409 -0.450 0.223 1.000 PS 0.530 -0.614 -0.726 0.633 0.162 -0.177 1.000 CO 0.361 -0.021 -0.199 0.016 0.060 0.127 0.097 1.000 PR -0.289 0.979 0.584 -0.699 -0.142 0.363 -0.579 -0.006 1.000 CL -0.326 0.965 0.635 -0.750 -0.145 0.334 -0.616 -0.034 0.892 1.000 Democ2 0.321 -0.822 -0.531 0.566 0.110 -0.352 0.444 -0.078 -0.846 -0.740 1.000 BASW 0.736 -0.383 -0.642 0.458 -0.106 -0.507 0.362 0.152 -0.372 -0.373 0.407 1.000 LR 0.826 -0.193 -0.605 0.463 -0.045 -0.414 0.382 0.131 -0.187 -0.186 0.215 0.541 1.000 GDPPC 0.589 0.093 -0.445 0.162 0.047 0.097 0.360 0.193 0.094 0.089 -0.063 0.353 0.454 1.000 IMR -0.749 0.398 0.758 -0.596 0.065 0.337 -0.444 -0.113 0.369 0.409 -0.391 -0.592 -0.610 -0.216 1.000 LEXP 0.664 -0.321 -0.602 0.368 0.014 -0.044 0.342 0.370 -0.296 -0.331 0.327 0.486 0.280 0.231 -0.751 1.000 democSC -0.536 0.910 0.843 -0.755 -0.154 0.305 -0.749 -0.118 0.878 0.893 -0.755 -0.478 -0.380 -0.162 0.569 -0.452 1.000 Heteroscedasticity and serial correlation tests In Table 4 , the results of the analyses revealed the absence of heteroscedasticity. As for the Wooldridge test, the results indicated the presence of serial correlation, which was rectified over the course of the analysis. Table 4. Heteroscedasticity and serial correlation tests. Breush-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg Test for Heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance Variables: Fitted values of HDI Chi 2 (1) = 1.56 Prob > Chi 2 = 0.2116 Source: Author’s computation. Note: Reject Ho if P-value is less than 5% or 0.05 and conclude the presence of heteroskedasticity Wooldridge Test for Auto/Serial Correlation Ho: N first-order autocorrelation F (1,34) = 122.876 Prob>F = 0.0000 Source: Author’s computation. Note: Reject Ho if p-value is less than 5% (0.05) and conclude the presence of serial or autocorrelation Effect of multiparty democracy on human development Four varying measures were used to test the hypothesis across the fixed-effects estimation: multiparty democracy 1 or Democ1, multiparty democracy 2 or Democ2, political rights, and civil liberties. The dependent variables were the human development index, the variable of interest, and three of its proxies: infant mortality, life expectancy, and basic drinking water. Other variables were added to the model as control variables in accordance with the existing literature. From models (1) to (3) in Table 5 , results showed that both multiparty democracy 1 and 2 (Democ1 and Democ2) appeared related to human development. While multiparty democracy 1 was shown to exert a negative impact on human development at 5%, multiparty democracy 2 appeared to be positively related to human development at a 1% error level. The data indicate that a 5% change in the value of multiparty democracy1 is likely to be associated with -0.0147 points worth of decrease in the human development index, while a single unit change in the value of multiparty democracy 2 will be associated with 0.0110 points worth of increase in the human development index. The immediate implications of these findings corroborated Gerring et al. ’s (2012) study, wherein the contemporary level of a country’s democracy was found to have only a weak association with enhanced human development; however, its historical experience with democracy has a strong influence on human development. Given the periodicity of the data that began in 1995, i.e., only 3 to 4 years after the democratization of most countries in SSA, in addition to the fact that multiparty democracy is relatively new in Africa, one may expect it to have little or no effect on the well-being of the population in SSA. Table 5. Dependent variable: Human development index (fixed effects estimation). Variables (1) (2) (3) HDI HDI HDI Democ1 -0.0147 ** (0.00669) Democ2 0.0110 *** (0.00187) PR -0.00512 (0.00508) CL -0.0107 (0.00743) GDPPC 8.82e-06 7.74e-06 * 8.83e-06 * (5.23e-06) (4.48e-06) (5.20e-06) IQ -0.0198 -0.00855 -0.0194 (0.0188) (0.0158) (0.0189) PGR 0.00572 0.000285 0.00556 (0.0102) (0.00855) (0.0104) PS -0.0113 -0.0129 -0.0115 (0.0132) (0.0101) (0.0132) Constant 0.475 *** 0.391 *** 0.480 *** (0.0411) (0.0334) (0.0432) Observations 667 667 667 R-squared 0.182 0.309 0.182 Number of countries 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. With regard to the control variables included in the models, the findings indicated that GDP per capita was the only variable associated with human development. This variable was shown to have a positive impact on human development in models (2) and (3). Bear in mind that the focus of the argumentation of the pro-democracy theories remains on the consolidation of per capita GDP through redistribution. For many scholars, including Aristotle, Madison, and some present-day political economists, it is undeniable that democracy serves as a mechanism for redistribution, and consequently, for human development ( Meltzer & Richard, 1981 ). Hence, these pro-democracy scholars would opine that the advent of democracy would result in higher government social spending, which, in turn, would improve the welfare of the poor and influence human development. Today, this point is contradicted by a mass of existing research findings (see Gerring, et al. , 2012 ; McGuire, 2006 ; Ross, 2006 ; Shandra et al. , 2004 ). From models (1) to (3) in Table 6 below, the findings showed that multiparty democracy 2 is negatively associated with infant mortality at the 0.01 level. The forecast of the results suggested that for a unit of change in the value of multiparty democracy 2, a -3.622-point decrease is likely to occur in the struggle toward improvement in infant mortality. As explained in the previous table (Table 4.4), these findings are in line with the current literature. Owing to in-depth exploration and a series of regression checks with the infant mortality rate as the core measure of human development alongside two hypotheses (the first, replicating the traditional causal model that links IMR to a country’s achievement or level of democracy in the previous year; and the second, measuring democracy with a “stock” indicator that captures the regime history of a country from 1900 to the observation year), Gerring et al. (2012) finds that multiparty democracy has a long-term effect on human development characterized by a distal rather than proximal causal relationship. According to these authors, multiparty democracy ameliorates human development only in case it is considered a historical or “stock” phenomenon. This implies that if a democratic system of governance is upheld over a longer period of time, its net effect will be resolute for the welfare of its citizens ( Gerring et al. , 2012 ). However, this is not the case with SSA Africa, which has a relatively new democracy, which is a form of government that has not been upheld for long in most countries. Table 6. Dependent variable: Infant mortality (fixed effects estimation). Variables (1) (2) (3) IMR IMR IMR Democ1 3.722 (2.678) Democ2 -3.622 *** (0.620) PR 1.175 (1.927) CL 2.899 (2.574) GDPPC -0.00162 ** -0.00144 ** -0.00161 ** (0.000735) (0.000560) (0.000731) IQ 9.493 6.724 9.361 (6.010) (5.805) (5.963) PGR 1.719 2.888 1.696 (3.787) (3.379) (3.777) PS -1.889 -0.306 -1.801 (5.434) (4.434) (5.409) Constant 57.12 *** 83.65 *** 55.83 *** (17.76) (9.600) (17.71) Observations 693 693 693 R-squared 0.116 0.260 0.117 Number of countries 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The findings further showed that GDP per capita may dampen progress toward the amelioration of the infant mortality rate. The DGPPC exerts a negative impact on infant mortality at the 0.05 level, which may be explained by the lack of sufficient healthcare systems and services throughout SSA. Moreover, many countries in SSA are imbued with unrelenting discrepancies in terms of wealth and rampant poverty. To improve the infant mortality rate in SSA, rather than solely enhancing personal income, governments must implement better public policies that could lead to improvements in environmental conditions and healthcare. From models (1) to (3) in Table 7 , the results showed that multiparty democracy 2 is the only variable that was significant out of all independent variables. Democ2 was significant at the 0.01 level, which implies that a unit change in its value is likely to be associated with a unit increase in life expectancy. This result reinforces the prodemocracy theories, which emphasize that popular participation in government empowers ordinary citizens and, consequently, leads governments to become more accountable for their interests ( Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ; Ross, 2006 ). The proponents of these theories strongly believe that democracy would lead to higher government social spending, which, in turn, would improve the welfare of the poor and lead to the amelioration in social welfare as measured by mortality, literacy, and other human development outcomes ( Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ). However, given the limited resources in most SSA countries and the lack of quality institutions, unrelenting discrepancies are observed in terms of wealth and rampant poverty, which may impact life expectancy at birth. Table 7. Dependent variable: Life expectancy (fixed effects estimation). Variables (1) (2) (3) LEXP LEXP LEXP Democ1 -0.770 (0.675) Democ2 1.000 *** (0.183) PR -0.296 (0.488) CL -0.511 (0.693) GDPPC 0.000453 0.000404 0.000452 (0.000341) (0.000291) (0.000341) IQ -1.920 -1.292 -1.900 (1.681) (1.459) (1.683) PGR 0.508 0.186 0.512 (0.951) (0.802) (0.951) PS 0.166 -0.397 0.159 (1.308) (1.031) (1.309) Constant 55.39 *** 48.94 *** 55.53 *** (4.034) (2.649) (4.133) Observations 693 693 693 R-squared 0.096 0.238 0.096 Number of countries 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. From models (1) to (3) in Table 8 , the results demonstrated that none of the four measures of multiparty democracy were related to the measures of human development, which contrasts the prodemocracy theories. However, they corroborate the findings of recent works on the relationship between democracy and human development. Numerous studies with large samples for quantitative and qualitative inquiries have been conducted to corroborate the absence of tangible relations between regime type and diverse aspects or measures of human development ( Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ; McGuire, 2006 ; Ross, 2006 ; Shandra et al. , 2004 ). These studies have fiercely challenged and debunked the commonly held view that democracy influences the well-being of individuals. Beyond the context of the OECD countries, no substantiation of tangible relationships between public spending and human development has been observed ( Filmer & Pritchett, 1999 ; McGuire, 2006 ). Table 8. Dependent variable: Basic drinking water (fixed effects estimation). Variables (1) (2) (3) BASW BASW BASW Democ1 -0.508 (1.060) Democ2 0.505 (0.363) PR 0.467 (0.731) CL -1.426 (1.133) GDPPC 0.000770 ** 0.000731 ** 0.000783 ** (0.000378) (0.000347) (0.000374) IQ -5.156 * -4.814 -5.214 * (2.895) (2.853) (2.848) PGR -0.943 -1.179 -1.009 (1.269) (1.303) (1.246) PS -1.474 -1.742 -1.483 (1.717) (1.760) (1.710) Constant 60.04 *** 56.54 *** 61.74 *** (5.386) (4.250) (5.459) Observations 588 588 588 R-squared 0.141 0.159 0.153 Number of countries 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Regarding the control variables that were included in the models, GDP per capita appeared to have a positive effect on basic drinking water, while institutional quality demonstrated a negative effect on the same. The low magnitude of the relationship between per capita GDP and basic drinking water is atypical in the Sub-Saharan African region, where a lack of quality institutions hinders public policy implementations and the potential for an impact of economic growth on human development. Overall, the findings showed that the four measures of multiparty democracy had mixed effects on the measures of human development. Multiparty democracy 1 appeared to have a negative relation with the human development index, also carrying an insignificant impact on infant mortality, life expectancy, and basic drinking water. Multiparty democracy 2 was shown to entertain two positive relations, one with the human development index and another with life expectancy. Furthermore, negative and insignificant associations were observed with infant mortality and basic drinking water, respectively. Nevertheless, these mixed findings lend support to part of research hypothesis 1 and the recent literature ( Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ; Ross, 2006 ), indicating certain long-term positive effects of multiparty democracy on human development. According to the recent literature, multiparty democracy has little to no effect on human development, as characterized in these results by a negative and a low magnitude positive relationship between the two variables ( Gerring et al. , 2012 , 2015 ; Ross, 2006 ). Effect of social cohesion on human development In order to test this hypothesis across the estimations, one measure of social cohesion (SC) was used, with four varying measures of human development as the dependent variables: the human development index, infant mortality, life expectancy, and basic drinking water. Other variables were added to the model as control variables in accordance with the existing literature: per capita GDP, institutional quality, population growth, and political stability. From models (1) to (4) in Table 9 below, the results showed that social cohesion has a positive effect on infant mortality at the 0.01 level, while it corresponds with a negative impact on the remaining three dependent variables: human development index, life expectancy, and basic drinking water at the same level (0.01). To forecast these results, a unit change in the value of social cohesion will be associated with a 4.164-point increase in infant mortality rate amelioration, and a -0.0132, -1.210, and -1.554 decrease in the human development index, life expectance, and basic drinking water services, respectively. This is consistent with the current literature, which makes frequent usage of infant mortality as a measure of human development, insisting on the presence of a long-term relationship between the two variables. Table 9. Dependent variables: HDI; IMR, LEXP, BASW (fixed effects estimations). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) HDI IMR LEXP BASW SC -0.0132 *** 4.164 *** -1.210 *** -1.554 *** (0.00218) (0.722) (0.229) (0.274) GDPPC 5.98e-06 * -0.000951 *** 0.000260 0.000526 *** (3.17e-06) (0.000346) (0.000218) (0.000165) IQ 0.00110 2.590 -0.0789 -2.589 (0.0156) (5.730) (1.574) (2.427) PGR 0.00733 1.024 0.711 -0.518 (0.0107) (3.159) (0.842) (0.663) PS -0.0203 ** 1.775 -1.050 -3.134 ** (0.00830) (3.665) (0.856) (1.455) Constant 0.618 *** 9.837 70.19 *** 80.52 *** (0.0375) (12.90) (3.712) (3.831) Observations 667 693 693 588 R-squared 0.455 0.367 0.364 0.424 Number of countries 35 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Referring to the control variables that were included in the models (per capita GDP, institutional quality, political stability, and population growth rate), only two appeared to have impacts on the dependent variables. Hence, per capita GDP seemed to dampen progress in infant mortality improvement at the 0.01 level while it showed a positive impact on basic drinking water at the same error level. If we forecast the results of the effect of GDPPC on infant mortality, a 1% change will appear in the value of per capita GDP, which will be associated with a decrease of -0.000951 points toward improvement in the infant mortality rate. Furthermore, a change of 10% in the value of per capita GDP will be associated with a 5.98e-06-points increase in the human development; a 1% change in the same variable is likely to be associated with a 0.000526-point increase in the addition of clean water. These results demonstrate that GDPPC has no positive effect on the accomplishment of a good infant mortality rate in the context of SSA, rather, it shows little effect on the improvement of the human development index and basic drinking water. One reason to believe in this conclusion is that, according to the raw data, the country in SSA with the highest GDPPC, Equatorial Guinea (with $47,562), is not among the best performers as far as infant mortality rate is concerned. The results further showed that political stability appeared to dampen two measures of human development (HDI and BASW) while it showed no effect on infant mortality and life expectation. Overall, the results have shown that social cohesion was related to human development via infant mortality, as it appeared to have a positive impact at the 0.01 error level. This supports the hypothesis that social cohesion exerts a positive influence on human development. Yet, social cohesion also shows a negative but significant association with other measures of human development (HDI, LEXP, BASW), leading to some mixed findings and support for the research hypothesis, current literature, and the supporting theory, which indicated some long-term positive effects of social cohesion on human development. Effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development To test this hypothesis across the estimation, SC, which represented a measure of social cohesion was used along with two varying measures of multiparty democracy: multiparty democracy 1 and multiparty democracy 2. However, due to the high correlation between the two measures of multiparty democracy, they were used in separate models. The dependent variables were human development, infant mortality, life expectancy, and basic drinking water. Other variables were added to the model as control variables in accordance with the existing literature. The results from models (1) to (4) in Table 10 showed that multiparty democracy 1 had no effect whatsoever on any measure of human development. In contrast, social cohesion had a significant positive relation with infant mortality, although it showed a negative impact on the human development index, life expectancy, and basic drinking water at the 0.01 and 0.1 levels, respectively. These results may be forecasted by hinting that a unit change in the value of social cohesion is associated with a 4.297-point increase in progress toward improvement in infant mortality. Moreover, a unit change in the value of social cohesion is likely to be associated with a -0.0198, -1.567, and -1.671-point decrease in progress toward ameliorating the human development index, life expectancy, and basic drinking water, respectively, in the Sub-Saharan African region. Thus, social cohesion, in this study, improves only the infant mortality rate. Surprisingly, however, the interactive effect of multiparty democracy and social cohesion showed a positive association with the human development index and basic drinking water. It is also worth noting that multiparty democracy 1 failed to show any positive relationship with the human development index or basic drinking water on an individual level. However, when multiparty democracy 1 interacted with social cohesion, the sign of the coefficient of these variables changed, showing a positive association with the human development index and basic drinking water. These findings suggested that despite the level of significance, the interaction between multiparty democracy 1 and social cohesion has the potential to improve human development conditions within a country. The interaction term between multiparty democracy and social cohesion was significant at the 1% level. Table 10. Dependent variables: HDI, IMR, LEXP, BASW (FE estimations with Democ1). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) HDI IMR LEXP BASW Democ1 -0.0251 -0.650 -0.573 1.106 (0.0176) (6.592) (1.872) (2.303) SC -0.0198 *** 4.297 *** -1.567 *** -1.671 ** (0.00352) (1.481) (0.439) (0.623) Democ1SC 0.00159 *** -0.0119 *** 0.0716 0.00566 *** (0.00106) (0.440) (0.122) (0.115) GDPC 5.97e-06 * -0.000935 ** 0.000258 0.000480 *** (3.21e-06) (0.000345) (0.000209) (0.000150) IQ 0.00648 2.012 0.501 -1.923 (0.0153) (4.701) (1.473) (2.596) PGR 0.0108 0.994 0.813 -0.317 (0.00879) (3.129) (0.774) (0.736) PS -0.0189 ** 1.464 -0.767 -2.524 * (0.00888) (3.963) (0.914) (1.320) Constant 0.709 *** 10.77 73.39 *** 77.84 *** (0.0613) (19.54) (6.654) (9.616) Observations 667 693 693 588 R-squared 0.470 0.368 0.373 0.436 Number of countries 35 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Regarding the control variables included in the models (per capita GDP, institutional quality, political stability, and population growth rate), GDP per capita appeared to have a positive effect on the human development index and basic drinking water, while it demonstrated a negative impact on infant mortality. Meanwhile, political stability showed a negative effect on the human development index and basic drinking water in models (1) and (4). Lack of political stability, when coupled with a lack of quality institutions, uncontrolled population growth, and inadequate income distribution could only hinder progress toward sustained human development. A closer look at the raw data indicated that the best-performing countries in terms of human development in the Sub-Saharan African region had four important factors in common - a controlled population growth rate, better institutions, better per capita share among their population, and above all, a stable political environment. From models (1) to (4) in Table 11 , the results demonstrate that multiparty democracy 2 (Democ2) is related to only one measure of human development - basic drinking water. On the contrary, social cohesion was positively related to infant mortality, albeit posing a negative impact on the human development index, life expectancy, and basic drinking water at a 0.01 error level. These results are forecasted to hint that a unit change in the value of social cohesion is associated with a 4.566-point increase in the amelioration of infant mortality rate. Furthermore, a unit change in the value of social cohesion is likely to be associated with a -0.0117, -1.015, and -2.115-point decrease in progress toward amelioration of the human development index, life expectancy, and basic drinking water, respectively, in the Sub-Saharan African region. Thus, social cohesion only improves the infant mortality rate. Note that multiparty democracy 2 had no significant positive relation with any measure of human development. Yet, when it interacted with social cohesion, the effects of the interaction term have become significant with both infant mortality (negatively) and basic drinking water (positively). These findings suggested that regardless of the level of significance, the interaction of multiparty democracy 2 with social cohesion may potentially improve human development conditions within a country. In other words, social cohesion is at its best when associated with multiparty democracy. The interaction term between multiparty democracy 2 and social cohesion was negative and significant at the 0.05 level in model 2 despite social cohesion being positively associated with infant mortality, and positively significant at the 0.1 level with basic drinking water. These results suggested a distal, rather than a proximal, effect of the interaction of both variables in the context of human development. Table 11. Dependent variables: HDI, IMR, LEXP, BASW (FE estimations with Democ2). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) HDI IMR LEXP BASW Democ2 0.00427 1.634 0.596 -1.929 * (0.00651) (1.994) (0.615) (1.073) SC -0.0117 *** 4.566 *** -1.015 *** -2.115 *** (0.00332) (1.097) (0.311) (0.363) Democ2SC 0.000115 -0.235 ** -0.000822 0.0999 * (0.000324) (0.109) (0.0297) (0.0535) GDPC 5.99e-06 * -0.000996 *** 0.000264 0.000575 *** (3.18e-06) (0.000359) (0.000210) (0.000200) IQ 0.000814 3.767 -0.174 -2.814 (0.0135) (4.832) (1.390) (2.183) PGR 0.00275 2.384 0.493 -0.463 (0.00982) (3.141) (0.776) (0.741) PS -0.0234 *** 4.084 -1.340 * -3.385 ** (0.00720) (3.248) (0.773) (1.491) Constant 0.582 *** 8.240 65.14 *** 91.10 *** (0.0561) (19.04) (5.307) (6.888) Observations 667 693 693 588 R-squared 0.500 0.435 0.409 0.447 Number of c id 35 35 35 35 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Overall, the results have shown that the two measures of interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion (Democ1SC and Democ2SC) had positive effects on two measures of human development (HDI and BASW), with a negative impact on infant mortality and no significant association with life expectancy. Further, with regard to the magnitude of the relationship, one could only conclude that the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion has a positive long-term effect on human development. These mixed findings lend support to the third research hypothesis (H3), which assumes that the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion has a positive effect on human development. Instrumental variable approach and robustness checks Note that fixed effects estimations may have certain disadvantages that derive from the presence of endogeneity and omitted variable prejudice, which has been addressed in this study using an instrumental variable (IV) approach in the system generalized methods of moments. The results from the system GMM estimation in Table 12 , specifically columns (1) to (5), indicated that the lag of the human development index was statistically significant (0.997, 1.001, 0.992, 0.996, 0.999) at the 1% level. This further implies that human development is strongly persistent in SSA. Considering the choice of one lag length, the insignificant specification test results of the AR (2) (0.790, 0.835, 0.945, 0.882, and 0.528) revealed that the system GMM model did not suffer from second-order serial correlation and that the null hypothesis could be accepted. In addition, the results of the Hansen test (0.167, 0.144, 0.266, 0.185, 0.230) have shown that the instruments used were not over-identified, suggesting that they were valid or not correlated with the error term. The results of the system GMM were, to a lesser extent, consistent with the fixed effects estimation albeit with certain minor differences. The coefficients of many of the variables were not significant compared to the fixed effects. In columns (2, 3, and 5), for instance, social cohesion was shown to have no influence on human development, which is unlike the case of fixed effects estimation, where it exerted a negative impact on three measures of human development (HDI, LEXP, BASW) and a positive impact on the fourth (IMR). Multiparty democracy 2 was also not significant as it was in the fixed effects estimation, just as in the case of its interaction with social cohesion, which was not only insignificant but also illustrated a negative coefficient. In column (3), however, apart from the error level, the statistical direction of multiparty democracy 1 and its interaction with social cohesion did not change, remaining negative and significant for the former and positively significant for the latter at the 1% error level. The positive sign of the interaction between multiparty democracy 1 and social cohesion (Democ1SC) suggested that social cohesion has the potential for dampening the negative effect of multiparty democracy on human development. Table 12. GMM estimation (with HDI as the dependable variable). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) HDI HDI HDI HDI HDI L.HDI 0.997 *** 1.001 *** 0.992 *** 0.996 *** 0.999 *** (0.0138) (0.0210) (0.0288) (0.0159) (0.0269) Democ1 -0.00163 -0.0233 * (0.00100) (0.0124) Social cohesion 1.81e-05 -0.00531 0.00163 (0.000367) (0.00342) (0.00122) Democ1SC 0.00137 * (0.000774) Democ2 0.000360 0.00558 (0.000262) (0.00434) Democ2SC -0.000332 (0.000267) GDPPC 5.56e-08 -6.59e-08 2.89e-07 -6.38e-08 -2.77e-07 (3.13e-07) (2.68e-07) (4.02e-07) (2.78e-07) (2.96e-07) IQ -0.00347 -0.00290 0.00128 -0.00281 -0.00238 (0.00267) (0.00282) (0.00554) (0.00258) (0.00304) PGR 0.00376 *** 0.00393 *** 0.00595 ** 0.00367 *** 0.00471 *** (0.00128) (0.00123) (0.00229) (0.00116) (0.00141) PS 0.000525 0.00154 0.00147 0.00116 0.00258 * (0.00113) (0.00110) (0.00189) (0.000982) (0.00143) Observations 625 625 625 625 625 No. of groups 35 35 35 35 35 No. of instruments 28 27 27 28 27 AR (1) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 AR (2) 0.790 0.835 0.945 0.882 0.528 Sargan (OIR) 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 Hansen (OIR) 0.167 0.144 0.266 0.185 0.230 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The results from the system GMM estimation in Table 13 below, specifically columns (1) to (5), indicated that the lag of infant mortality was statistically significant (0.970, 0.970, 0.965, 0.967, 0.981) at the 1% level. This suggests that infant mortality is strongly persistent in SSA. Considering the choice of one lag length, the insignificant specification test results of the AR (2) (0.528, 0.531, 0.450, 0.554, and 0.417) revealed that the system GMM model did not suffer from second-order serial correlation and that the null hypothesis could be accepted. Furthermore, the results of the Hansen test (0.230, 0.219, 0.662, 0.112, and 0.262) showed that the instruments used were not over-identified; hence, they were valid or not correlated with the error term. The results of the system GMM were, to a lesser extent, consistent with the fixed effects estimation, albeit with several differences. The coefficients of many of the variables were significant after controlling for endogeneity issues, unlike in the results of the fixed effects estimation. In column (3), for instance, the coefficient of multiparty democracy 1, which has never shown a positive significance in the fixed effects estimation, has shown a positive value in the GMM estimation, although the statistical direction of its interaction with social cohesion (Democ1SC) is unchanged. In columns (3) and (5), social cohesion was shown to have a positive and a negative impact on infant mortality, unlike in the fixed effects estimation, where it has always been positive. Hence, in column (3), social cohesion has retained its positive effect on infant mortality while the magnitude of the relationship has shrunk from 4.164 at the 1% error level to 1.054 at the 5% level. In column (5), the sign of the coefficient of the variable has become negative at the 10% level. Note that social cohesion has always shown a positive significant relation with infant mortality in the fixed effects estimation. Moreover, in column (5), the sign of the coefficient of multiparty democracy 2 was shown to be negative and significant, similar to its state in the fixed effects estimation. However, its interaction with social cohesion has become positive at the 10% error level, indicating that the negative effect of multiparty democracy 2 on infant mortality has been dampened by its interaction with social cohesion. Table 13. GMM estimation (with IMR as the dependable variable). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) IMR IMR IMR IMR IMR L.IMR 0.970 *** 0.970 *** 0.965 *** 0.967 *** 0.981 *** (0.00915) (0.00915) (0.0107) (0.0102) (0.0139) Democ1 0.152 0.152 4.783 ** (0.160) (0.160) (1.770) SC 1.054 ** -0.672 * (0.451) (0.340) Democ1SC -0.271 ** (0.107) Democ2 -0.0516 -1.860 * (0.0518) (0.986) Democ2SC 0.113 * (0.0612) GDPPC -3.24e-05 ** -3.24e-05 ** -8.40e-05 ** -3.87e-05 * -4.15e-05 (1.40e-05) (1.40e-05) (3.51e-05) (2.18e-05) (4.07e-05) IQ 0.589 * 0.589 * 0.0760 0.644 ** 0.503 (0.294) (0.294) (0.622) (0.275) (0.651) PGR -0.180 -0.180 -0.604 -0.181 -0.283 (0.217) (0.217) (0.359) (0.200) (0.416) PS 0.00136 0.00136 -0.106 -0.0626 -0.603 (0.143) (0.143) (0.492) (0.137) (0.427) Observations 658 658 658 658 658 No. of groups 35 35 35 35 35 No. of instruments 28 27 28 27 28 AR (1) 0.001 0.180 0.171 0.168 0.059 AR (2) 0.528 0.531 0.450 0.554 0.417 Sargan (OIR) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hansen (OIR) 0.230 0.219 0.662 0.112 0.262 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. From the results of the system GMM estimation method in Table 14 , one may note how columns (1) to (5) indicated that the lag of life expectancy was statistically significant (-0.200, -0.114, -0.179, -0.204, -0.182) at the 1% level, suggesting that life expectancy is weakly persistent in SSA. The insignificant specification test results of the AR (2) (0.122, 0.101, 0.012, 0.100, and 0.185) revealed that the system GMM model did not suffer from second-order serial correlation and that the null hypothesis could be accepted. Furthermore, the results of the Hansen test (0.936, 0.936, 0.936, 0.936, 0.937) show that the instruments used were not over-identified; hence, they were valid or not correlated with the error term. The result of the system GMM estimation was, to a lesser extent, consistent with the fixed effects method, albeit with several major differences. The coefficients of many of the variables, which were insignificant in the fixed effects estimation, were found to be significant in the GMM estimation. Hence, in column (1), the sign of the coefficient of multiparty democracy 1 is significant and positive at the 10% level, unlike in the fixed effects estimation, where it appeared to be non-significant and negative. In column (2), the sign of the coefficient of social cohesion remains the same. In column (3), the sign of the coefficient of multiparty democracy 1, which was positive in column 1, was found to be negative and significant at the 1% level, in contrast with the data indicated in the fixed effects estimation results. Further, the interaction between multiparty democracy 1 and social cohesion (Democ1SC), which was insignificant in the fixed effects estimation, has become significant and positive in the GMM estimation (0.314) at the 1% level. In column (5), the coefficient of the social cohesion variable has become positive and significant at the 10% level (0.238), in contrast with the fixed effects estimation results, where it has never been positive. Furthermore, in the same column, the sign of multiparty democracy 2 has remained positive and significant, as in the fixed effects estimation, at the 1% level in the GMM estimation (2.708), whereas its interaction with social cohesion, which was insignificant and negative in the fixed effects estimation, has become significant and negative in the GMM model at the 1% level. This suggests that the combined effects of the two variables had a negative effect on life expectancy. Table 14. GMM estimation (with LEXP as the dependable variable). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) LEXP LEXP LEXP LEXP LEXP L.LEXP -0.200 *** -0.114 *** -0.179 *** -0.204 *** -0.182 *** (0.00986) (0.0295) (0.0176) (0.0122) (0.0279) Democ1 0.253 * -3.980 *** (0.131) (0.633) SC -1.459 *** -2.054 *** 0.238 * (0.109) (0.176) (0.127) Democ1SC 0.314 *** (0.0404) GDPPC 3.86e-05 * -0.000191 *** -0.000162 *** 4.56e-05 ** -0.000163 *** (2.20e-05) (2.47e-05) (1.94e-05) (1.84e-05) (1.97e-05) IQ 4.317 *** -0.400 0.424 4.189 *** -0.130 (0.342) (0.350) (0.430) (0.257) (0.475) PGR 0.932 *** 2.182 *** 2.894 *** 0.911 *** 3.077 *** (0.107) (0.264) (0.455) (0.0843) (0.486) PS 1.247 *** -2.158 *** 0.121 1.162 *** 0.424 (0.185) (0.460) (0.406) (0.217) (0.595) Democ2 -0.101 ** 2.708 *** (0.0441) (0.311) Democ2SC -0.199 *** (0.0201) Observations 653 653 653 653 653 No. of groups 35 35 35 35 35 No. of instruments 27 28 28 27 28 AR (1) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 AR (2) 0.122 0.101 0.012 0.100 0.185 Sargan (OIR) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hansen (OIR) 0.936 0.936 0.936 0.936 0.937 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The results of the system GMM estimation method in Table 15 , columns (1) to (5) indicated that the lag of basic drinking water was statistically significant (0.993, 0.994, 0.986, 0.997, 0.982) at the 1% level, suggesting that basic drinking water is strongly persistent in SSA. The insignificant specification test results of the AR (2) (0.081, 0.084, 0.097, 0.087, and 0.092) revealed that the system GMM model did not suffer from second-order serial correlation and that the null hypothesis could not be rejected. In addition, the results of the Hansen test (0.771, 0.713, 0.754, 0.634, 0.821) show that the instruments used were not over-identified; hence, they were valid or not correlated with the error terms. The results of the system GMM estimation were, to some extent, totally inconsistent with the fixed effects estimation, with several differences. The coefficients of many of the variables of interest were not significant, relative to the fixed effects. In columns (2, 3, and 5), for instance, social cohesion was shown to have no impact on basic drinking water unlike in the fixed effects estimation where it had a negative but significant effect on all measures of BASW. Moreover, the coefficient of the interaction between multiparty democracy 1 and 2 with social cohesion (Democ1SC and Democ2SC), which were significant and positive in the fixed effects estimation at 1% and 10%, respectively, have become insignificant in the system GMM estimation. Moreover, the coefficients of the multiparty democracy 1 and 2 variables have remained insignificant in the system GMM estimation. Table 15. GMM estimation (with BASW as the dependable variable). Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BASW BASW BASW BASW BASW L.BASW 0.993 *** 0.994 *** 0.986 *** 0.997 *** 0.982 *** (0.00618) (0.0118) (0.0101) (0.00541) (0.0155) Democ1 -0.0874 -0.503 (0.114) (0.350) SC -0.0123 -0.149 0.00866 (0.0197) (0.103) (0.0425) Democ1SC 0.0330 (0.0223) GDPPC 2.55e-05 *** 2.09e-05 * 2.72e-05 *** 1.95e-05 ** 1.72e-05 (8.57e-06) (1.13e-05) (9.93e-06) (9.43e-06) (1.58e-05) IQ -0.161 * -0.133 -0.0611 -0.125 ** -0.145 * (0.0861) (0.0926) (0.0789) (0.0485) (0.0716) PGR -0.0744 -0.0637 -0.0293 -0.0550 -0.0452 (0.0883) (0.0597) (0.0364) (0.0572) (0.0656) PS -0.0372 -0.0104 0.0240 0.00776 -0.00592 (0.0629) (0.0436) (0.0416) (0.0335) (0.0406) Democ2 -0.00107 0.145 (0.00852) (0.135) Democ2SC -0.00949 (0.00871) Observations 518 518 518 518 518 No. of groups 35 35 35 35 35 No. of instruments 25 25 27 26 26 AR (1) 0.094 0.095 0.089 0.094 0.093 AR (2) 0.081 0.084 0.097 0.087 0.092 Sargan (OIR) 0.882 0.812 0.952 0.855 0.895 Hansen (OIR) 0.771 0.713 0.754 0.634 0.821 *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Overall, after controlling for endogeneity issues, the results of the system GMM appeared to confirm parts of the research hypotheses, which imply a long-term relationship between multiparty democracy and human development, despite the hybrid character of the findings. Two measures of multiparty democracy, namely Democ1 and democ2, are shown to be positively correlated with two of the four measures of human development (IMR, and LEXP), with a relatively low magnitude association. This suggests a distal, rather than proximal, relationship. Additionally, social cohesion was positively correlated with two measures of human development (IMR and LEXP), much like its interaction with multiparty democracy 1 and 2 (Democ1SC and Democ2SC), which were also positively correlated with the human development index and infant mortality rate, respectively. In sum, these positive significant relationships contrasted with the negative significant and non-significant relations that these variables demonstrated with other measures of human development. Nonetheless, these mixed findings do lend support to the recent literature and hypothesis, which suggests that multiparty democracy has little to no effect on human development, or implies a distal relationship with human development ( Gerring et al. , 2012 ; 2015 ; Ross, 2006 ). In summary, the analysis of the effect of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on the well-being of Sub-Saharan African populations and its findings allowed for three major contributions: a contribution to theory, research, and practice. Regarding the theoretical contribution, it is worth noting that, though the study presented mixed results pertaining to the effects of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development, the findings did nonetheless lend support to the third hypothesis of the study. The results showed that the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion had a positive long-term effect on human development in the context of the Sub-Saharan African region. Hence, when interacted, multiparty democracy and social cohesion were found to be indispensable to human development. Such a finding reinforced the theory of developmental contextualism. On a different note, the analysis of the effect of multiparty democracy on human development revealed some flaws in the extant literature and the push for multiparty democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa as a short cut to human development. To bridge these gaps, the study proposed a hands-on model of democratic reform implementation to help researchers and practitioners to understand why democracy and human development remain so challenging to Sub-Saharan African countries. Finally, the findings provide incitement for policymakers to come up with sound policies that are capable to address the region’s institutional inefficiency and lack of social cohesion that impedes progress toward sustained human development. Limitations and implications for future research This study was beset by several challenges that affected its timely completion. The first challenge was dealing with the data collection. In longitudinal research designs, it is strongly suggested to use a large sample in order to achieve robust findings. In the present study, that was a challenging task since in Sub-Saharan Africa data are not always readily available. This challenge constrained the scope of the study as well as its smooth completion. Nonetheless, with an inclusive sample of 35 countries out of a population of 46, more than 800 observations, and the use of advanced statistical techniques such as the system generalized method of moments estimation technique. the study yielded reliable results. The complete details about the sample of the study, the excluded countries, and the statistical results can be found under Underlying data ( Diori & NaRanong, 2022 ). The second challenge is related to funding and time. Panel data research studies require the use of data from various sources. Yet, in the context of this study, some data were not free since they come with a fee. That situation caused a great financial burden and delays as a result. Based on the above-mentioned challenges, several pathways were uncovered for future researchers in the field of development policy and study. First of all, prospective studies can improve on the existing scholarship by conducting case studies that reflect country-specific characteristics. Since the present study was based on cross-sectional time series analysis, it is possible that critical country-level specificities that are crucial for human development may not be unveiled or addressed even though statistical techniques were used to control for such factors. Hence, conducting further studies which will provide more insights at the individual country level, will make a humble contribution to the strand of literature. Further, since factors such as regime type are decisions that countries would have to take, such individual country-level inquiries will be of great contribution to the existing literature. It is therefore suggested that for prospective studies to be able to effectively investigate specific country issues, time series analysis such as autoregressive distributive lag and cointegration methods should be employed. Future studies could also replicate the present study by using different indices as a measure of multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development at different time spans and geographical settings. This is so important as the use of different data and measures can offer different results. Studies on the relationship between democracy and human development are reemerging. It is thus important for subsequent studies to focus on these areas of research. Such studies should look into the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion in order to find out whether a sufficiently high level of social cohesion could damp the negative influence of multiparty democracy on other human development outcomes, such as urbanization, gender inequality, or institutional quality. Further studies in this regard would contribute to the debate on multiparty democracy and human development. Moreover, the present study examined the effect of democracy and social cohesion on human development from political, social, and economic perspectives. However, it should be noted that the environment forms an important part of the current wave of human development since challenges such as global warming and climate change are transboundary and threaten human survival across the globe. As a consequence, prospective studies should incorporate the environmental dimension of human development in their models. Another area within the democracy and human development literature that prospective studies ought to look at, is to employ a qualitative or mixed-method approach. One limitation of this study was the inability to collect qualitative data where interviews would have been conducted with key government officials and with the international or regional organizations bodies such as the United Nations or the African Union. Interviews with these officials would have enhanced the understanding of how countries are performing with respect to efforts aimed at achieving sustained human development. Therefore, it is suggested that further studies employ either qualitative methods or a mixed-method approach to investigate these issues. Conclusions and recommendations This study examined the effect of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. Overall, the following results were established after controlling for confounding factors. First, multiparty democracy, which was measured using political rights, civil liberties, and democracy indices from the Freedom House and Polity 5, showed a positive but distal relationship with human development in the Sub-Saharan African region. Second, social cohesion also indicated a positive but distal relationship with human development. Third, the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion exerts a positive long-term effect on human development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Based on the implications of these findings, a number of policy recommendations are discussed for achieving sustained human development in the Sub-Saharan African region. From a multiparty democracy perspective, the fact that most countries in the Sub-Saharan African region are still poor and unable to guarantee economic prosperity and sustained human development for themselves despite their democratic credentials does not imply that multiparty democracy, as a regime type, is incapable of alleviating poverty or ensuring higher quality of life. Yet, to sustain human well-being in the Sub-Saharan African region, power must rest completely in the hands of its people. It is only when the masses can participate in the process of governance that accountability can be strengthened, resources are equitably distributed, and the inequality gap between the rich and the poor be reduced. Hence, countries in the Sub-Saharan region must ensure broader political rights and civil liberties for their people. The findings of the study suggested that civil liberties and political rights have a more negative influence on human development in this region, primarily due to the nature of African democracy, which is elitist, neo-patrimonial, and ethnic. Most contributions in the literature on African politics hold neopatrimonialism and ethnicity responsible for the continent’s disappointing human development record and the large discrepancies between the political enticements of the governments and demands for steady development. To improve the quality of SSA democracy and ensure a better impact on human development, important institutional reforms should be considered, in addition to initiatives to address the ethnic and neo-patrimonial nature of the democracy. For instance, to deal with the ethnic character of democracy, other types of political systems such as the one-party system or party-less democracy may be considered. Both these political systems have the potential to unite individuals over ideologies or leaders, overcoming any divides that are ethnic or linguistic. Moreover, real power must be granted to individuals so that they may elect leaders of their choice based on criteria purposefully set by themselves. To address the neo-patrimonial character of SSA democracy, the current weak political party structures and national institutions should be positioned above party and state leaders. Elections should be conducted locally, with each region sending its representative delegates to the federal government. The task of the central or federal government should be to receive, coordinate, and execute the different decisions forwarded by the lower echelon entities or decision-making bodies. Party structures are crucial in politics as they help to determine the status, role, and liability of all members. Beyond party structure, the same adjustment may be carried out in terms of three basic state institutions, which are the state itself, the rule of law, and accountability ( Fukuyama, 2011 ; Matlosa, Ndlovu, Kasenally, & Lodge, 2017 ). Though these institutions are each distinct, they cannot guarantee that the state is impartial, that the rule of law is vigorous and equitable, and that accountability is exercised in all its forms ( Fukuyama, 2011 ; Matlosa et al. , 2017 ). From a social cohesion standpoint, some urgent policy recommendations are made with the hope to achieve sustained human development. For countries in the Sub-Saharan African region to make progress in terms of human development, leaders must adopt significant steps toward good governance, which includes the consolidation of peace, stability, and security. Political commitment should aim to improve institutional quality, adequate and equal per capita share, and political stability, which are indicators that have consistently revealed a more negative influence on human development in SSA. As for institutional quality, governments in Sub-Saharan Africa should expend more resources to ensure the quality delivery of public services by improving civil service without political interference and manipulation, ensuring that public bureaucracy is susceptible to formulating and implementing sound policies that intend to reduce poverty and increase opportunities for human development. While the donor community and the Bretton Wood Institutions constantly urge developing countries to rely on neoliberal market policies for efficient resource allocation, this study firmly recommends a state-led approach for promoting sustainable economic growth and human development in the Sub-Saharan African region. Yet, state-led approaches should not be understood as those that are repressive or restrictive of press freedom or peoples’ participation in political processes. Rather, it is the discretion of the government to exert influence over policy space rather than being controlled and dictated by external players such as the Bretton Woods institutions. Under the neoliberal market force, most countries in Africa have lost control over their policy space. As a result, they seem to lack the capacity to initiate home-grown policies that internalize domestic norms and values, instead of reflecting a western style of governance. The countries in Sub-Saharan Africa must strengthen their governance structure by determining mechanisms that work best for Africa and the African people rather than blindly emulating the Western world. In brief, while policymaking may have a standard procedure, practices must be exercised based on African context, norms, and values. Finally, Sub-Saharan African countries must undertake urgent measures to regulate the speedy rate at which their population continues to grow, which, according to this study, exerts a negative effect on human development, especially given the lack of commensurate economic growth to accommodate the surge. The 2019 UN Population Projections indicated that by 2100, the total population in Africa is expected to reach four billion ( UN DESA Population Division, 2020 ). Consequently, it is more difficult to reduce poverty and inequality, expand health and education facilities, and combat hunger and malnutrition. Ultimately, policies that seek to control population growth should be pursued vigorously. Data availability Underlying data Dataverse: Data on the effects of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development in Sub-Saharan Africa, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/GPTLSJ ( Diori & NaRanong, 2022 ). This project contains the following underlying data: - Dataset.xlsx [the raw data used in the statistical analyses] - Data Tables.docx [illustrative tables of the measures of the different variables used in the study on the effects of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development-based on arithmetic calculations of the mean of five consecutive years in dataset] - Links to the data sources.docx [these are the links to the sources of all of the data collected for the analyses] - Tables-Statistical results.docx [these are the findings of the statistical tests: fixed-effects and GMM estimations, as well as the descriptive statistics, correlation matrix, and the Breush-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg and Wooldridge tests for Heteroskedasticity and serial correlation] - Identification and measurement of the variables used in the study - List of countries included in the sample and the inclusion-exclusion criteria.docx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Author contributions 1. Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Software, Writing-original draft, Methodology 2. Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Review and editing, Formal analysis, Validation References Acemoglu D, Naidu S, Restrepo P, et al. : Democracy does cause growth. J. Polit. Econ. 2019; 127 (1): 47–100. Publisher Full Text Alence R: Political institutions and developmental governance in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 2004; 42 (2): 163–187. Publisher Full Text Altman D, Castiglioni R: Democratic quality and human development in Latin America: 1972–2001. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique. 2009; 42 (2): 297–319. Publisher Full Text Amate-Fortes I, Guarnido-Rueda A, Molina-Morales A: Economic and social determinants of human development: A new perspective. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017; 133 (2): 561–577. Publisher Full Text Arellano M, Bond S: Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1991; 58 (2): 277–297. Publisher Full Text Avelino G, Brown DS, Hunter W: The effects of capital mobility, trade openness, and democracy on social spending in Latin America, 1980–1999. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2005; 49 (3): 625–641. Publisher Full Text Besley T, Kudamatsu M: Health and democracy. American economic review.2006; 96 (2): 313–318. Blaydes L, Kayser MA: Counting calories: democracy and distribution in the developing world. Int. Stud. Q. 2011; 55 (4): 887–908. Publisher Full Text Bolt J, van Zanden JL : Maddison style estimates of the evolution of the world economy. A new 2020 update.2020. Brown DS, Hunter W: Democracy and human capital formation: education spending in Latin America, 1980 to 1997. Comp. Pol. Stud. 2004; 37 (7): 842–864. Publisher Full Text Brown DS, Mobarak AM: The transforming power of democracy: regime type and the distribution of electricity. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2009; 103 (2): 193–213. Publisher Full Text Chabal P: The quest for good government and development in Africa: is NEPAD the answer? Int. Aff. 2002; 78 (3): 447–462. Publisher Full Text Deacon RT: Public good provision under dictatorship and democracy. Public Choice. 2009; 139 (1): 241–262. Publisher Full Text Diori HI, NaRanong A: Data on the effects of multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development in Sub-Saharan Africa.2022. Harvard Dataverse, [Dataset], V2. Publisher Full Text Diori IH, NaRanong A: Multiparty Democracy, Social Cohesion, and Human Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Conceptual Framework. J. Sustain. Dev. 2023; 16 (4): 22–33. Publisher Full Text Durkheim É: Le suicide: étude de sociologie. Alcan; 1897. Easterly W, Ritzen J, Woolcock M: SOCIAL COHESION, INSTITUTIONS, AND GROWTH. Econ. Politics. 2006; 18 (2): 103–120. Publisher Full Text Eterovic DS, Sweet CM: Democracy and Education in twentieth-century Latin America. Econ. Politics. 2014; 26 (2): 237–262. Publisher Full Text Filmer D, Pritchett L: The impact of public spending on health: does money matter?. Soc. Sci. Med. 1999; 49 (10): 1309–1323. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Fombad CM: Reversing the Surging Tide towards Authoritarian Democracy in Africa. In Fombad CM, Steytler N, editors. Democracy, Elections, and Constitutionalism in Africa. Stellenbosch Handbooks in African Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press; 2021. Publisher Full Text Freedom House: Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties.2021; 2021. Fukuyama F: The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011. Gerring J, Knutsen CH, Maguire M, et al. : Democracy and human development: issues of conceptualization and measurement. Democratization. 2020; 28 (2): 308–332. Gerring J, Knutsen CH, Skaaning S-E, et al. : Electoral democracy and human development. V-Dem Working Paper. 2015; 9. Gerring J, Thacker SC, Alfaro R: Democracy and human development. J. Polit. 2012; 74 (1): 1–17. Publisher Full Text Gouveia M, Masia NA: Does the median voter model explain the size of government?: Evidence from the states. Public Choice. 1998; 97 (1): 159–177. Publisher Full Text Haggard S, Kaufman RR: Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton University Press; 2008. Hanson JK: Democracy and state capacity: complements or substitutes? Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 2015; 50 (3): 304–330. Publisher Full Text Kaufman RR, Segura-Ubiergo A: Globalization, domestic politics, and social spending in Latin America: a time-series cross-section analysis, 1973–97. World Polit. 2001; 53 (4): 553–587. Publisher Full Text Kaufmann D, Kraay A: Worldwide Governance Indicators. The World Bank; 2020. Kristov L, Lindert P, McClelland R: Pressure groups and redistribution. J. Public Econ. 1992; 48 (2): 135–163. Publisher Full Text Kudamatsu M: Has democratization reduced infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from micro data. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2012; 10 (6): 1294–1317. Publisher Full Text Larsen CA: Social cohesion: Definition, measurement and developments Introduction.2014. Lindert PH: The rise of social spending, 1880-1930. Explor. Econ. Hist. 1994; 31 (1): 1–37. Publisher Full Text Liotti G, Musella M, D’isanto F: Does democracy improve human development? Evidence from former socialist countries. East. J. Eur. Stud. 2018; 9 (2): 69. Marshall MG, Elzinga-Marshall G; Global Report 2017: Conflict, Governance and State Fragility.2020. Marshall MG, Gurr T, Jaggers K: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2018: Dataset Users’ Manual. POLITY™ IV PROJECT. 2018. Matlosa K, Ndlovu S, Kasenally R, et al. : Democratic development in Africa. EISA; 2017. McGuire JW: Basic health care provision and under-5 mortality: a cross-national study of developing countries. World Dev. 2006; 34 (3): 405–425. Publisher Full Text McGuire JW: Political regime and social performance. Contemp. Polit. 2013; 19 (1): 55–75. Meltzer AH, Richard SF: A rational theory of the size of government. J. Polit. Econ. 1981; 89 (5): 914–927. Publisher Full Text Miller MK: Electoral authoritarianism and human development. Comp. Pol. Stud. 2015; 48 (12): 1526–1562. Publisher Full Text OECD: States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. OECD Paris; 2018. Orazani SN, Reynolds KJ, Osborne H: What works and why in interventions to strengthen social cohesion: A systematic review. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2023; 53 (10): 938–995. Ross M: Does democracy reduce infant mortality? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2006; 50 (4): 860–874. Publisher Full Text Rotberg RI: When states fail: Causes and consequences. Princeton University Press; 2010. Seers D: The Meaning of Development, with a Postscript Seers. Nafziger EW; DC O H, editors. Development Theory: Four Critical Studies. London: Frank Cass; 1979. Sen A: The ends and means of development. Development as freedom. 1999; 35–53. Sen AK: Poverty and famines. An essay on entitlement and deprivation.1981. Seyoum B: State fragility and human development: a study with special emphasis on social cohesion. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2020; 48 : 39–61. Publisher Full Text Shandra JM, Nobles J, London B, et al. : Dependency, democracy, and infant mortality: a quantitative, cross-national analysis of less developed countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004; 59 (2): 321–333. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Stasavage D: Democracy and education spending in Africa. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2005; 49 (2): 343–358. Publisher Full Text Statista: Sub-Saharan Africa: Population growth from 2009 to 2019.2025. Reference Source UNDESA Population Division: World Population Prospects 2019.2020. UNDP (United Nations Development Program): Human Development Report 2020: The next frontier. Human development and the Anthropocene.2020. World Bank National Accounts Data: The World Bank Group.2020. World Bank, World Development Indicators: The World Bank Group.2021. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Graduate School of Public Administration (GSPA), National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), 148 Moo 3, Seri Thai Road, Khlong Chan, Bang Kapi, Bangkok, 10240, Thailand 2 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Walailak University, 222 Thaibury, The Sala, 80160, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand Hamidou Issaka Diori Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Anchana NaRanong Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 01 Oct 2025, 11:797 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.2 version 1 Published: 18 Jul 2022, 11:797 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.1 Copyright © 2025 Diori HI and NaRanong A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Diori HI and NaRanong A. Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.122648.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Cheyeka A. Reviewer Report For: Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r185318 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v1#referee-response-185318 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Aug 2023 Austin Cheyeka , The University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r185318 Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis Thank you for according me an opportunity to review the above captioned manuscript. The topic is interesting and original, and this has the ... Continue reading READ ALL Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis Thank you for according me an opportunity to review the above captioned manuscript. The topic is interesting and original, and this has the potential to be a significant contribution to the literature on multiparty democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa. The study was longitudinal (1995-2019) and a panel data analysis of 35 countries was done in order to determine the effect of multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and their interaction on human development. The study had 3 objectives: 1). to determine the effect of multiparty democracy on human development; 2). to determine the effect of social cohesion on human development; and 3) to estimate the effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. In my view the theories employed in the study are appropriate and very well explained. The design of the study is well articulated and appropriate – it has academic merit. Overall, the methods and analysis allow replication of the study. The statistical analysis and the interpretation of the data are appropriate. The manuscript is well structured and it holds together very well. The objectives of the study were ably fulfilled and the study contributes to the literature on multiparty democracy and human development by proposing a hands-on theoretical model of democratic reform that goes beyond the current models advocated in the existing studies (pp. 2-3). The conclusion and recommendations of the manuscript are rooted in the findings. I agree with the conclusion that, “to sustain human well-being in the Sub-Saharan African region, power must rest completely in the hands of its people. It is only when the masses can participate in the process of governance that accountability can be strengthened, resources are equitably distributed, and the inequality gap between the rich and the poor be reduced”(pp. 23-24). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: My area of expertise is religion and politics in Southern Africa. However, I was able to understand the manuscript I reviewed. I am not a quantitative researcher, but there are quantitative research I am able to comprehend and this manuscript was one of them. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Cheyeka A. Reviewer Report For: Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r185318 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v1#referee-response-185318 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Odugbesan JA. Reviewer Report For: Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r154260 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v1#referee-response-154260 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 Nov 2022 Jamiu Adetola Odugbesan , Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Science, Cyprus West University, Nicosia, Turkey Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r154260 After careful review of the manuscript “ Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis ” I would like to congratulate the authors for doing such a good research work in your submitted paper for publication ... Continue reading READ ALL After careful review of the manuscript “ Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis ” I would like to congratulate the authors for doing such a good research work in your submitted paper for publication in this prestigious journal. The topic is interesting and innovative and would personally like to appreciate your efforts to present your research work in such a nice manner. But before your work will be recommended or will be given any possible acceptance few comments must be incorporated for improving the quality of your work as well as for further publication in this reputed journal. I have the following major observations or queries and comments which may further enhance your piece of work. The authors require to modify the following points in detail. In abstract, kindly incorporate the objectives of the study as well as policy recommendation The introduction part is required to add few more sentences to increase the strength of this article and kindly bring in the research problem, objective, novelty and explain it in last paragraph of the section of Introduction . Add few more sentences in the very beginning of introduction explaining about your paper’s contribution or attempts for dealing or presenting solutions for a specific problem/s and your special contribution with this research paper. The section of “ Results ” must explain research problems, solutions and the contribution of your study theoretically. The literature section requires some improvement with relevant recent studies. Use of English language requires improvement. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Strategic Management, Organizational Behavior, Green Management, Human Resource Management, Environmental Economics, Development Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Odugbesan JA. Reviewer Report For: Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r154260 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v1#referee-response-154260 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 01 Oct 25 Version 1 18 Jul 22 read read Jamiu Adetola Odugbesan , Cyprus West University, Nicosia, Turkey Austin Cheyeka , The University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Cheyeka A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Aug 2023 | for Version 1 Austin Cheyeka , The University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia 0 Views copyright © 2023 Cheyeka A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis Thank you for according me an opportunity to review the above captioned manuscript. The topic is interesting and original, and this has the potential to be a significant contribution to the literature on multiparty democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa. The study was longitudinal (1995-2019) and a panel data analysis of 35 countries was done in order to determine the effect of multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and their interaction on human development. The study had 3 objectives: 1). to determine the effect of multiparty democracy on human development; 2). to determine the effect of social cohesion on human development; and 3) to estimate the effect of the interaction between multiparty democracy and social cohesion on human development. In my view the theories employed in the study are appropriate and very well explained. The design of the study is well articulated and appropriate – it has academic merit. Overall, the methods and analysis allow replication of the study. The statistical analysis and the interpretation of the data are appropriate. The manuscript is well structured and it holds together very well. The objectives of the study were ably fulfilled and the study contributes to the literature on multiparty democracy and human development by proposing a hands-on theoretical model of democratic reform that goes beyond the current models advocated in the existing studies (pp. 2-3). The conclusion and recommendations of the manuscript are rooted in the findings. I agree with the conclusion that, “to sustain human well-being in the Sub-Saharan African region, power must rest completely in the hands of its people. It is only when the masses can participate in the process of governance that accountability can be strengthened, resources are equitably distributed, and the inequality gap between the rich and the poor be reduced”(pp. 23-24). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise My area of expertise is religion and politics in Southern Africa. However, I was able to understand the manuscript I reviewed. I am not a quantitative researcher, but there are quantitative research I am able to comprehend and this manuscript was one of them. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Cheyeka A. Peer Review Report For: Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r185318) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v1#referee-response-185318 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2022 Odugbesan J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 Nov 2022 | for Version 1 Jamiu Adetola Odugbesan , Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Science, Cyprus West University, Nicosia, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2022 Odugbesan J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions After careful review of the manuscript “ Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis ” I would like to congratulate the authors for doing such a good research work in your submitted paper for publication in this prestigious journal. The topic is interesting and innovative and would personally like to appreciate your efforts to present your research work in such a nice manner. But before your work will be recommended or will be given any possible acceptance few comments must be incorporated for improving the quality of your work as well as for further publication in this reputed journal. I have the following major observations or queries and comments which may further enhance your piece of work. The authors require to modify the following points in detail. In abstract, kindly incorporate the objectives of the study as well as policy recommendation The introduction part is required to add few more sentences to increase the strength of this article and kindly bring in the research problem, objective, novelty and explain it in last paragraph of the section of Introduction . Add few more sentences in the very beginning of introduction explaining about your paper’s contribution or attempts for dealing or presenting solutions for a specific problem/s and your special contribution with this research paper. The section of “ Results ” must explain research problems, solutions and the contribution of your study theoretically. The literature section requires some improvement with relevant recent studies. Use of English language requires improvement. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Strategic Management, Organizational Behavior, Green Management, Human Resource Management, Environmental Economics, Development Economics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Odugbesan JA. Peer Review Report For: Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 11 :797 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.134669.r154260) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v1#referee-response-154260 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Diori HI and NaRanong A'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797", templates : { twitter : "Multiparty democracy, social cohesion, and human development.... Diori HI and NaRanong A, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-797/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/122648/188238") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "188238"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "444438": 0, "444439": 0, "444436": 0, "444437": 0, "451870": 0, "145178": 0, "451871": 0, "145179": 0, "444444": 0, "451868": 0, "444445": 0, "451869": 0, "444442": 0, "444443": 0, "444440": 0, "444441": 0, "451876": 0, "451877": 0, "451874": 0, "147750": 0, "451875": 0, "451872": 0, "451873": 0, "147749": 0, "150071": 0, "420158": 0, "420159": 0, "150072": 0, "150073": 0, "420166": 0, "420167": 0, "420164": 0, "420165": 0, "420162": 0, "144454": 0, "420163": 0, "144455": 0, "420160": 0, "420161": 0, "442190": 0, "144458": 0, "442191": 0, "442188": 0, "144456": 0, "442189": 0, "144457": 0, "150089": 0, "442187": 0, "442196": 0, "442194": 0, "442195": 0, "442192": 0, "442193": 0, "154458": 0, "154459": 0, "154456": 0, "154457": 0, "160094": 0, "160095": 0, "160093": 0, "424550": 0, "424551": 0, "424548": 0, "424549": 0, "424546": 0, "424547": 0, "424554": 0, "424555": 0, "424552": 0, "424553": 0, "147578": 0, "147579": 0, "146047": 0, "147580": 0, "147581": 0, "146050": 0, "146048": 0, "146049": 0, "154259": 0, "436114": 0, "436115": 0, "154260": 21, "436127": 0, "149403": 0, "148892": 0, "148893": 0, "436132": 0, "436133": 0, "436130": 0, "436131": 0, "148135": 0, "436128": 0, "436129": 0, "148136": 0, "152238": 0, "152236": 0, "152237": 0, "419256": 0, "419257": 0, "439495": 0, "439502": 0, "439503": 0, "439500": 0, "439501": 0, "439498": 0, "439499": 0, "439496": 0, "439497": 0, "446166": 0, "446167": 0, "446164": 0, "446165": 0, "439504": 0, "449247": 0, "446172": 0, "446173": 0, "446170": 0, "446171": 0, "446168": 0, "446169": 0, "449254": 0, "449255": 0, "449252": 0, "185312": 0, "449253": 0, "449250": 0, "185318": 10, "449251": 0, "185319": 0, "449248": 0, "185316": 0, "449249": 0, "185322": 0, "185321": 0, "185327": 0, "449256": 0, "185324": 0, "185325": 0, "185328": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "b052e3d3-9bc0-43ef-b0d1-80b23c5910a0"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });