The theoretical literature on democratization offers a wide array of competing explanations about regime change. Analysts have long been fascinated about whether, how, and why democracies are installed and consolidated. The debates generated by these inquiries raise paradigmatic issues that lie at the heart of social and political theory.

The first set of issues concerns the relative impact on political change of structural factors versus individual actions and events. Are regime transitions a function of underlying preconditions at the level of the deep formations of economy and society? Or does political change depend on the preferences and choices of leaders and on their skills at mobilizing resources, counteracting opponents, and taking advantage of opportunities? There is more at stake in this debate than the old dilemma of whether history unfolds deterministically as a result of the tectonic shifts of social forces or capriciously through the deeds of great men. A complete theory of political agency would also attend to the endeavors of ordinary citizens, the interplay between elite and mass actions, and the unintended as well as the planned consequences of political events.

The second debate concerns the degree to which political change is determined by national rather than international forces. The choice is this: Are the trajectories of regime transition best apprehended by paying attention to the separate and distinctive domestic histories of each country? Or should we adopt a more holistic perspective that locates countries as parts of larger international systems, subject to powerful influences from beyond their own borders?