Do conflict characteristics matter for the effectiveness of post-conflict democracy aid?

After civil wars end, countries often receive post-conflict democracy aid to promote peaceful transitions. Despite large aid flows, we know little about the aid’s effectiveness and why it varies as scholars have not differentiated between adverse and favorable conditions. I argue that previous research has thereby ignored the diversity of post-conflict settings which differ significantly with regards to their conflict experience. In this paper, I explore this variation by asking: Do conflict characteristics matter for the effectiveness of post-conflict democracy aid? I contend that civil war characteristics systematically alter post-conflict capacity and incentive structures through which democracy aid seeks to promote the recipient’s democratization. I differentiate civil wars with regards to three characteristics: intensity, main conflict issue and outcome. Analyzing democracy levels of all countries in a post-conflict setting between 1947 and 2022, I find conflict characteristics to account for some variation in democracy aid’s effectiveness.