I realize that a phrase like "as bad or worse" is subjective. By what metric do we decide if a new regime is "better" or "worse" than an old one?
However, I want to know if this is a known area of research in historical revolutions. History seems to be full of cases where a horrible government that oppresses its people eventually gets overthrown by well-meaning rebels, but because those rebels are either incompetent, more malicious than their supporters thought, or simply very naive about the difficulty of running a state effectively, their replacement regime ends up being worse. Judging from what I have heard, my intuition is that regime-changing revolutions almost never get replaced with better regimes. But, of course, my intuition is very vulnerable to the availability heuristic. It would be nice if someone has tried to evaluate this objectively.
While I recognize the subjectivity of how "good" a state is, I think you can pick some metrics (such as homicide rate, rate of death from starvation, overall state wealth, etc) to judge what happened to a state post-revolution.
What proportion of regime-changing revolutions turned out better/worse than the regime it overthrew, by any metric? Additionally, is this an open question being researched by quantitative historians? If so, links to the most salient publications on the topic would be greatly appreciated.