Theory of Regimes and Failed States Theory: A Common Issue or Talking Across Purposes? (original) (raw)

Abstract

The recently developed theory of state collapse and failure largely ignores the vast body of literature on political regimes: theory of non-democratic regimes, their transitions to democracies, and incidental reverse transitions. While the study of democratisation focuses mainly on the nature of political regimes, failed states theory mostly operates with capacity of states. Yet both disciplines analyze the same political animal.

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. The text examines the intersection of failed states theory and political regime studies.
  2. State fragility correlates with regime stability and the capacity for governance.
  3. New democracies are seven times more likely to fail than established regimes.
  4. The State Fragility Index (SFI) includes regime-related indicators from the Polity IV dataset.
  5. Hybrid regimes challenge traditional categorizations of political systems and state capacity.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (32)

  1. ---. 2000. State Failure Task Force Report: Phase III Findings: State Failure Task Force.
  2. Failed States Index. 2008. The Fund for Peace.
  3. Bates, Robert H., et al. 2003. Political Instability Task Force Report: Phase IV Findings.
  4. Beissinger, M. R.: Structure and Example in Modular Political Phenomena: The Diffusion of Bulldozer/Rose/Orange/Tulip Revolutions, Perspectives on Politics, June 2007, Vol. 5, No 2, pp. 259- 276. Berg-Schlosser, B. (2007): Concepts, Measurements and Sub-Types in Democratization Research, in Berg-Schlosser, B. (ed.; 2007): Democratization. The State of Art, Barbara Budrich Verlag, pp. 31-44.
  5. Brooker, P. (2000): Non-Democratic Regimes. Theory, Government & Politics, Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire, Macmillan Press.
  6. Carothers, T. (2002): The End of The Transition Paradigm, Journal of Democracy, Vol 13, No 1, January 2002, s. 5-21. Center for Systemic Peace.
  7. D´Anieri, P.: Explaining the success and failure of post-communist revolutions, Communist and Post- Communist Studies, 2006, Vol. 39. No 3, pp. 331-350.
  8. Diamond, L. (2002): Thinking About Hybrid Regimes, Journal of Democracy, Vol 13, No 2, April 2002, s. 21-35.
  9. Esty, Daniel C., et al. 1998. State Failure Task Force Report: Phase II Findings: State Failure Task Force.
  10. Gelman, V.: Post-Soviet Transitions and Democratization: Toward a Theory Building, on-line text 2001 (http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/grenoble/ws2/gelman.pdf).
  11. Goldstone, Jack A., et al. 2010. A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):190-208.
  12. Gruegel, J. (2002): Democratization. A Critical Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 68-91.
  13. Levitsky, S. -Way, L. A. (2002): The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism, Journal of Democracy, Vol 13, No 2, April, s. 51-65.
  14. Levitsky, S. -Way, L. A. (2010): Competitive Authoritarianism. Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War, Cambrdige UP.
  15. Linz, J. J. (1973): Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, in: Greenstein, F. I. -Polsby, N. W. (eds.; 1973): Handbook of Political Sciences, Vol III, Addison -Wesley: Reading Mass.
  16. Linz, J. J. (2006): Authoritarian Failure: How Does State Weakness Strenghten Electoral Competition?, in
  17. Schedler, A. (ed.; 2006): Electoral Authoritarianism. The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, Lynne Riener Publ., pp. 167-180.
  18. Linz, J. J. (2007): Some Thoughts on the Victory and Future of Democracy, in Berg-Schlosser, B. (ed.; 2007): Democratization. The State of Art, Barbara Budrich Verlag, pp. 133-153.
  19. Linz, J. J. -Stepan, A. (1996): Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, The Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore -London.
  20. Marshall, Monty G., and Benjamin R. Cole. 2009. Global Report 2009: Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility. Arlington, VA: GMU Center for Global Policy
  21. Marshall, M. G (2010). POLITY IV PROJECT: Dataset User's Manual, Center for Systemic Peace.
  22. Massey, Mark. 2011. Reconceptualizing State Building in Africa (I): Non-State Systems, Decentralization and Refounding African Statehood. Small Wars Journal 7 (1):1-7.
  23. Merkel, W. (1999): Systemtransformation, Opladen, Leske + Budrich.
  24. McFaul, M.: Transition from postcommunism, Journal of Democracy, 2005, Vol. 16, No 3, pp. 5-19.
  25. Munck, G. L. (2007): Democracy Studies: Agendas, Findings, Challenges, in Berg-Schlosser, B. (ed.; 2007): Democratization. The State of Art, Barbara Budrich Verlag, pp. 45-68.
  26. Rotberg, Robert I. 2004. The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States: Breakdown, Prevention, and Repair. In When States Fail: Causes and consequences, edited by R. I. Rotberg. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  27. Schedler, A. (2002): The Menu of Manipulation, Journal of Democracy, Vol 13, No 2, April, s. 36-50.
  28. Teorell, J. -Hadenius, A. (2007a): Determinants of Democratization: Taking Stock of the Large-N Evidence, in Berg-Schlosser, B. (ed.; 2007): Democratization. The State of Art, Barbara Budrich Verlag, pp. 69-95.
  29. Teorell, J. -Hadenius, A. (2007b): Successes and Failures of the New Democracies, in Berg-Schlosser, B. (ed.; 2007): Democratization. The State of Art, Barbara Budrich Verlag, pp. 96-110.
  30. Way, L. A. (2006): Authoritarian Failure: How Does State Weakness Strenghten Electoral Competition?, in Schedler, A. (ed.; 2006): Electoral Authoritarianism. The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, Lynne Riener Publ., pp. 167-180.
  31. Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs 76 (6):22-43.
  32. Zartman, I. William. 1995. Introduction: Posing the Problem of State Collapse. In Collapsed States. The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority, edited by I. W. Zartman. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What is the connection between regime type and state failure?add

The research indicates that regime type significantly correlates with state failure; for instance, new democracies were found to be seven times more likely to fail than established democracies and autocracies.

How does state fragility differ between autocracies and democracies?add

Autocracies are more prone to crises when they cannot control political competition, while weak democracies face instability odds 12 to 30 times higher than stable regimes.

What methodologies are used to measure state failure and regime types?add

The study contrasts the Failed States Index and State Fragility Index, discussing differing integration of regime-related variables, notably emphasizing governance inclusion and political legitimacy.

What role does factionalism play in state stability?add

Factionalism increases political instability, with democracies experiencing severe vulnerability when dominated by a strong executive amid polarized competition among organized groups.

When did the theory of failed states emerge, and what are its focuses?add

The theory emerged post-Cold War, emphasizing security and development, and primarily examining the state's nature and societal cohesion, often in contexts like terrorism and poverty.