Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective (original) (raw)
Related papers
Assessing Party Structures: Why Some Regimes are More Authoritarian than Others
This article attempts to answer the puzzle of why, amongst undemocratic states, some regimes are more authoritarian than others. The author contends that differing party structures result in different authoritarian outcomes. A ruling, competitive authoritarian regime that has a party structure akin to a cadre party, or where there is little or no intra-party democracy, is more likely to be more authoritarian than a party which has intra-party democracy. The lack or absence of intra-party democracy ensures that elites remain cohesive and that there are lesser opportunities for the opposition to take advantage of divisions in the party, whereas in a party with intra-party democracy, there is a greater possibility of elite disunity, which could be capitalised on by the opposition, and there is also a greater likelihood of a different ideology being propagated by defectors from the party. The cases of the People’s Action Party in Singapore and the United Malays National Organization in Malaysia are used to illustrate the author’s case.
This paper discusses the evolution of authoritarian regimes and analyzes authoritarianism as a form of government. It then examines the two types of authoritarian regimes; competitive authoritarian regimes and political closed authoritarian regimes. Employing this typology, the paper explores the reasons behind the durability of these authoritarian regimes. Firstly, competitive authoritarian regimes remain durable by conjoining democratic and authoritarian practices to gain legitimation. Most importantly, competitive authoritarian regimes hold elections in order to demonstrate to the citizens that they have a say in the government, which portrays the regime as somehow a democratic state. Secondly, politically closed authoritarian regimes tend to remain resilient because they have better economic performance, and thus the state provides sufficient public goods. Referring to the ‘rentier state’ theory, some politically closed authoritarian regimes remain durable because they maintain low taxes and provide more material goods for their subjects.
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes
Politics and Governance, 2018
Classifying political regimes has never been more difficult. Most contemporary regimes hold de-jure multiparty elections with universal suffrage. In some countries, elections ensure that political rulers are—at least somewhat—accountable to the electorate whereas in others they are a mere window dressing exercise for authoritarian politics. Hence, regime types need to be distinguished based on the de-facto implementation of democratic institutions and processes. Using V-Dem data, we propose with Regimes of the World (RoW) such an operationalization of four important regime types—closed and electoral autocracies; electoral and liberal democracies—with vast coverage (almost all countries from 1900 to 2016). We also contribute a solution to a fundamental weakness of extant typologies: The unknown extent of misclassification due to uncertainty from measurement error. V-Dem’s measures of uncertainty (Bayesian highest posterior densities) allow us to be the first to provide a regime typol...
Electoral Authoritarianism in the Third Wave of Democratization: Concepts and Regime Trajectories
2011
During the past decade, scholars have plunged back into the issue of authoritarian politics, proposing new concepts such as hybrid regimes, electoral authoritarianism, competitive authoritarianism, and dominant party authoritarian regimes, to demonstrate how authoritarianism can function via ostensibly democratic institutions. This article will review four academic works in order to solve the following questions: Why has the focus of literature shifted from democratization to authoritarian studies? What new concepts have scholars established? What are the similarities and differences across each new concept? What is the boundary between new concepts and the more traditional concepts of democracy and authoritarianism? Why do some electoral authoritarian regimes persist while others collapse? What crucial factors have scholars presented in this regard? This paper yields three findings. Firstly, the trend towards studies of authoritarianism is a reflection upon existing literature on the third wave of democratization. Many regimes have adopted democratic institutions but incumbents continue to employ authoritarian methods to tilt elections in their favor. These regimes should be classified as neither democratic nor conventionally authoritarian, but can instead be considered electoral authoritarianism. Secondly, electoral authoritarianism and hybrid regimes are two interchangeable concepts which overarch competitive authoritarianism. The dominant party authoritarian regime type is relatively narrower in scope. Finally, three factors which may account for regime trajectories have been receiving great attention in academia: (1) international factors (Western leverage and linkage); (2) the authoritarian state/party"s characteristics (organizational cohesion, economic control, repression capacity); and (3) the opposition"s coalition and strategy.
Researching Authoritarianism in the Discipline of Democracy
Object. This article examines the ways social science research approaches the study of authoritarian regimes and identifies ways to engage with regimes that are both deliberately opaque and oppressive. Method. The article examines existing methodological prescriptions and practices as they pertain to the study of authoritarian regimes. These cover issues of data collection, research safety, subjective safety, and the positioning of knowledge about authoritarianism within the wider scope of social sciences. Results. The article identifies three distinct but interrelated challenges in the study of authoritarian regimes: (1) access and timing, (2) data validity and integrity, and (3) ethical issues. Conclusion. Methods commonly deployed in the study of democratic and open regimes cannot be readily deployed to the study of authoritarian ones. Greater reflexivity is needed to understand the methodological challenges inherent to the study of authoritarianism.
This paper attempts to integrate the literatures on authoritarian regime types and democratic forms of government. Based on different modes of executive appointment and dismissal, we propose a parsimonious theory of five regime dimensions that cut across the democracy/autocracy divide: the hereditary principle; the military principle; the ruling party principle; the presidential and the parliamentary principles, respectively. Relying on the Varieties of Democracy data, we provide alternative measures of these five regime dimensions for 173 countries across the globe from 1900 to today. A plausibility probe gauges the extent to which the five dimensions can predict the level of repression, rent-seeking and spending on public goods across space and time, controlling for the degree of democracy. We conclude by suggesting several avenues for future research that can be pursued with these data.
The classification of democratic regime types: conceptual ambiguity and contestable assumptions
European Journal of Political Research, 1998
This article examines the classification of regime types. It shows that most writers classify regime types with reference to both their dispositional properties (whether there is a president and/or a prime minister, whether or not they are popularly elected and whether or not they serve for a fixed term) and their relational properties (the actual patterns of executive politics in the political system). It is argued that this juxtaposition of dispositional and relational properties creates a conceptual ambiguity. As a result, it is concluded that classifications of regime types should be made on the basis of either dispositional or relational properties but not both together. It then shows that writers who classify regime types with reference to relational properties are likely to make highly contestable assumptions about how power is actually exercised. This is because the question of where executive power lies in a particular country is often subject to not just one incontestable interpretation but to a number of contestable and mutually exclusive interpretations. This point is illustrated by examining the case of the Fifth French Republic. Therefore, it is concluded that the classification of regime types should be made with reference to dispositional properties alone. Affairs 42(1): 112-122.
Comparing autocracies: theoretical issues and empirical analyses
Democratization, 2013
A quarter of the world's nation states and territories are ruled by dictators. Moreover, there are many regimes in which democratic and autocratic elements of rule are mixed in various ways. It thus behoves political scientists to study the trajectories, manifestations and perspectives of nondemocratic rule in general and autocratic rule in particular. After a period of stagnation, research on autocracies has in recent years become revitalized. Much of this research has a comparative orientation and a range of global datasets that have become available, which enable the systematic testing of hypotheses. Yet, current research on autocracies goes beyond large-N studies. It is a pluralistic enterprise, characterized by the use of a multitude of theoretical, analytical and methodological approaches, lenses and tools. This special issue attempts to fill some gaps in the newer literature by addressing questions of legitimation and repression (as well as co-optation) in autocracies, by probing into the origins of a number of competitive authoritarian regimes and into pre-electoral dynamics in non-democracies, and by finally asking what happens to dictators once autocratic regimes fall.
Focus on elections: Remarks on the Contemporary Methodology for Classifying Non-Democratic Regimes
This article describes and analyses current trends in classifying non-democratic regimes. A brief overview of the basic typologies (J. J. Linz, S. P. Huntington, W. Merkel) is given first. The article then focuses on the methodology currently used for classifying non-democratic regimes, one which is connected to a significant degree with the theory of so-called hybrid regimes. Placing a strong emphasis on the texts of L. Diamond, A. Schedler, S. Levitsky and L. A. Way, the authors attempt to illustrate the methodological consequences the application of this theory has for the relevant area of political science. The authors particularly concentrate on the exclusive role of the elections as a variable of classification, or, respectively, on the concept of elections as a criterion applied in a continuum between electoral democracies at the one end, and competitive authoritarianisms at the other. This paper provides a critical reflection on this approach and points out its methodologica...