Mapping 'hybrid regimes': Regime types and concepts in comparative politics

Democratization

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 230-250

  Wigell, Mikael ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

'Hybrid regimes'; Constitutionalism; Electoralism; Regime types

Indexed keywords

EID: 41349098831     PISSN: 13510347     EISSN: 1743890X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13510340701846319     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Thomas Carothers, 'The End of the Transition Paradigm', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2002), pp. 5-21.
2. Various scholars have expressed their concern over the conceptual confusion resulting from the enormous proliferation of concepts based on qualifying adjectives. It is argued that these concepts are often inconsistently defined and rarely specified as to how they relate to other concepts. See, for instance: Ariel C. Armony and Hector E. Schamis, 'Babel in Democratization Studies', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 16, No. 4 (2005), pp. 113-28
3. David Collier and Steven Levitsky, 'Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research', World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (1997), pp. 430-51
4. Gerardo L. Munck, 'Disaggregating Political Regime: Conceptual Issues in the Study of Democratization', Kellogg Institute Working Paper Series Working Paper #228 (1996).
5. Armony and Schamis (note 2).
6. Some notable examples of such indexes of democracy include: Kenneth A. Bollen, 'Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy', American Sociological Review, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1980), pp. 370-90
7. Michael Coppedge and Wolfgang H. Reinicke, 'Measuring Polyarchy', Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1990), pp. 51-72
8. Axel Hadenius, Democracy and Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
9. Tatu Vanhanen, 'A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810-1998', Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2000), pp. 251-65
10. and the Polity Dataset (http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/).
11. The Freedom House Index (http://www.freedomhouse.org/) is also widely used as a measure of democracy, although it is strictly speaking a measure of 'freedom', rather than democracy.
12. For an excellent review of the various indexes of democracy, see Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen, 'Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy. Evaluating Alternative Indices', Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (2002), pp. 5-34.
13. Guillermo O'Donnell, 'Delegative Democracy', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1994), pp. 55-69
14. also Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
15. William Case, 'Democracy's Quality and Breakdown: New Lessons from Thailand', Democratization, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2007), pp. 622-42, 636.
16. For a discussion of some of these authoritarianisms with adjectives, see the collection of essays 'Elections Without Democracy', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2002), pp. 21-80, with contributions from Larry Diamond, Andreas Schedler, Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, and Nicolas van de Walle.
17. For the seminal elaboration of the concept 'bureaucratic-authoritarianism', as well as for some of the traits inherent in 'populist-authoritarianism', see Guillermo O'Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism (Berkeley, CA: Institute of International Studies, 1973).
18. Diamond, Developing Democracy (note 5).
19. Larry Diamond, 'Democracy in Latin America: Degrees, Illusions, and Directions for Consolidation', in Tom Farer (ed.), Beyond Sovereignty: Collectively Defending Democracy in the Americas (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), p. 53.
20. Gerardo L. Munck, 'The Regime Question: Theory Building in Democracy Studies', World Politics, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2001), pp. 119-44, 125-6.
21. Diamond, Developing Democracy (note 5), p. 279.
22. Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1987)
23. Adam Przeworski, et al., Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
24. For a discussion, see Pierre Ostiguy, 'Populism, Democracy, and Representation: Multidimensional Concepts and Regime Types in Comparative Politics', Paper presented at the 2001 LASA Conference Washington DC, 6-8 September 2001.
25. Diamond, Developing Democracy (note 5), p. 16.
26. Scott Mainwaring, Daniel Brinks, and Anibal Pérez-Linán, 'Classifying Political Regimes in Latin America, 1945-1999', Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2001), pp. 37-65.
27. Sartori (note 12) provides an excellent review of liberal democratic theory.
28. See John Dunn, Setting the People Free. The Story of Democracy (London: Atlantic Books, 2005). This is not to ignore the normative appeal of the participatory model of democracy, but only to acknowledge that contemporary democracies have followed the republican trajectory, but for a few partial exceptions such as Switzerland. It is the institutions and mechanisms of representative democracy that are the main objectives of recent comparative literature on hybrid regimes and democratization.
29. Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl, 'What Democracy Is ... And Is Not', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1991), pp. 75-88, 83.
30. Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971).
31. Carothers (note 1).
32. On procedural minimum definitions, see Collier and Levitsky (note 2).
33. Terry L. Karl, 'The Hybrid Regimes of Central America', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1995), pp. 72-86.
34. For instance, Andreas Schedler, 'The Menu of Manipulation', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2002), pp. 36-50
35. Juan E. Méndez, Guillermo O'Donnell and Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro (eds), The (Un)Rule of Law and the Underprivileged in Latin America (Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999)
36. Karl (note 22)
37. Guillermo O'Donnell, 'On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Postcommunist Countries', in Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization (Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), pp. 133-57
38. J. Samuel Valenzuela, 'Democratic Consolidation in Post-Transitional Settings: Notion, Process, and Facilitating Conditions', in Scott Mainwaring et al. (eds), Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective (Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), pp. 57-104.
39. According to Giovanni Sartori, theories of democracy in the procedural tradition work from the assumption that electoral competition produces democratic consequences because of the feedback mechanism produced by elected officials' anticipated reactions. Sartori explains this logic as follows: 'Elected officials seeking reelection (in a competitive setting) are conditioned, in their deciding, by the anticipation (expectation) of how electorates will react to what they decide'. From this perspective, 'Democracy is the by-product of a competitive method for leadership recruitment'. Sartori (note 12), pp. 152-3.
40. For instance, Terry L. Karl, 'Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America', Comparative Politics, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1990), pp. 1-21.
41. Mike Alvarez et al., 'Classifying Political Regimes', Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 31, No. 2 (1996), pp. 3-36, 18.
42. Collier and Levitsky (note 2).
43. For a discussion, see Valenzuela (note 23)
44. Also Schedler (note 23).
45. Schedler (note 23).
46. Valenzuela (note 23), p. 67.
47. Richard Snyder and David Samuels, 'Devaluing the Vote in Latin America', Journal of Democracy, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2001), pp. 146-59.
48. See also Schedler (note 23), p. 45.
49. Valenzuela (note 23), pp. 62-3.
50. Schedler (note 23), p. 41.
51. Valenzuela (note 23).
52. See also Hans-Joachim Lauth, 'Informal Institutions and Democracy', Democratization, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2000), pp. 21-50, 37.
53. O'Donnell, 'Delegative Democracy' (note 5), p. 59
54. See O'Donnell, 'On the State' (note 23)
55. Jonathan Fox, 'The Difficult Transition from Clientelism to Citizenship: Lessons from Mexico', World Politics, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1994), pp. 151-84
56. Edward L. Gibson, 'Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Democratic Countries', World Politics, Vol. 58, No. 1 (2005), pp. 101-32.
57. O'Donnell, 'On the State' (note 23), p. 139.
58. O'Donnell, 'On the State' (note 23).
59. Ibid.
60. A related question concerns regime quality. The typology assumes popularization and liberalization to improve democratic quality by strengthening formal democratic procedures (i.e., electoralism and constitutionalism). The categorization is not concerned with the question what may constitute 'authoritarian quality'. From a normative standpoint, 'high quality authoritarianism' relates to substantive outcomes, not formal procedures. The effectiveness of different political regimes to realize substantive goals is a question for empirical analysis.
61. 'Liberal oligarchy' is advanced here as a more universal concept than Latin American 'oligarchical liberalism', that usually only refers to a certain period in Latin American history. In practice, the actual cases of that period also fall short of 'liberal oligarchy' as an ideal type.
62. For a discussion, see Collier and Levitsky (note 2). 'Diminished subtypes' are not full instances of a root concept, in this case the concept of liberal democracy, although some of the attributes defining the root concept are identified as present.
63. For a discussion of 'neo-populism' as a regime type, see Kurt Weyland, 'Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics', Comparative Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1 (2001), pp. 1-22.
64. The concept of accountability has emerged as one of the key issues in comparative regime analysis. This re-emergence of accountability as key for understanding and improving democratic quality was to a large extent influenced by O'Donnell, who conceptualized accountability as running in two directions, vertical and horizontal. See Guillermo O'Donnell, 'Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies', Journal of Democracy Vol. 9, No. 3 (1998), pp. 112-26.
65. See Aurel Croissant, 'Legislative Powers, Veto Players, and the Emergence of Delegative Democracy: A Comparison of Presidentialism in the Philippines and South Korea', Democratization, Vol. 10, No. 3 (2003), pp. 68-98
66. Hyug Baeg Im, 'Faltering Democratic Consolidation in South Korea: Democracy at the End of the "Three Kims" Era', Democratization, Vol. 11, No. 5 (2004), pp. 179-98.
67. O'Donnell describes the interests of 'brown' legislators as limited to 'sustain the system of privatized domination that has elected them, and to channel toward the system as many state resources as possible. The tendency of their vote is, thus, conservative and opportunistic. For their success they depend on the exchange of "favors" with the executive and various state bureaucracies and, under weakened executives that need some kind of congressional support, they often obtain the control of state agencies that furnish those resources. This increases the fragmentation (and the deficits) of the state - the brown spots invade even the bureaucratic apex of the state'. O'Donnell (note 23), p. 140.
68. David Collier and Robert Adcock, 'Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts', Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 2 (1999), pp. 537-65, 561.