Authoritarian regime types revisited: Updated data in comparative perspective

Contemporary Politics

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 19-34

  Wahman, Michael ^a   Teorell, Jan ^b   Hadenius, Axel ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

authoritarian; classification; dataset; democracy; regime type

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876025296     PISSN: 13569775     EISSN: 14693631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2013.773200     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Banks, A. S. and Wilson, K. A. 2012. Cross-national time-series data archive, Jerusalem: Databanks International.
2. Bernhard, M., Nordstrom, T. and Reenock, C. 2001. Economic performance, institutional intermediation, and democratic survival. Journal of Politics, 63(3): 775-803.
3. Bogaards, M. 2007. Elections, election outcomes, and democracy in Southern Africa. Democratization, 14(1): 73-91. (doi:10.1080/13510340601024306)
4. Boix, C., Miller, M. K. and Rosato, S. Forthcoming. A complete dataset of political regimes, 1800-2007. Comparative Political Studies,
5. Brownlee, J. 2007. Authoritarianism in an age of democratization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Brownlee, J. 2009. Portents of pluralism: how hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3): 515-532. (doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00384.x)
7. Charron, N. and Lapuente, V. 2011. Which dictators produce quality of government?. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46(4): 397-423. (doi:10.1007/s12116-011-9093-0)
8. Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. and Vreeland, J. R. 2010. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143(1): 67-101. (doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2)
9. Collier, D. and Adcock, R. 1999. Democracy and dichotomies: a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1): 537-565. (doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.537)
10. Cox, G. and Morgenstern, S. 1993. The increasing advantage of incumbency in the American States. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 18: 495-514. (doi:10.2307/439852)
11. Dahl, R. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and opposition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12. Elkins, Z. 2000. Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualization. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2): 287-294. (doi:10.2307/2669311)
13. Erikson, R. 1971. The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity, 3(3): 395-405. (doi:10.2307/3234117)
14. Escribà-Folch, A. and Wright, J. 2010. Dealing with tyranny: international sanctions and the survival of authoritarian rulers. International Studies Quarterly, 54(2): 335-359. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00590.x)
15. Gandhi, J. and Lust Okar, E. 2009. Elections under authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1): 403-422. (doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060106.095434)
16. Geddes, B. 1999. What do we know about democratization after twenty tears?. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1): 115-144. (doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115)
17. Geddes, B. 2003. Paradigms and sand castles-theory building and research design in comparative politics, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.
18. Geddes, B., Wright, J., and Frantz, E., 2012a. Authoritarian regimes: a new data set. Available from: http://dictators.la.psu.edu/papers [accessed 1 June 2012].
19. Geddes, B., Wright, J., and Frantz, E., 2012b. New data on autocratic regimes. Available from: http://dictators.la.psu.edu/papers [accessed 1 March 2013].
20. Gilbert, L. and Mohseni, P. 2011. Beyond authoritarianism: the conceptualization of hybrid regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46(3): 270-297. (doi:10.1007/s12116-011-9088-x)
21. Greene, K. 2007. Why dominant parties lose, New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hadenius, A. 1992. Democracy and development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Hadenius, A. and Teorell, J., 2005. Assessing alternative indices of democracy. Concepts and Methods Working Papers 6, IPSA, August 2005.
24. Hadenius, A. and Teorell, J. 2007. Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18(1): 143-157. (doi:10.1353/jod.2007.0009)
25. Hadenius, A., Teorell, J., and Wahman, M. 2012. The authoritarian regimes dataset. Lund University. Available from: http://www.svet.lu.se/ARD/ [accessed 1 March 2013].
26. Herb, M. 1999. All in the family: absolutism, revolution, and democracy in the Middle Eastern monarchies, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
27. Howard, M. M. and Roessler, P. 2006. Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2): 365-381. (doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00189.x)
28. Huntington, S. 1991. The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
29. Kelley, J. 2009. D-minus elections: the politics and norms of international election observation. International Organization, 63(4): 765-787. (doi:10.1017/S0020818309990117)
30. Lawson, S. 1996. Tradition versus democracy in the South Pacific: Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Levitsky, S. and Way, L. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Lindberg, S. 2006. Democracy and elections in Africa, Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
33. Munck, G. and Verkuilen, J. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy-evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1): 5-34.
34. Nordlinger, E. 1977. Soldiers in politics: military coups and government, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35. Rutten, M. and Owuor, S. 2009. Weapons of mass destruction: land, ethnicity and the 2007 elections in Kenya. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 27(3): 305-324. (doi:10.1080/02589000903118904)
36. Saine, A. 2009. The paradox of third wave democratization in Africa, Plymouth: Lexington Books.
37. Schedler, A. 2006. Electoral authoritarianism: the dynamics of unfree competition, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
38. Schedler, A. 2012. Judgment and measurement in political science. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1): 21-36. (doi:10.1017/S1537592711004889)
39. Scott, W. 1955. Reliability and content analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3): 321-325. (doi:10.1086/266577)
40. Teorell, J. 2010. Determinants of democratization: explaining regime change in the world 1972-2006, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Teorell, J. and Hadenius, A. 2009. "Elections as levers of democracy: a global inquiry". In Democratization by elections. A new mode of transition, Edited by: Lindberg, S. 77-100. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
42. Thapa, G. B. and Sharma, J. 2009. From insurgency to democracy: the challenges of peace and democracy building in Nepal. International Political Science Review, 30(2): 205-219. (doi:10.1177/0192512109102437)
43. Wahman, M. 2013. Opposition coalitions and democratization by elections. Government and Opposition, 48(1): 3-32. (doi:10.1017/gov.2012.5)
44. Wahman, M., Forthcoming. Democratization and electoral turnovers in sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. Democratization.
45. Wantchekon, L. 2003. Clientelism and voting behaviour: evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics, 55(3): 399-422. (doi:10.1353/wp.2003.0018)
46. Wright, J. 2008. Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2): 322-343. (doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00315.x)