Classifying Political Regimes in Latin

  • Scott Mainwaring
  • Daniel Brinks
  • Aníbal Pérez-Liñán
Articles

Abstract

This article is about how political regimes should generally be classified, and how Latin American regimes should be classified for the 1945–99 period. We make five general claims about regime classification. First, regime classification should rest on sound concepts and definitions. Second, it should be based on explicit and sensible coding and aggregation rules. Third, it necessarily involves some subjective judgments. Fourth, the debate about dichotomous versus continuous measures of democracy creates a false dilemma. Neither democratic theory, nor coding requirements, nor the reality underlying democratic practice compel either a dichotomous or a continuous approach in all cases. Fifth, dichotomous measures of democracy fail to capture intermediate regime types, obscuring variation that is essential for studying political regimes.

This general discussion provides the grounding for our trichotomous ordinal scale, which codes regimes as democratic, semi-democratic or authoritarian in nineteen Latin American countries from 1945 to 1999. Our trichotomous classification achieves greater differentiation than dichotomous classifications and yet avoids the need for massive information that a very fine-grained measure would require.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarez, Mike, José Antonio Cheibub, Fernando Limongi and Adam Przeworski. 1996. “Classifying Political Regimes.”Studies in Comparative International Development 31 (Summer): 3–36.Google Scholar
  2. Bollen, Kenneth A. 1980. “Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.”American Sociological Review 45, (June): 370–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. — 1991. “Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps.” Pp. 3–20 inOn Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, ed. A. Inkeles. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  4. — 1993. “Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures.”American Journal of Political Science 37 (November): 1207–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollen, Kenneth A. and Robert Jackman. 1989. “Democracy, Stability, and Dichotomies.”American Sociological Review 54 (August): 612–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollen, Kenneth A. and Pamela Paxton. 2000. “Subjective Measures of Liberal Democracy.”Comparative Political Studies 33 (February): 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collier, David and Steven Levitsky. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.”World Politics 49, (April): 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collier, David and Robert Adcock. 1999. “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts.”Annual Review of Political Science 2: 537–565 Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coppedge, Michael and Wolfgang H. Reinicke. 1990. “Measuring Polyarchy.”Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (Spring): 51–72.Google Scholar
  10. Dahl, Robert Alan. 1971.Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Diamond, Larry. 1996. “Democracy in Latin America: Degrees, Illusions, and Directions for Consolidation.” Pp. 52–104 inBeyond Sovereignty: Collectively Defending Democracy in the Americas, ed. T. Farer. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  12. —. 1999.Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, Larry, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1989. “Preface.” Pp. ix-xxv inDemocracy in Developing Countries, Volume 4,Latin America, ed. L. Diamond, J. Linz, and S. M. Lipset, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  14. Elkins, Zachary. 2000. “Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations.”American Journal of Political Science 44 (April): 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gasiorowski, Mark. 1996. “An Overview of the Political Regime Change Dataset.”Comparative Political Studies 29 (August): 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gastil, Raymond D. 1991. “The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions.” Pp. 21–46 inOn Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants, ed. A. Inkeles. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Gleditsch, Kristian and Michael Ward. 1997. “Double Take: A Reexamination of Democracy and Autocracy in Modern Polities.”Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (June): 361–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gurr, Ted Robert, Keith Jaggers, and Will Moore. 1990. “The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy, Autocracy, and State Power since 1800.”Studies in Comparative International Development 25 (Spring): 73–108.Google Scholar
  19. Hadenius, Axel. 1992Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hartlyn, Jonathan. 1998The Struggle for Democratic Politics in the Dominican Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norma: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  22. International Human Rights Law Group and Washington Office on Latin America. 1988Political Transition and the Rule of Law in Guatemala: Report of the Follow-up Delegation of the International Human Rights Law Group and the Washington Office on Latin America. Washington, D.C.: International Human Rights Law Group, Washington Office on Latin America.Google Scholar
  23. Jaggers, Keith and Ted Robert Gurr. 1995. “Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data.”Journal of Peace Research 32 (November): 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. —. 1996.Polity III. Regime Type and Political Authority, 1800–1994. [Computer file]. Second ICPSR version. Boulder, CO: Keith Jaggers/College Park, MD: Ted Robert Gurr [producers], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
  25. Karl, Terry Lynn. 1986. “Imposing Consent? Electoralism vs. Democratization in El Salvador.” Pp. 9–36 inElections and Democratization in Latin America, 1980–1985, eds. P. W. Drake and E. Silva. La Jolla: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
  26. —. 1995. “The Hybrid Regimes in Central America.”Journal of Democracy 6 (July): 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linz, Juan J. 1975. “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes.” InHandbook of Political Science, vol. 3, eds. N. Polsby and F. Greenstein. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  28. — 1978.Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. 1996.Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Long, J. Scott. 1997.Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Markoff, John. 1996.Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  32. Merkel, Wolfgang. 1999. “Defective Democracies.” Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Investigaciones, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ciencias Sociales, Working Paper 1999/132 (March).Google Scholar
  33. Munck, Gerardo L. and Jay Verkuilen. Forthcoming. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indexes.”Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar
  34. Munck, Gerardo L. and Jay Verkuilen. Forthcoming. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indexes.”Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar
  35. O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1993. “On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Postcommunist Countries.”World Development 21 (August): 1355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. —. 1994. “Delegative Democracy.”Journal of Democracy 5 (January): 55–69.Google Scholar
  37. —. 2001. “Democracy, Law and Comparative Politics.”Studies in Comparative International Development 36, 1: 7–36.Google Scholar
  38. Paxton, Pamela. 2000. “Women's Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of Operationalization.”Studies in Comparative International Development 35: 3 (Fall): 92–111.Google Scholar
  39. Plattner, Marc F. 1998. “Liberalism and Democracy: Can't Have One Without the Other.”Foreign Affairs 77 (March/April): 171–180.Google Scholar
  40. Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000.Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976.Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. —. 1987.The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  43. —. 1991. “Comparing and Miscomparing.”Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (July): 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmitter, Philippe and Terry Karl. 1991. “What Democracy is… and is Not.”Journal of Democracy 2 (Summer): 75–88.Google Scholar
  45. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1947.Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  46. Valenzuela, J. Samuel. 1992. “Democratic Consolidation in Post-Transitional Settings: Notion, Process, and Facilitating Conditions.” Pp. 57–104 inIssues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, eds. S. Mainwaring, G. O'Donnell, and J. S. Valenzuela. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  47. Vanhanen, Tatu. 1990The Process of Democratization: A Comparative Study of 147 States, 1980–88, New York: Crane Russak.Google Scholar
  48. Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.”Foreign Affairs 76 (November/December): 22–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Mainwaring
  • Daniel Brinks
  • Aníbal Pérez-Liñán

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations