Public Organization Review

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 17–37 | Cite as

Legal-Administrative Responses and Democratic Deconsolidation

  • Kim MoloneyEmail author
  • Samuel Krislov


We deepen our understanding of democratic deconsolidation by understanding the legal-administrative responses to a security crisis. We expand prior “democratic breakdown” studies through a legal-administrative review of three countries which have experienced a security crisis: Peru, South Africa, and the United States. Using Freedom House and Polity IV scores, we discuss the initial crisis and the state’s legal-administrative responses. Different state responses offer a unique micro-political and administrative perspective on when, where, and why deconsolidation may or may not occur.


Legal-administrative Public administration Security crises Democratic consolidation Democratic deconsolidation South Africa Peru United States 


  1. ACLU. (2002). Insatiable Appetite: The Government's Demand for New and Unnecessary Powers After September 11. Washington DC: American Civil Liberties Union.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G. T., & Halperin, M. H. (1972). Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. In R. Tanter & R. H. Ullman (Eds.), Theory and Policy in International Relations (pp. 40–79). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arce, M. (2003). Political Violence and Presidential Approval in Peru. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 572–583.Google Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A. (1991). Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps. In A. Inkeles (Ed.), On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (pp. 3–21). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Box, R. C., Marshall, G. S., Reed, B. J., & Reed, C. M. (2001). New Public Management and Substantive Democracy. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 608–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratton, M., & van de Walle, N. (1997). Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coppedge, M. (2002). Democracy and Dimensions: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 35–39.Google Scholar
  8. Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Downs, A. D. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. London: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Drum K. (2011). “The Price of Plutocracy,” Mother Jones, Retrieved 6 March, 2014, from
  11. Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  12. Economist. (2011). Hating the Drake. The Economist Retrieved 19 May, 2011, from
  13. FreedomHouse. (2007). Methodology. Washington DC: Freedom House.Google Scholar
  14. Freeland C. (2011). “The Rise of the New Global Elite,” The Atlantic, Retrieved 6 March, 2014, from
  15. Gastil, R. D. (1990). The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions. Studies in Comparative International Development, 25(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Gellman, B. (2005, November 6). The FBI's Secret Scrutiny: In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary Americans. The Washington Post, p. A1Google Scholar
  18. Giannone, D. (2010). Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of Democracy: The Freedom House Case. Democratization, 17(1), 68–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldsmith, J. (2007). The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three Institutionalisms (pp. 936–957). XLIV: Political Studies.Google Scholar
  21. Halstead, T. J. (2006). Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  22. Hunter, W. (1997). Continuity or Change? Civil-Military Relations in Democratic Argentina, Chile, and Peru. Political Science Quarterly, 112(3), 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelly, R. M. (1998). As Inclusive Democratic Polity, Representative Bureaucracies, and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linz, J. (1990). The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
  25. Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (Eds.). (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Liptak, A. (2006). New Scrutiny for Law on Detaining Witnesses. New York Times, 22.Google Scholar
  27. Mahoney, J. (2003). Knowledge Accumulation in Comparative Historical Research: The Case of Democracy and Authoritarianism. In J. Mahoney & D. Reuschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 131–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2005). Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual. Arlington VA: Center for Global Policy.Google Scholar
  29. Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T. R., Davenport, C., & Jaggers, K. (2002). Polity IV, 1800–1999: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer, K. A. (2001). With the Stroke of a Pen: Executive Orders and Presidential Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merton, R. K. (Ed.). (1952). Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002a). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002b). Generating Better Data: A Response to Discussants. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murphy, P. (1972). The Constitution in Crisis Times, 1918–1969. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  37. Navasky, V. A. (1971). Kennedy Justice. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  38. O’Donnell, G. A. (1979). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
  39. O’Donnell, G. A. (1992). Transitions, Continuities, and Paradoxes. In S. Mainwaring, G. O'Donnell, & J. S. Valenzuela (Eds.), Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective (pp. 17–56). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  41. PTRC. (2003). Final Report: General Conclusions. Lima: Truth and Reconciliation Commission.Google Scholar
  42. Rosenbloom, D. H. (2000). Building a Legislative-Centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State, 1946–1999. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  44. Rustow, D. A. (1970). Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SATRC. (1999). Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report of South Africa. Pretoria: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.Google Scholar
  46. Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1973). The Imperial Presidency. New York: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  47. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith H. (Writer) (2007). Spying on the Home Front United States: Frontline (PBS).Google Scholar
  49. Starn, O. (2003). Villagers at Arms: War and Counterrevolution in the Central-South Andes. In E. D. Langer & E. Muñoz (Eds.), Contemporary Indigenous Movements in Latin America (pp. 135–160). Lanham: Jaguar Books.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, J. P., & Smeeding, T. M. (2013). Inequality and Poverty in the United States: the Aftermath of the Great Recession. Washington DC: The Federal Reserve Board.Google Scholar
  51. USDOJ. (2010). A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of Exigent Letters and Other Informal Requests for Telephone Records. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  52. Van Cott, D. L. (Ed.). (1994). Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  53. Waldo, D. (1984). (1948)). The Administrative State (2nd ed.). New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  54. Weyland, K. (2000). A Paradox of Success? Determinants of Political Support for President Fujimori. International Studies Quarterly, 44(3), 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Woodward, B. (2006). State of Denial: Bush at War, Part II. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  56. Yoo, J. (2006). War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.Google Scholar
  57. Yoo, J. (2007). The Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Constitution. George Mason Law Review, 14(3), 565–604.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.BethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations