Advertisement

Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes

  • Leah Gilbert
  • Payam Mohseni
Article

Abstract

This paper appraises the state of the field on hybrid regimes by depicting the tensions and blurred boundaries of democracy and authoritarianism “with adjectives.” An alternative conceptualization and ordering of regimes are subsequently introduced using a configurative approach. Rather than place regimes on a linear continuum from authoritarianism to democracy, it highlights the multi-dimensional arrangements possible for the construction of regime types. The configurative approach also provides an analytically useful way to measure and integrate hybrid regimes into our classificatory schemes. As a result, it helps alleviate the conceptual confusion in the literature and contributes to a discussion of hybrid regimes beyond the framework of authoritarianism. The paper concludes by presenting a list of all hybrid regimes in the world between 1990 and 2009 identified with this method.

Keywords

Authoritarianism Hybrid regimes Regime classification Concept building and measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Marc Morjé Howard for all of his support and advice throughout the duration of the project. They also thank Juan Linz, Steven Levitsky, Gary Goertz, Richard Snyder, Jason Brownlee, Svend-Erik Skaaning, and Luis Felipe Mantilla for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. The suggestions from two anonymous reviewers were also greatly appreciated. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association where it received the Honorable Mention, Sage Paper Award in the Qualitative Methods Section.

References

  1. Armony A, Schamis H. Babel in democratization studies. J Dem. 2005;16(4):113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer H. Managed pluralism: Vladimir Putin’s emerging regime. Post-Sov Aff. 2003;19(3):189–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogaards M. How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democ. 2009;16(2):399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen K, Jackman R. Democracy, stability, and dichotomies. Am Soc Rev. 1989;54:612–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady H. The art of political science: spatial diagrams as iconic and revelatory. Persp on Pol. 2011;9(2):311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownlee J. Portents of pluralism: how hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. Am J Pol Sci. 2009a;53(3):515–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownlee J. Harbinger of democracy: competitive elections before the end of authoritarianism. In: Lindberg S, editor. Democratization by elections. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009b. p. 128–47.Google Scholar
  8. Brownlee J. Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Brumberg D. The trap of liberalized autocracy. J Dem. 2002;13(4):56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brumberg D. Authoritarian legacies and reform strategies in the Arab world. In: Brynen R, Korany B, Noble P, editors. Political liberalization and democratization in the Arab world. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; 1995. p. 229–59.Google Scholar
  11. Carothers T. The end of the transitions paradigm. J Dem. 2002;13(1):5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier D, Adcock R. Democracy and dichotomies: a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Ann Rev Pol Sci. 1999;2:537–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collier D, Levitsky S. Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Pol. 1997;49(3):430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coppedge M, Reinicke W. Measuring polyarchy. St Comp Int Dev. 1990;25(1):51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahl R. Polyarchy: participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1971.Google Scholar
  16. Devota N. Sri Lanka: ethnic domination, violence and illiberal democracy. In: Alagappa M, editor. Civil society and political change in Asia: expanding and contracting democratic space. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 2004. p. 292–323.Google Scholar
  17. Diamond L. Thinking about hybrid regimes.". J Dem. 2002;13(2):21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond L. Developing democracy: toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Diamond L, Linz J, Lipset SM. Democracy in developing countries. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Diamond L, Linz J, Lipset SM. Democracy in developing countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; 1988.Google Scholar
  21. Elkins Z. Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations. Am J Pol Sci. 2000;44(2):287–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Epstein D, Bates R, Goldstone J, Kristensen I, O'Hallaran S. Democratic transitions. Am J Pol Sci. 2006;50(3):551–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gandhi J. Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geddes B. What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Ann Rev Pol Sci. 1999;2:115–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gleditsch K, Ward M. Double take: a reexamination of democracy and autocracy in modern polities. J Con Res. 1997;41(3):361–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goertz G. Social science concepts: a user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  27. Goertz G. Concepts, theories, and numbers: a checklist for constructing, evaluating, and using concepts or quantitative measures. In: Box-Steffensmeier J, Brady H, Collier D, editors. The oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene K. Why dominant parties lose: Mexico’s democratization in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hadenius A, Teorell J. Pathways from authoritarianism. J Dem. 2007;18(1):143–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hadenius A, Teorell J. (2006) Authoritarian regimes: stability, change, and pathways to democracy, 1972–2003. Working Paper #331Google Scholar
  31. Haggard S, Kaufmann R. The political economy of democratic transitions. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  32. Hale H. Regime cycles: democracy, autocracy, and revolution in Post-Soviet Eurasia. World Pol. 2005;58:133–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heydemann S. Upgrading authoritarianism in the Arab world. Saban Center: Brookings Institution; 2007.Google Scholar
  34. Howard MM. The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  35. Howard MM, Roessler P. Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. Am J Pol Sci. 2006;50(2):365–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huntington S. The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman: University of Oklahoma; 1991.Google Scholar
  37. Karl TL. The hybrid regimes of Central America. J Dem. 1995;6(3):72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karl TL. Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comp Pol. 1990;23(1):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levitsky S, Way L. Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  40. Levitsky S, Way L. Linkage and leverage: how do international factors change domestic balances of power? In: Schedler A, editor. Electoral authoritarianism. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2006. p. 199–216.Google Scholar
  41. Levitsky S, Way L. The rise of competitive authoritarianism. J Dem. 2002;13(2):51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lijphart A. Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  43. Linz J. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2000.Google Scholar
  44. Linz J. An authoritarian regime: Spain. In: Allardt E, Rokkan S, editors. Mass politics: studies in political sociology. New York: Free Press; 1970. p. 251–83.Google Scholar
  45. Linz J, Stepan A. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  46. Marshall M, Gurr T, Jaggers K. Political regime characteristics and transitions 1800–2009 dataset user’s manual. Polity IV Project; 2010.Google Scholar
  47. Merkel W. Embedded and defective democracies. Democ. 2004;11(5):33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morlino L. Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion? Eur Pol Sci Rev. 2009;1:273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moslem M. Factional politics in post-Khomeini Iran. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  50. Munck G. Drawing boundaries: how to craft intermediate regime categories. In: Schedler A, editor. Electoral authoritarianism: the dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2006. p. 27–40.Google Scholar
  51. Munck G. The regime question: theory building in democracy studies. World Pol. 2001;54(1):119–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Munck G, Verkuilen J. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy. Comp Pol St. 2002;35(1):5–34.Google Scholar
  53. O'Donnell G, Schmitter P. Transitions from authoritarian rule: tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  54. Ottaway M. Democracy challenged: the rise of semi-authoritarianism. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 2003.Google Scholar
  55. Przeworski A, Alvarez M, Cheibub J, Limongi F. Democracy and development: political institutions and material well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  56. Przeworski A, Limongi F. Modernization: theories and facts. World Pol. 1997;49(2):155–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Remmer K. Exclusionary democracy. St Comp Int Dev. 1985;20(4):64–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roessler P, Howard MM. Post-cold war political regimes: when do elections matter? In: Lindberg S, editor. Democratization by elections. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2009. p. 101–27.Google Scholar
  59. Sadowski Y. Political Islam: asking the wrong questions? Ann Rev Pol Sci. 2006;9:215–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sartori G. Comparing and miscomparing. J Theory Pol. 1991;3(3):243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sartori G. Social science concepts: a systematic analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1984.Google Scholar
  62. Sartori G. Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  63. Sartori G. Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am Pol Sci Rev. 1970;64:1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schedler A. Sources of competition under electoral authoritarianism. In: Lindbergh S, editor. Democratization by elections. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2009. p. 179–201.Google Scholar
  65. Schedler A. The logic of electoral authoritarianism. In: Schedler A, editor. Electoral authoritarianism: the dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; 2006. p. 1–26.Google Scholar
  66. Schedler A. The menu of manipulation. J Dem. 2002;13(2):36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmitter P, Karl TL. What democracy is and is not. In: Diamond L, Plattner M, editors. The global resurgence of democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1996. p. 49–62.Google Scholar
  68. Snyder R. Beyond electoral authoritarianism: the spectrum of nondemocratic regimes. In: Schedler A, editor. Electoral authoritarianism: the dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2006. p. 219–32.Google Scholar
  69. Storm L. An elemental definition of democracy and its advantages for comparing political regime types. Democ. 2008;15(2):215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Way L. The sources and dynamics of competitive authoritarianism in Ukraine. J Comm St Tran Pol. 2004;20(1):143–61.Google Scholar
  71. Wigell M. Mapping “Hybrid Regimes”: regime types and concepts in comparative politics. Democ. 2008;15(2):230–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zakaria F. The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Aff. 1997;76(6).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations