Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fostering support for non-democratic rule?

Controlled political liberalization and popular support for non-democratic regimes

Förderlich für nicht-demokratische Herrschaft?

Begrenzte politische Öffnung und die Unterstützung nicht-demokratischer Regime

  • Aufsätze
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When the Cold War ended, many non-democratic regimes across the globe embarked on a course of controlled political liberalization, hoping to stabilize their autocratic rule by mitigating popular demands for democratization and increasing regime legitimacy. But does this strategy actually work? This article uses multi-level analyses to examine how the degree of political liberalization affects regime support in non-democratic political systems and to ascertain which mechanisms underlie this effect. Drawing on aggregate measures of political liberalization and comparative survey data from four regional survey projects and 31 non-democracies, the study’s results indicate that the degree of liberalization has no decisively positive effect on regime support, suggesting controlled political liberalization might not be an effective legitimizing strategy after all.

Zusammenfassung

Nach Ende des Kalten Krieges haben viele nicht-demokratische Regime weltweit einen Kurs der begrenzten politischen Öffnung eingeschlagen, um öffentliche Forderungen nach Demokratisierung zu entschärfen und auf diese Weise die Legitimität ihrer autokratischen Herrschaft zu erhöhen. Doch ist diese Strategie tatsächlich effektiv? Der Beitrag verwendet Mehrebenenanalysen, um zu untersuchen wie der Grad an politischer Öffnung die Regimerunterstützung in nicht-demokratischen politischen Systemen beeinflusst. Auf Basis von Aggregatmaßen zur politischen Öffnung und Individualdaten aus vier regionalen Umfrageprojekten und 31 Autokratien kann kein klarer positiver Effekt des Grads der politischen Öffnung auf die Regimeunterstützung nachgewiesen werden, was eine begrenzte politische Öffnung als wenig effektive Legitimationsstrategie erscheinen lässt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In democratic contexts, performance evaluations are often conceptualized to affect support for the incumbent government rather than for the political regime itself (see, e. g., Citrin 1974). Due to the often far reaching fusion of incumbents and regime in political systems that lack regular alternation in office, however, this distinction is rarely made for non-democratic contexts.

  2. Another reason for implementing formally democratic institutions can be found in authoritarian rulers’ efforts to solicit the cooperation of regime elites or opposition forces (Boix and Svolik 2013; Gandhi and Przeworski 2007). Apart from these internal rationales, there are also external reasons for controlled political liberalization: Since the Cold War, democracy has emerged as the only legitimate form of political rule across the globe, and economic assistance from Western countries is now often conditioned on holding free and fair elections. Providing purportedly democratic multiparty elections may thus also be a way to gain international legitimacy and secure external economic assistance while still retaining autocratic power (Levitsky and Way 2010a, pp. 16–20).

  3. Of course, political liberalization may not always be temporally prior to changes in regime support: Non-democratic rulers may also choose to embark on a course of controlled political liberalization as a reaction to dwindling popular support, i. e. changes in the degree of political liberalization may follow changes in the level of regime support. However, the expectation would then still be that regime support increases as a result of this liberalization and not the other way around – it seems highly unlikely that non-democratic rulers would choose to liberalize as a reaction to increasing popular support, i. e. that liberalization occurs after regime support has increased.

  4. While it would be more faithful to the process nature of controlled political liberalization to analyze the relationship between changes in the degree of political liberalization and changes in the level of regime support, suitable longitudinal data are not available. The hypothesized causal relationship therefore can only be examined using cross-national variations in the levels of political liberalization and regime support, and all hypotheses are formulated accordingly.

  5. Conceptually, regime support and evaluations of democratic performance are two distinct constructs. While democratic performance evaluations refer to a specific attitude based on cognitive assessments of the regime’s democraticness (and nothing else), regime support refers to a more general and diffuse attitude that may be based not only on judgments of the regime’s democratic performance but also on judgments of its economic performance, the perceived legitimacy of the regime, the popularity of the ruler, and so forth.

  6. It is also conceivable that regime support affects democratic performance evaluations: if citizens are satisfied with their political regime – for whatever reasons – they might also evaluate this regime as being more democratic. While this endogeneity problem cannot be resolved empirically with the data available, the theoretical considerations outlined above (rational-choice approach) as well as prior research strongly suggest that evaluations of democratic (as well as economic or administrative) performance are indeed causally prior to regime support and not the other way around.

  7. Huhe and Tang (2016) have recently (and independently of this contribution) also suggested a moderating effect of this type. They, however, do not offer a coherent theoretical argument for this effect. Empirically, they find that pro-democratic value orientations do exert a stronger negative influence on political support in non-democracies than in democracies.

  8. All political systems not listed as “electoral democracies” by Freedom House for the respective survey years were classified as non-democracies. Four of these non-democracies were excluded due to the apparent instability of their political regimes (Egypt, Thailand) or the lack of state monopoly (Libya, Palestine (West Bank)) during the survey fieldwork period.

  9. To avoid structures in a single country (China) dominating the results, all countries are weighted equally for all analyses. Net sample size remains unaffected by this weighting.

  10. Robustness checks using instead either the Afrobarometer or the Arab Barometer data did not yield substantially different results.

  11. Robustness checks using changes in inverted Freedom House scores over the past 5 and past 10 years, respectively, as a measure of liberalization did not yield substantially different results.

  12. All three items load highly on a single factor both in the pooled sample and in individual countries (standardized factor loadings generally >0.5). Measurement invariance across all countries, however, could not be established. This is a common issue in cross-national comparative research (see, e. g., Ariely and Davidov 2011; Coromina and Davidov 2013; Davidov et al. 2014). While a lack of measurement invariance makes an interpretation of the results methodologically problematic, this issue cannot be resolved with the data currently available.

  13. For individual countries, alpha ranges from 0.563 (Honduras) to 0.842 (Morocco). Apart from Honduras, only Uganda (alpha = 0.598) and Kenya (alpha = 0.602) yield similarly poor reliability values. While alphas below 0.65 or even 0.7 are often considered problematic, they are not uncommon with very short scales such as the one used here (e. g., Cortina 1993; Hair et al. 2010, p. 125). Since dimensionality analyses (CFA) confirm the unidimensionality of the scale, even the poor values for Honduras, Uganda, and Kenya are deemed acceptable.

  14. Of course, social desirability and political fear are always problematic when conducting survey research in non-democratic political systems. However, only small minorities (an average of 4.8%) of respondents in African non-democracies appeared suspicious during the interviews (the highest proportions being 16% in Algeria, 11% in Sudan, and 10% in Cameroon); no more than 4% of respondents in East Asian non-democracies seemed insincere in answering the interviewer’s questions; and a maximum of 10% of interviewers reported difficulties in asking questions about politics in Latin American non-democracies (in Venezuela; less than 5% in Honduras and Nicaragua). While surely not definitive (and of course disregarding those refusing to be interviewed altogether), these numbers do provide some indication about the willingness of citizens in non-democracies to respond to survey questions and can be interpreted as a sign that their answers can be deemed reasonably valid. In addition, prior studies report only weak correlations between measures of political fear and political support (Chen and Shi 2001; Shi 2001; Yang and Tang 2010), corroborating the proposition that political fear has no major effect on response behavior even in non-democracies.

  15. Unfortunately, no comparable measures for socioeconomic status or household income were available for all four surveys.

  16. A “2-1-1” mediation depicts an independent variable on level 2 (in this case: the degree of system-level political liberalization), a mediating variable on level 1 (in this case: individual-level democratic performance evaluations), and a dependent variable on level 1 (in this case: individual-level regime support) (see, e. g., Zhang et al. 2009).

  17. In order not to underestimate the standard errors for the level-1 slopes, the slopes of the main individual-level variables of interest – democratic performance evaluations and democratic value orientations – were estimated including a (significant) random component. Despite some of the slopes of the level-1 control variables having significant variance on level 2 as well, these slopes were not estimated with a random component in order to keep the model as parsimonious as possible. This is justified for two reasons: one, the effects of the control variables are only of minor interest here; and two, the overall fit of the model is barely improved by including these random components (cf. Hox 2010, pp. 54–59; Snijders and Bosker 2012, pp. 155–161).

  18. As a consequence, Model 1d in Table 3 contains two effects of democratic performance evaluations on regime support: the first one is the “regular” level-1 effect and the second one is the level-2 mediation effect.

References

  • Aarts, Kees, and Jacques Thomassen. 2008. Satisfaction with democracy: do institutions matter? Electoral Studies 27(1):5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afrobarometer Data. Merged dataset, Round 5, 2011–2013, available at http://www.afrobarometer.org. Accessed June 1st, 2016.

  • Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arab Barometer Data. Merged dataset, Round 3, 2012–2014, available at http://arabbarometer.org/. Accessed June 1st, 2016.

  • Ariely, Gal. 2015. Democracy-assessment in cross-national surveys. Social Indicators Research 121(3):621–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, Gal, and Eldad Davidov. 2011. Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparable way? Cross-national equivalence of democratic attitudes in the world values survey. Social Indicators Research 104(2):271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asian Barometer Data. Merged dataset, Round 3, 2010–2012, available at http://www.asianbarometer.org. Accessed June 1st, 2016.

  • Boix, Carles, and Milan W. Svolik. 2013. The foundations of limited authoritarian government: institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictatorships. The Journal of Politics 75(2):300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker, Paul. 2009. Non-democratic regimes, 2nd edn., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, Jason. 2007. Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, Jason. 2009. Portents of pluralism. How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science 53(3):515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canache, Damarys, Jeffery J. Mondak, and Seligson Mitchell A. 2001. Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 65(4):506–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Alex, Yun Chu, and Bridget Welsh. 2013. Southeast Asia: sources of regime support. Journal of Democracy 24(2):150–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheibub, José A., Jennifer Gandhi, and James R. Vreeland. 2010. Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice 143(1-2):67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Jie, and Bruce J. Dickson. 2008. Allies of the state. Democratic support and regime support among china’s private entrepreneurs. The China Quarterly 196:780–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Xueyi, and Tianjian Shi. 2001. Media Effects on Political Confidence and Trust in the People’s Republic of China in the Post-Tiananmen Period. East Asia 19(3):84–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Jie, Yang Zhong, and Jan W. Hillard. 1997. The Level and Sources of Popular Support for China’s Current Political Regime. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 30(1):45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, Yun. 2011. Sources of Regime Legitimacy and the Debate over the Chinese Model. Asian Barometer Working Paper Series, Vol. 52. Taiwan: Asian Barometer Project Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, Yun, and Min Huang. 2010. Solving an Asian Puzzle. Journal of Democracy 21(4):114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, Yun, Bridget Welsh, and Alex Chang. 2013. Congruence and Variation in Sources of Regime Support in East Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 9(1):221–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, Jack. 1974. Comment. The Political Relevance of Trust in Government. American Political Science Review 68(3):973–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, Jack, Morris Levy, and Matthew Wright. 2014. Multicultural Policy and Political Support in European Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 47(11):1531–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Harold D., Nitish Dutt, and Allan Kornberg. 1993. The Political Economy of Attitudes toward Polity and Society in Western European Democracies. The Journal of Politics 55(4):998–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordero, Guillermo, and Pablo Simón. 2016. Economic Crisis and Support for Democracy in Europe. West European Politics 39(2):305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coromina, Lluis, and Eldad Davidov. 2013. Evaluating Measurement Invariance for Social and Political Trust in Western Europe over Four Measurement Time Points (2002-2008). Ask: Research and Methods 22(1):37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, Jose M. 1993. What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1):98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Criado, Henar, and Francisco Herreros. 2007. Political Support: Taking into Account the Institutional Context. Comparative Political Studies 40(12):1511–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert A. 2006. On Political Equality. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, Stefan, and Sören Holmberg. 2014. Democracy and Bureaucracy: How their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction. West European Politics 37(3):515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, Russell J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices. The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, Russell J., and Nhu-Ngoc Ong. 2005. Authority Orientations and Democratic Attitudes. A Test of the “Asian Values” Hypothesis. Japanese Journal of Political Science 6(2):211–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidov, Eldad, Bart Meuleman, Jan Cieciuch, Peter Schmidt, and Jaak Billiet. 2014. Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research. Annual Review of Sociology 40:55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Geoffrey, and Stephen Whitefield. 1995. The Politics and Economics of Democratic Commitment. Support for Democracy in Transition Societies. British Journal of Political Science 25(4):485–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrín, Mónica. 2016. An Empirical Assessment of Satisfaction with Democracy. In How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy, ed. Mónica Ferrín, Hanspeter Kriesi, 283–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, Jennifer, and Jennifer Wolak. 2016. The Roots of Trust in Local Government in Western Europe. International Political Science Review 37(1):130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. 2015a. Individual Country Ratings and Status, FIW 1973-2015. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Individual%20Country%20Ratings%20and%20Status%2C%201973-2015%20%28FINAL%29.xls. Accessed 15. Dez 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. 2015b. Individual Territory Ratings and Status, FIW 1973-2015. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Individual%20Territory%20Ratings%20and%20Status%2C%201973-2015%20%28final%29.xls. Accessed 15. Dez 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitag, Markus, and Kathrin Ackermann. 2015. Direct Democracy and Institutional Trust. Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits. Political Psychology doi:10.1111/pops.12293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Dieter. 1998. Kriterien demokratischer Performanz in liberalen Demokratien. In Demokratie – eine Kultur des Westens? 20. Wissenschaftlicher Kongreß der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft, ed. Michael T. Greven, 151–179. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, Dieter. 2009. The Political Culture Paradigm. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. Russell J. Dalton, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 161–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, Jennifer, and Adam Przeworski. 2007. Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats. Comparative Political Studies 40(11):1279–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, Barbara, and John R. Zaller. 1989. Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science 33(2):319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerschewski, Johannes. 2013. The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Co-Optation in Autocratic Regimes. Democratization 20(1):13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, Bruce. 2009. The Right to Rule. How States Win and Lose Legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Joseph F. Jr., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective, 7th edn., Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, Marc Morjé, and Philip G. Roessler. 2006. Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science 50(2):365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, Joop J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications, 2nd edn., New York, Hove: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Min, Yu Chang, and Yun Chu. 2008. Identifying Sources of Democratic Legitimacy: A Multilevel Analysis. Electoral Studies 27(1):45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huhe, Narisong, and Min Tang. 2016. Contingent Instrumental and Intrinsic Support. Exploring Regime Support in Asia. Political Studies doi:10.1177/0032321715622791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, Ken. 2013. Social and Institutional Trust in East and Southeast Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 9(1):13–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, Ronald. 2003. How Solid Is Mass Support for Democracy: And How Can We Measure It? PS: Political Science and Politics 36(1):51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jou, Willy. 2009. Political Support from Election Losers in Asian Democracies. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 5(2):145–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornberg, Allan, and Harold D. Clarke. 1992. Citizens and Community. Political Support in a Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzian, Peter. 2011. Public Support for Liberal Democracy. International Political Science Review 32(1):23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumlin, Staffan. 2011. Dissatisfied Democrats, Policy Feedback and European Welfare State, 1976-2011. In Political Trust: Why Context Matters, ed. Sonja Zmerli, Marc Hooghe, 163–185. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latinobarometro Data. Merged dataset, Round 16, 2011, available at http://www.latinobarometro.org. Accessed June 1st, 2016.

  • Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. 2010a. Competitive Authoritarianism. Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. 2010b. Why Democracy Needs a Level Playing Field. Journal of Democracy 21(1):57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Wenfang Tang, and Nicholas F. Martini. 2014. A Chinese Popularity Function: Sources of Government Support. Political Research Quarterly 67(1):16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linde, Jonas. 2012. Why Feed the Hand That Bites You? Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and System Support in Post-Communist Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 51(3):410–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linde, Jonas, and Joakim Ekman. 2003. Satisfaction with Democracy: A Note on a Frequently Used Indicator in Comparative Politics. European Journal of Political Research 42(3):391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lü, Xiaobo. 2014. Social Policy and Regime Legitimacy. The Effects of Education Reform in China. American Political Science Review 108(2):423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lühiste, Kadri. 2006. Explaining Trust in Political Institutions: Some Illustrations from the Baltic States. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 39(4):475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Deyong, and Feng Yang. 2014. Authoritarian Orientations and Political Trust in East Asian Societies. East Asia 31(4):323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magalhães, Pedro C. 2016. Economic Evaluations, Procedural Fairness, and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Research Quarterly doi:10.1177/1065912916652238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marien, Sofie. 2011. Measuring Political Trust Across Time and Space. In Political Trust: Why Context Matters, ed. Sonja Zmerli, Marc Hooghe, 13–45. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, William, and Richard Rose. 1999. Five Years After the Fall. Trajectories of Support for Democracy in Post-Communist Europe. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. Norris Pippa, 78–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moehler, David C. 2009. Critical Citizens and Submissive Subjects. Election Losers and Winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science 39(2):345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Chong. 2013. Democratic Quality and Regime Support in East Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 9(1):93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pippa, Norris. 1999. Institutional Explanations for Political Support. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. Norris Pippa, 217–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pippa, Norris. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polity IV Project. 2016. Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2015. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html. Accessed June 1st, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, Kristopher J., Patrick J. Curran, and Daniel J. Bauer. 2006. Computational Tools for Probing Interactions in Multiple Linear Regression, Multilevel Modeling, and Latent Curve Analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 31(4):437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, Kristopher J., Michael J. Zyphur, and Zhen Zhang. 2010. A General Multilevel SEM Framework for Assessing Multilevel Mediation. Psychological Methods 15(3):209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintelier, Ellen, and Jan W. van Deth. 2014. Supporting Democracy. Political Participation and Political Attitudes: Exploring Causality Using Panel Data. Political Studies 62(S1):153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, Timothy S. 2015. Losers’ Consent or Non-Voter Consent? Satisfaction with Democracy in East Asia. Asian Journal of Political Science 23(3):243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard, and William Mishler. 2002. Comparing Regime Support in Non-Democratic and Democratic Countries. Democratization 9(2):1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard, and William Mishler. 2011. Political Trust and Distrust in Post-Authoritarian Contexts. In Political Trust: Why Context Matters, ed. Sonja Zmerli, Marc Hooghe, 117–140. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard, William Mishler, and Christian Haerpfer. 1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, Andreas. 2015. The Politics of Uncertainty. Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligson, Mitchell A. 2002. The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy. A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries. Journal of Politics 64(2):408–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The Moral Foundations of Politics. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Tianjian. 2001. Cultural Values and Political Trust. A Comparison of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. Comparative Politics 33(4):401–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Shane P. 2016. Compulsory Voting and Dissatisfaction with Democracy. British Journal of Political Science doi:10.1017/S0007123416000041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, Tom A.B., and Roel J. Bosker. 2012. Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, 2nd edn., London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, Christian, and Markus Tausendpfund. 2016. Multidimensional Government-Citizen Congruence and Satisfaction with Democracy. European Journal of Political Research doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Min, and Narisong Huhe. 2014. Alternative Framing: The Effect of the Internet on Political Support in Authoritarian China. International Political Science Review 35(5):559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Mark R. 2004. Pacific Asia after “Asian Values”. Authoritarianism, Democracy, and “Good Governance”. Third World Quarterly 25(6):1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Alexander F., Friedrich Schneider, and Martin Halla. 2009. The Quality of Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy in Western Europe – A Panel Analysis. European Journal of Political Economy 25(1):30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Zhengxu. 2005. Before the Emergence of Critical Citizens. Economic Development and Political Trust in China. International Review of Sociology 15(1):155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Zhengxu, and Ern Ser Tan. 2013. The Conundrum of Authoritarian Resiliency. Hybrid and Nondemocratic Regimes in East Asia. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 9(1):199–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, Jun, and Jay D. Hmielowski. 2016. Alternative Views and Eroding Support. The Conditional Indirect Effects of Foreign Media and Internet Use on Regime Support in China. International Journal of Public Opinion Research doi:10.1093/ijpor/edw006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Qing, and Wenfang Tang. 2010. Exploring the Sources of Institutional Trust in China: Culture, Mobilization, or Performance? Asian Politics & Policy 2(3):415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Zhen, Michael J. Zyphur, and Kristopher J. Preacher. 2009. Testing Multilevel Mediation Using Hierarchical Linear Models: Problems and Solutions. Organizational Research Methods 12(4):695–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, Yang, and Yongguo Chen. 2013. Regime Support in Urban China. Asian Survey 53(2):369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmerli, Sonja, and Newton Kenneth. 2008. Social Trust and Attitudes toward Democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(4):706–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Edeltraud Roller, Nils Steiner, Carl Berning, Sven Hillen, and the participants of the 2015 DVPW General Conference as well as two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank Tizian Lehnert for his research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 12, 55099, Mainz, Germany

    Marlene Mauk M.A.

Authors
  1. Marlene Mauk M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marlene Mauk M.A..

Appendix

Appendix

 

Table 4 Item wording and operationalization
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mauk, M. Fostering support for non-democratic rule?. Z Vgl Polit Wiss 11, 24–49 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-017-0325-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-017-0325-1

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation