Comparing autocracies: theoretical issues and empirical analyses

Köllner, Patrick; Kailitz, Steffen

doi:10.1080/13510347.2013.738859

Cited by 31 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent research on authoritarian regimes seeking to account for these developments has provided new insights into the inner workings of non-democratic polities (for recent overviews, see Köllner and Kailitz, 2013;Pepinsky, 2014). However, despite widely held views that a regime's claim to legitimacy is an important factor in explaining its means of rule, and ultimately its persistence (Easton, 1965;Weber, 1980;Wintrobe, 1998), current studies have largely overlooked the effect of different legitimation strategies on authoritarian power relations (Burnell, 2006;Gerschewski, 2013;Kailitz, 2013).…”

Section: /2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Soest

Grauvogel

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers GIGA Working Papers serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publicaton to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors. The analysis using the new Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) demonstrates that non-democratic rulers in post-Soviet countries use specific combinations of legitimating claims to stay in power. Most notably, rulers claim to be the guardians of citizens' socioeconomic well-being. Second, despite recurrent infringements on political and civil rights, they maintain that their power is rule-based and embodies the will of the people, as they have been given popular electoral mandates. Third, they couple these elements with inputbased legitimation strategies that focus on nationalist ideologies, the personal capabilities and charismatic aura of the rulers, and the regime's foundational myth. Overall, the reliance on these input-based strategies is lower in the western post-Soviet Eurasian countries and very pronounced among the authoritarian rulers of Central Asia. Terms of use: Documents in GIGA Research Programme: Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems

show abstract

Section: /2015mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Soest

Grauvogel

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Дакле, анократија би могла бити дефинисана у позитивном значењу као сублимат демократских и аутократских правила и норми које владају у одређеној држави. Овај тип политичког режима се може одредити и негативно, као одсуство елемената и вредности демократских политичких режима, и са друге стране, као одсуство свих обележја које карактеришу један режим аутократским (Köllner, Kailitz, 2013). На већ круто прихваћене критеријуме демократичности, Пржеворски и сарадници наводе да се демократским може означити сваки режим који не испуњава бар једну од следећих неколико одлика аутократских режима: (1) извршна власт није изабрана на легитимним изборима; (2) законодавна власт није изабрана на легитимним изборима; (3) не постоје макар две политичке странке (Przeworski et al, 2000: 29).…”

Section: проблеми одређења демократије и демократског режимаunclassified

Instruments of quantification of the political regime types within the security studies

Stekić¹

2018

Godiš Fak bezbednosti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ИНСТРУМЕНТИ КВАНТИФИКАЦИЈЕ ПОЛИТИЧКИХ РЕЖИМА У СТУДИЈАМА БЕЗБЕДНОСТИ* Ненад Стекић** Истраживач-приправник, Институт за међународну политику и привреду * Рад представља део научног пројекта "Србија у савременим међународним односима: Стратешки правци развоја и учвршћивања положаја Србије у међународним интегративним процесима-спољнополитички, међународни економски, правни и безбедносни аспекти", који финансира Министарство просвете, науке и технолошког развоја Републике Србије (бр. 179029), а реализује Институт за међународну политику и привреду у периоду од 2011. до 2018. године.

show abstract

“…e.g. Köllner and Kailitz 2013). That is, for an authoritarian state such as China the focus of the leadership is on ensuring regime security.…”

Section: Authoritarian States and Soft Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraints on the Soft Power Efforts of Authoritarian States: The Case of the 2015 Military Parade in Beijing

Sørensen

2017

Journal of Current Chinese Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is it possible for authoritarian states such as China, Russia, and Iran to combine the soft power narratives directed primarily towards an international audience with the narratives directed primarily towards a domestic audience that are aimed at maintaining regime security? To investigate this question, this article analyses the 2015 military parade in Beijing, using this case to highlight and discuss the constraints on Chinese leaders’ efforts to project soft power. The key finding is that soft power will continue to be the weak link in China's pursuit of a great power position and status as long as what continues to count as “Chinese” is defined in opposition to hostile “others” and the humiliation narrative continues to function as the central identity marker in the party-led construction of national identity (the “us”).

show abstract

Comparing autocracies: theoretical issues and empirical analyses

Cited by 31 publications

References 18 publications

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

Instruments of quantification of the political regime types within the security studies

Constraints on the Soft Power Efforts of Authoritarian States: The Case of the 2015 Military Parade in Beijing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About