Political Order and One-Party Rule

Magaloni, Beatriz; Kricheli, Ruth

doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220529

Cited by 428 publications

(251 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

242

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, autocracies are subject to frequent transition events-both, via revolts or reforms. This is in line with the empirical literature on regime stability, which observes that democratic political systems are significantly more stable than autocratic ones (Przeworski, 2000;Gates et al, 2006;Magaloni and Kricheli, 2010).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Emergence and Persistence of Extreme Political Systems

Buchheim

Ulbricht

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the dynamics of political systems in a framework where transitions are driven by reforms and revolts, and where political systems are a priori unconstrained, ranging continuously from single-man dictatorships to full-scale democracies. The dynamics are governed by the likelihood of transitions and their outcome, which are both determined endogenously. We find that reforms and revolts result in extreme political systems-reforms by enfranchising the majority of the population leading to democracies, and revolts by installing autocracies. Reinforcing this polarization, extreme political systems are persistent across time: Democracies are intrinsically stable, leading to long episodes without political change. Autocracies, in contrast, are subject to frequent regime changes. Nevertheless they are persistent, since ensuing revolts lead to autocracies comparable to their predecessors. Taken together, our results suggest that the long-run distribution of political systems is bimodal with mass concentrated on the extremes. The dynamics are consistent with cross-country data.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Emergence and Persistence of Extreme Political Systems

Buchheim

Ulbricht

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This allows for more parsimonious categorization by creating mutually exclusive categories that classify regimes as being democratic or authoritarian (Cheibub, Gandhi, & Vreeland, 2010;Sartori, 1987). The presence of political institutions that have been integral to democratization in the West contribute to the hybridity of the regime, such as political parties (Gandhi, 2008;Greene, 2009;Magaloni & Kricheli, 2010); elections (Brownlee, 2007;Gandhi & Lust-Okar, 2009) and the legislature (Gandhi & Przeworski, 2007;Malesky & Schuler, 2010). However, Cassani (2014) notes that these scholars downplay the mixed nature of the regime, because the presence of democratic institutions does not fundamentally alter the identity of the authoritarian regime itself.…”

Section: An Authoritarian Regimementioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

Mufti

2018

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two decades of scholarship on hybrid regimes two significant advancements have been made. First, scholars have emphasized that the hybrid regimes that emerged in the post-Cold War era should not be treated as diminished sub-types of democracy, and second, regime type is a multi-dimensional concept. This review essay further contends that losing the lexicon of hybridity and focusing on a single dimension of regime type-flawed electoral competition-has prevented an examination of extra-electoral factors that are necessary for understanding how regimes are differently hybrid, why there is such immense variation in the outcome of elections and why these regimes are constantly in flux. Therefore, a key recommendation emerging from this review of the scholarship is that to achieve a more thorough, multi-dimensional assessment of hybrid regimes, further research ought to be driven by nested research designs in which qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used to advance mid-range theory building.

show abstract

“…IARs, particularly communist regimes, increase their survival prospects through relatively effective ways of managing their relationships with both elites and mass publics (Magaloni and Kricheli 2010). An additional QCA of negative cases shows that IAR (∼deinst) is close to a necessary condition (consist = 0.88) for authoritarian survival (i.e., ∼demo) 7 (see Table A.3 in Appendix I).…”

Section: R E G I M E M a T T E R Smentioning

confidence: 99%

East Asian Pathways Toward Democracy: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of “The Third Wave”

Hao¹,

Qi-qi²

2016

J East Asian Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What drove the East Asian tide of democratization during the "Third Wave?" Instead of focusing on a single-factor explanation, we perform qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) on fourteen cases in the region of East Asia from 1980 to 2000 and find three parallel pathways: (1) overthrow model, which features the positive effects of mass mobilization against authoritarianism under a deinstitutionalized authoritarian regime; (2) urban pressure model that works under an institutionalized authoritarian regime; and (3) inside-out model, in which democratization is triggered by the joint forces of domestic and international conditions under both types of regimes. These results demonstrate that the authoritarian status quo ante is an important determinant of democratic transitions.Keywords democratization, East Asia, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), the Third WaveEast Asia was also affected by the tide of democratization during the so-called "Third Wave" that began in Portugal and Spain in 1973-1974. At the end of the 1970s, Japan was the only country in the region that could be categorized as democratic. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, six former authoritarian regimes-South Korea, Mongolia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Thailand-became democracies. 1 Why did this "great transformation" occur? What accounts for democratization in these East Asian states? In previous studies on the history of democracy (Dunn 1992;Tilly 2007) and the comparative politics of democratization (O'Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead 1986b;Shain and Linz 1995;Linz and Stepan 1996;Lijphart 1999; Coleman and Lawson-Remer 2013), the East Asian experiences are generally understudied. Instead, Latin American and post-communist Eastern European countries have received more sustained attention (O'Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead 1986a;Przeworski 1991; Walker and Armony 2000;Calhoun 2004;Rizman 2006; Ramet and Matic 2007;Petrovic 2013).Moreover, the existing but limited research on the democratization of East Asian states has not clarified the distinct models of democratic transition visible in the region. Most of these studies treat the region as a whole and then try to explore a single "East Asian

show abstract

Political Order and One-Party Rule

Cited by 428 publications

References 97 publications

Emergence and Persistence of Extreme Political Systems

Emergence and Persistence of Extreme Political Systems

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

East Asian Pathways Toward Democracy: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of “The Third Wave”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About