Theorien der Entwicklung der Dritten Welt nach dem Ende der Zweiten (sozialistischen) Welt

Tetzlaff, Rainer

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-86620-2_3

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, we pursue two objectives: first, the concept of regime hybridity, which is still underdeveloped in the literature on gray‐area research, and will be differentiated, energized, and operationalized—without dissolving the political regime into the socioeconomic dimension of the underlying regime definition but rather expanding the political dimension’s definition from the state to civil society; secondly, it will examine whether there is a stable correlation between regime hybridity and the development shortfall that exists in rent economies. In doing so, democratization is neither considered here as a simple “epiphenomenon and consequence of the thorough capitalization of the world society” (Tetzlaff 1996:85), because democracy takes place without a “thorough capitalization,” that is, without abandoning a rent economy, nor is it assumed that democratization can be completely detached from the sociation (German: Vergesellschaftung ) by a market economy because, in order to reach full democracy, the structures that determine a rent economy need to be broken down. If this is not achieved, then regime hybridity is the natural outcome.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions

Zinecker

2009

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on transitions has reached a crossroad. Should it be abandoned because the third wave of transitions to democracy has ended, or should it continue because so much remains unaccounted for regarding the third wave? This paper suggests that regime hybridity constitutes a widespread institutional setting resulting from incomplete transitions. Regime‐hybridity is defined as a specific regime type in which “partial regimes” within the “political regime” are democratic while others are nondemocratic, although not necessarily authoritarian. Underlying the concept is the assumption that the “political regime” stretches beyond the institutions of the state to include civil society. It is at this level that the work on transitions can be connected to the research on the dynamics of economic exclusion in the context of rent economies. This paper develops a checklist for identifying “partial regimes” that constitute regime‐hybridity and applies it to the case of Colombia to identify linkages between political transition and socioeconomic transformation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%