Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214 |
Resumo: | Classifying political regimes has never been more difficult. Most contemporary regimes hold de-jure multiparty elections with universal suffrage. In some countries, elections ensure that political rulers are—at least somewhat—accountable to the electorate whereas in others they are a mere window dressing exercise for authoritarian politics. Hence, regime types need to be distinguished based on the de-facto implementation of democratic institutions and processes. Using V-Dem data, we propose with Regimes of the World (RoW) such an operationalization of four important regime types—closed and electoral autocracies; electoral and liberal democracies—with vast coverage (almost all countries from 1900 to 2016). We also contribute a solution to a fundamental weakness of extant typologies: The unknown extent of misclassification due to uncertainty from measurement error. V-Dem’s measures of uncertainty (Bayesian highest posterior densities) allow us to be the first to provide a regime typology that distinguishes cases classified with a high degree of certainty from those with “upper” and “lower” bounds in each category. Finally, a comparison of disagreements with extant datasets (7%–12% of the country-years), demonstrates that the RoW classification is more conservative, classifying regimes with electoral manipulation and infringements of the political freedoms more frequently as electoral autocracies, suggesting that it better captures the opaqueness of contemporary autocracies. |
id |
RCAP_7676462a5e4b17c602dfa73b2b85bd12 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1214 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimesautocracy; democracy; democratization; regime; typologyClassifying political regimes has never been more difficult. Most contemporary regimes hold de-jure multiparty elections with universal suffrage. In some countries, elections ensure that political rulers are—at least somewhat—accountable to the electorate whereas in others they are a mere window dressing exercise for authoritarian politics. Hence, regime types need to be distinguished based on the de-facto implementation of democratic institutions and processes. Using V-Dem data, we propose with Regimes of the World (RoW) such an operationalization of four important regime types—closed and electoral autocracies; electoral and liberal democracies—with vast coverage (almost all countries from 1900 to 2016). We also contribute a solution to a fundamental weakness of extant typologies: The unknown extent of misclassification due to uncertainty from measurement error. V-Dem’s measures of uncertainty (Bayesian highest posterior densities) allow us to be the first to provide a regime typology that distinguishes cases classified with a high degree of certainty from those with “upper” and “lower” bounds in each category. Finally, a comparison of disagreements with extant datasets (7%–12% of the country-years), demonstrates that the RoW classification is more conservative, classifying regimes with electoral manipulation and infringements of the political freedoms more frequently as electoral autocracies, suggesting that it better captures the opaqueness of contemporary autocracies.Cogitatio2018-03-19info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1214Politics and Governance; Vol 6, No 1 (2018): Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy; 60-772183-2463reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1214https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1214/1214Copyright (c) 2018 Anna Lührmann, Marcus Tannenberg, Staffan I. Lindberghttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLührmann, AnnaTannenberg, MarcusLindberg, Staffan I.2022-12-22T15:16:10Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1214Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:15.830105Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
title |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
spellingShingle |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes Lührmann, Anna autocracy; democracy; democratization; regime; typology |
title_short |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
title_full |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
title_fullStr |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
title_full_unstemmed |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
title_sort |
Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes |
author |
Lührmann, Anna |
author_facet |
Lührmann, Anna Tannenberg, Marcus Lindberg, Staffan I. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Tannenberg, Marcus Lindberg, Staffan I. |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Lührmann, Anna Tannenberg, Marcus Lindberg, Staffan I. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
autocracy; democracy; democratization; regime; typology |
topic |
autocracy; democracy; democratization; regime; typology |
description |
Classifying political regimes has never been more difficult. Most contemporary regimes hold de-jure multiparty elections with universal suffrage. In some countries, elections ensure that political rulers are—at least somewhat—accountable to the electorate whereas in others they are a mere window dressing exercise for authoritarian politics. Hence, regime types need to be distinguished based on the de-facto implementation of democratic institutions and processes. Using V-Dem data, we propose with Regimes of the World (RoW) such an operationalization of four important regime types—closed and electoral autocracies; electoral and liberal democracies—with vast coverage (almost all countries from 1900 to 2016). We also contribute a solution to a fundamental weakness of extant typologies: The unknown extent of misclassification due to uncertainty from measurement error. V-Dem’s measures of uncertainty (Bayesian highest posterior densities) allow us to be the first to provide a regime typology that distinguishes cases classified with a high degree of certainty from those with “upper” and “lower” bounds in each category. Finally, a comparison of disagreements with extant datasets (7%–12% of the country-years), demonstrates that the RoW classification is more conservative, classifying regimes with electoral manipulation and infringements of the political freedoms more frequently as electoral autocracies, suggesting that it better captures the opaqueness of contemporary autocracies. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-03-19 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214 oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1214 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214 |
identifier_str_mv |
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/1214 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1214 https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214 https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1214/1214 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Anna Lührmann, Marcus Tannenberg, Staffan I. Lindberg http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Anna Lührmann, Marcus Tannenberg, Staffan I. Lindberg http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cogitatio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Politics and Governance; Vol 6, No 1 (2018): Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy; 60-77 2183-2463 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130668710494208 |