Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lührmann, Anna
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Tannenberg, Marcus, Lindberg, Staffan I.
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