Autocracies of the World, 1950-2012

Magaloni, Beatriz; Chu, Jonathan; Min, Eric

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4346003

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from the three above-mentioned regime typologies there are a few more, which are more or less similar to the above-mentioned. The typology by Beatriz Magaloni, Jonathan Chu, and Eric Min distinguishes "autocratic regimes according to two basic criteria: the dictators' 'launching organization' and the number of political parties" (Magaloni 2008, p. 731) in monarchies, military, single-party, and multiparty (Magaloni et al 2013). The resulting categories of the typology are mostly similar to the ones by Hadenius, Teorell, and Wahmann.…”

Section: Typologies With Political Regimes Sui Generismentioning

confidence: 95%

Typologies of autocratic regimes

Kailitz

2024

Research Handbook on Authoritarianism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Typologies With Political Regimes Sui Generismentioning

confidence: 95%

Typologies of autocratic regimes

Kailitz

2024

Research Handbook on Authoritarianism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the reason why this paper opts for a binary classification of political systems is to make the variation in e-government performance stand out instead of moving the focus on the degrees of democracy in different countries. The regime classification that fits best for the context of this study is one that does not solely focus on the elections aspect of democracy but also on “source of policy-making, institutions or rules that structure intra-elite interaction and competition, and composition and selection of the executive and political leaders” (Magaloni et al , 2013, p. 6). The data set used to measure this variable is by Magaloni et al (2013), which consists of a binary qualitative classification of countries whose population size is above 500,000.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-government performance in democracies versus autocracies

Bougherra

Shaikh

Yenigun

et al. 2022

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to examine the relationship between political regimes and e-government performance, with a focus on governments’ perspectives of e-government. First, the authors use United Nations (UN) E-government Development Index (EGDI) to establish the current patterns of e-government performance across different regime types, and then develop their own typology of the various perspectives of different political regime types to e-government adopted in the literature. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between e-government performance and regime types. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a mixed-method research approach that involves quantitative (statistical databases) as well as qualitative (interviews) methods to go beyond the statistics and obtain interpretations of explored patterns of e-government performance and regime types. The research instruments for this study include the Jupyter open-source software used for drawing the relevant correlations, and validating the results using expert interviews. Findings The results of the analysis support the research hypothesis that democracies have better e-government implementation than autocracies. The findings suggest that the type of a political regime has an influence on the conceptualization of e-government, the implementation of its practices and subsequently the assessment of its performance. Research limitations/implications This study relies on the UN EGDI and data from previous literature. the UN Index only measures the supply side of government outputs without taking into consideration their impact on citizens, which does not provide a holistic view of the whole picture. Therefore, the UN EGDI rankings do not necessarily imply citizen satisfaction or improved e-government. Practical implications From a practice point of view, this study gives information to government leaders as well as technical experts on how the political regime influences the government’s performance in e-government. In fact, this paper bridges the gap between theory and practice by calling policymakers to take different regime worldviews and motivations into consideration before setting e-government strategies or even assessing e-government performance. Considering the current global digital transformation, it should be ensured that practitioners take these regime specifications into consideration. In the long term, the results of this research will prove that setting up e-government or e-participation platforms is not enough as technology alone is not enough to strengthen democracy or let alone stimulate citizen engagement. When dealing with e-government initiatives, the focus should be broadened beyond the technological aspect and take the social and political motivations of governments into consideration. Social implications From a theoretical standpoint, this study calls for a more holistic e-government performance indicator that could take the regime perspectives into consideration and integrate them into its evaluation process. An indicator that can accommodate the different objectives pursued by different regime types. This could also be achieved by setting two indicators with each one matching the perspective of the specific regime type, which takes us to Ashby’s “Law of Requisite Variety” (1991). The Law of Requisite Variety states that “the system must possess as much regulatory variety as can be expected from the environment” (Ashby, 1956). This law has some implications for this study. It implies that the regime worldview influences the requisite variety depending on the political context where e-government is being implemented. Because we have two regime worldviews, we need to have at least two responses (in this case indicators) that consider the variety of political contexts. Therefore, through appreciating the differences between these two worldviews, this study recommends using the Law of Requisite Variety to investigate the influence of political regimes on e-government. In the same way, in our repertoire of responses, we should not assume that one discipline has the answer but have a variety of cross-disciplinary responses. Originality/value The contribution of this study lies in going beyond the statistical analyses of the UN EGDI to come up with possible interpretations of the reasons why political regimes differ in their e-government performance and what could be the reasons behind such variations. Based on analyzing correlations between e-participation performance and regime types, and interviews with experts, two different e-government perspectives could be identified: one for democracies and one for autocracies. Through identifying the relationship between these perspectives and the e-government performance of each regime type, this study provides governments and policy makers with new evidence that different regime types have different motivations for developing their e-government performance. Hence, e-government policies and strategies ought to match particular political contexts.

show abstract

“…To explain the variation within democratic and nondemocratic regime types, some publications have zeroed in on institutional arrangements (Anckar & Fredriksson, 2019;Bjørnskov & Rode, 2019). In contrast, others have emphasized the presence of contested elections (Lührmann et al, 2018) and the role of political parties and civil liberties (Magaloni et al, 2013;Skaaning, 2021). When assigning scores to operationalize regime types, scholars often prioritize specific attributes over others; some use broader maximalist definitions of democracy encompassing numerous attributes (Freedom House, 2023;Marshall et al, 2010), while others limit their focus to the presence and conduct of contested elections (Anckar & Fredriksson, 2019;Bjørnskov & Rode, 2019) or the status of civil liberties (Skaaning, 2021).…”

Section: Participation and Contestation As Political Regime Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Authoritarianism and Contentious Action in Russia

Mamaev

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Element examines the evolution of authoritarianism in Russia from 2011 to 2023, focusing on its impact on contentious action. It argues that the primary determinant of contention, at both federal and regional levels, is authoritarian innovation characterized by reactive and proactive repression. Drawing on Russian legislation, reports from human rights organizations, media coverage, and a novel dataset of contentious events created from user-generated reports on Twitter using computational techniques, this Element contributes to the understanding of contentious politics in authoritarian regimes, underscoring the role of authoritarianism and its innovative responses in shaping contentious action.

show abstract

Autocracies of the World, 1950-2012

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Typologies of autocratic regimes

Typologies of autocratic regimes

E-government performance in democracies versus autocracies

The Evolution of Authoritarianism and Contentious Action in Russia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About