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

Abstract

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.

Europeanisation and conflict networks: private sector development in post-conflict Bosnia–Herzegovina

“…Future research on Europeanisation in a post-conflict space that aims to develop deeper understanding of domestic constraints can benefit from insights derived in the scholarship on the political economy of war. Research that traces merging of private and public interests in the course of a violent conflict as a distinct feature of post-conflict states and societies is of particular interest (Andreas 2004;Bliesemann de Guevara 2008;Newman and Keller 2007;Zinecker 2009). …”

Ethnic Politics, Political Elite, and Regime Change in Nigeria

“…That is, the role of institutions and mostly the commitment of institution‐builders are pivotal to the strengthening of the political system. Both democratic and critical elite theorists instruct that the more elite attitudes are disconnected, for example, from rent‐seeking, patronage, and corruption, and directed towards social preferences, the more likely political stability (Mills 2000 [1956]; Scott ; Welzel and Inglehart ; Zinecker ). Hence, in post‐colonial and multiethnic societies, the link between socially committed elite leadership and social order is fundamental.…”

Harnessing Post-Conflict Transitions: A Conceptual Primer

“…Jones, Gowan, & Sherman, 2009;Nixon & Ponzio, 2007;Papagianni, 2009;Ratner, 2009;Riekhoff, 2003 , 2009a, 2009bUSIP & PKSOI, 2009;U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, 2008b;Walter, 1999;Wittkopf, 1994;Zinecker, 2009). Transition phasing is best described as a continuum of activities that span the political, economic, social, and military realms of state building over a period, often overlapping and transforming in tandem.…”

“…While these theories are helpful in describing the phases, processes, and mode of transition to democracy, it is important to note that some, if not many, of these democratic transitions have been half-measures. Indeed, semi-transitioned states have come to be known as "hybrid regimes" (Diamond, 2002;Zinecker, 2009) and, as such, researchers should be mindful to make careful distinctions between the political elite who maintain the locus of power and formal state institutions (Fishman, 1990). Schedler (2002) argues that free elections are hardly a sufficient qualifier for inclusion, pointing out how elites can manipulate elections to display a veneer of democratic governance.…”