Andrea Cassani

Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes

Despite initial scepticism about their very existence, hybrid regimes have increasingly attracted scholarly attention. The rapid development of the debate, however, is in striking contrast with its often inconclusive results. The goals of this article are to identify the causes of this impasse and to seek a solution for it. In particular, the article focuses on a crucial point of contention: how to define hybrid regimes. The analysis shows why divergences on this issue hamper dialogue among researchers, as well as the accumulation of knowledge. We suggest shifting attention from regimes to institutions and propose a “consensus-sensitive” indicator to establish which regimes can be defined as hybrid regardless of disagreement on their conceptualisation. The new measure is used to replicate the contrasting results of two recent studies. The conclusion is that by going beyond conceptual barriers, we can successfully shed light on the “grey zone”.

Social services to claim legitimacy: comparing autocracies’ performance

ABSTRACT Autocrats cannot rule by repression and co-optation alone, and need to instil some sense of legitimacy in the populace. Lacking democratic legitimacy, and being in shortage of other identity-based sources of diffuse support, legitimation claims in post-Cold War autocracies increasingly rests on rulers’ ability to achieve concrete outcomes, including the improvement of citizen living conditions. However, autocracies differ from each other, and different institutional arrangements could influence a leader’s ability to deliver social services, and chase performance-based legitimation. Accordingly, this article compares the social service performance of different post-Cold War authoritarian regimes. The analysis demonstrates that so-called electoral autocracies outperform single-party and military regimes, although they show a capacity to provide for their citizens that is similar to hereditary regimes. These findings suggest that the legitimacy returns of introducing semi-competitive and participatory institutions could grow exponentially. Besides procedural legitimacy, these institutions could help rulers pursue legitimation through social services.

Do All Bad Things Go Together? Electoral Authoritarianism and the Consequences of Political Change Short of Democratisation†

ABSTRACT The article surveys the literature on electoral authoritarianism, paying special attention to the social consequences of the phenomenon. Autocrats have learnt to use elections, legislatures and multipartyism to their own advantage. Hence, nominally democratic institutions can turn into instruments of authoritarian consolidation, rather than citizen emancipation. Challenging this overly pessimistic scenario, recent research reveals that bad things do not necessarily go together. Electoral authoritarian rulers have both the incentives and the capabilities to improve citizen living conditions. Political change short of democratisation, that is, transition from closed to electoral forms of authoritarian rule, may thus generate mutual returns, and benefit both rulers and citizens, at least from a strictly socio-economic viewpoint. Yet this area of study is only in its infancy. The paper identifies and discusses a few issues that future research should address.

Pathways of democratisation to human development in post-communist countries

The article investigates the consequences of post-Cold War regime transitions on human development in the former Soviet bloc. Relying on a mixed-methods research strategy that combines econometric and qualitative comparative analysis, it proceeds through three consecutive steps. First, there is a discussion of how democratic institutions may solicit governments’ attention toward social issues. Second, the relationship between democratisation and human development in 21 post-communist countries is tested. Third, democracy in its core attributes is unpacked, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is used to identify a few alternative institutional configurations favouring human development. The analysis reveals that not only full democracies, but also some hybrid regimes, have been successful in this task.