Hybrid Regimes

by

Jean-François Gagné

• LAST REVIEWED: 02 May 2019
• LAST MODIFIED: 10 March 2015
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0167

Introduction

Hybrid regimes are found in most developing countries, especially since the end of the Cold War. They are called hybrid because they combine democratic traits (e.g., frequent and direct elections) with autocratic ones (e.g., political repression). To better understand this vast grey zone of institutional ambiguities, Typologies have been created in order to identify various institutional arrangements of hybrid regimes and how they differ from other types of regimes. The current annotated bibliography of literature on hybrid regime trajectories points to a logical sequence of scientific inquiry in the following three domains: Causes of Emergence, Conditions of Stability, and Transition from Hybridity. It is supported with proposed key readings for each. Also included are datasets, major journals, and university presses on the subject. The selection was largely driven by the criteria of originality and potential for generalization, leaving aside the question of iterated testing and idiographic research. The crosscutting from literature on authoritarian to democratic regimes is what makes hybrid regimes such a dynamic subject for generating new insights and innovative thinking toward a better understanding of political regimes in developing countries.

Seminal Contributions

Authors’ works in the field of political development, based on geographic considerations as well as the nature of regimes, are excellent aids to the process of thinking about hybrid regimes. The influential work Finer 1970, a comparative analysis of political regimes around the world, is essential to any students in the field. Almond and Coleman 1960 focuses on developing countries, Collier 1979 depicts the specifics of Latin American regimes, and Zolberg 1966 those of West Africa. Linz 2000, originally published in 1975, outlines types of nondemocratic regimes, and the same can be said about Perlmutter 1981. Huntington and Moore 1970 addresses the issue of single-party regimes. Hermet, et al. 1978 examines how elections unfold in these particular systems of representation. These authors promote alternative approaches to seeing political regimes in a polymorphous way by constructing new concepts that challenge the standard autocracy/democracy dichotomy. In doing so, without using the name, their works are precursors of the studies on hybrid regimes.

• Almond, Gabriel A., and James S. Coleman, eds. The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The editors survey the various polities in the southern hemisphere, emphasizing regional specificities. The conclusion includes a synthesis that exposes the diversity of political regimes—the majority being hybrid variants—and a diagnosis of which pivotal political group influences the agenda in each country’s regime.

  Find this resource:

• Collier, David, ed. The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Collier gathers Latin American specialists’ views regarding how the military and bureaucracy support the ruling elites by looking at the nature, origins, and trajectories of the bureaucratic-authoritarian model. It is about an authoritarian subtype also present in other regions such as Asia.

  Find this resource:

• Finer, Samuel E. Comparative Government. London: Penguin, 1970.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Presents a systematic way to analyze Third World states, liberal democracies (the United Kingdom, the United States, France) and totalitarianism (the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Third World states are divided into three categories: façade democracy, quasi-democracy, and military regime. The first two are an integral part of the actual lexicon on hybrid regimes.

  Find this resource:

• Hermet, Guy, Alain Rouquié, and Richard Rose, eds. Elections without Choice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 1978.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This collective project highlights the malleability of democratic institutions in authoritarian regimes, emphasizing how the state controls elections and escalates into vote-buying related phenomena which distort the voting process.

  Find this resource:

• Huntington, Samuel P., and Clement H. Moore, eds. Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-Party Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Within the historical relationship between modernization and institutionalization of the ruling party in authoritarian regimes lies the key link to explaining political stability.

  Find this resource:

• Linz, Juan J. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This updated version of earlier works examines nondemocratic regimes based on level of mass participation, importance of ideologies, and nature of limited political pluralism. Linz’s concept of authoritarianism serves as a cornerstone of one category of hybrid regime: Authoritarianism with Adjectives.

  Find this resource:

• Perlmutter, Amos. Modern Authoritarianism: A Comparative Institutional Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Perlmutter’s main argument concerns the twin processes of integration of society into the state and the simultaneous state autonomy from society, which constitute the core of all forms of authoritarian regimes. Of particular interests are the corporatist and praetorian models, for which the organizational structure and mechanisms of repression are described.

  Find this resource:

• Zolberg, Aristide. Creating Political Order: The Party-States of West Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The question raised in this book regarding hegemonic party regimes and opposition is why such regimes sometimes survive with few resources while others fall in a similar context. The argument is twofold. First, ideology is central for achieving unanimity. Second, electoral malpractice and arbitrary use of law help contain dissent.

  Find this resource:

General Overview

This section touches upon a variety of subjects related (but not exclusive) to hybrid regimes, while covering the main analysis found in the literature specific to hybrid regimes. Brooker 2000 as well as Ezrow and Frantz 2011 offer a comprehensive discussion on conceptual and analytical dimensions. Brachet-Marquez 2005 focuses on concepts and definitions and whether they are context dependent. Ottaway 2003 reviews analytical issues from an actor/structure perspective. Schedler 2002 privileges one analytical avenue—that is, identifying the ruler’s repertoire of malpractice in hybrid regimes. Engberg and Ersson 1999 investigates whether these actions are part of an overall institutional design or an unplanned, improvised action-reaction decision-making process. Geddes 1998 explores another angle by reflecting on political dynamics rulers face according to various institutional settings.

• Brachet-Marquez, Viviane. “Undemocratic Politics in the Twentieth Century and Beyond.” In The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. Edited by Thomas Janoski, Robert Alford, Alexander Hicks, and Mildred A. Schwartz, 461–481. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A chapter that presents a geographical distribution of nondemocratic regimes: Europe is home to totalitarianism, Latin America and Southern Europe to authoritarianism, and Asia and Africa to sultanism. The author also wonders whether these and other concepts related to types of regime are historically contingent.

  Find this resource:

• Brooker, Paul. Non-Democratic Regimes: Theory, Government and Politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The author breaks down the motives, means, and opportunities associated with military, party, and personalist types of regime through a review of reference works on the subject. He also addresses how one type of regime can lead to another type and how they fit in relation to hybrid regimes.

  Find this resource:

• Engberg, Jan, and Svante Ersson. “Illiberal Democracy in the Third World – An Empirical Enquiry.” Mannheim, Germany: European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions, March 1999.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A statistical proof of the difference between illiberalism by design—defined as intentional actions that are part of an overall strategy by the ruler to hold in check the opposition—and illiberalism by default, which is the aftermath of immediate reaction and piecemeal adjustment to social crisis.

  Find this resource:

• Ezrow, Natasha, and Erica Frantz. Dictators and Dictatorships – Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. London: Continuum, 2011.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This piece represents a thorough examination of definitions and processes of military, personalistic, and single-party regimes, and how they follow diverse paths in terms of economic development, international relations, and resilience.

  Find this resource:

• Geddes, Barbara. “Authoritarian Breakdown: Empirical Test of a Game Theoretic Argument.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, August 1998.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This conference paper is a must-read. It develops a rational model, based on game theory, as to why single-party regimes are more durable than personalistic ones and most of all military ones.

  Find this resource:

• Ottaway, Marina. Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2003.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  From a practitioner’s point of view, this book traces post-Cold War hybrid regime trajectories in Egypt, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Senegal, and Croatia. It surveys actor-level factors as well as structural ones explaining the raison d’être of hybrid regimes and options available to foreign agencies involved in democratic assistance.

  Find this resource:

• Schedler, Andreas. “The Menu of Manipulation.” Journal of Democracy 13.2 (2002): 36–50.

  DOI: 10.1353/jod.2002.0031Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Schedler sketches a profile of the ruling elite’s formal and informal practices in their attempt to contain the opposition and to win an election. He points out how in hybrid regimes conflict about the rules rather than within the rules characterizes political interactions.

  Find this resource:

Typologies

When dealing with hybrid regimes, concept formation and classification schemes are the object of intense debates. Some scholars argue that there is no need for creating concepts. Armony and Schamis 2005, for example, questions the relevance of devoting so much academic energy to designing new concepts. On the other hand, others assert that existing concepts do not adequately depict the diversity of institutional architectures found in the developing world. In this regard, Wigell 2008 proposes a detailed checklist to construct various types of regimes, notably ones leaning toward hybridity. Still, others are proponents of aiming at knowledge accumulation. Bogaards 2009 advocates for the need to integrate existing types into a single matrix, while Gilbert and Mohseni 2011 favors criteria identification to facilitate systematic comparison. Ultimately, concepts of authoritarianism and hybrid regimes sometimes overlap. The two secondary headings will provide additional clarifications on how to make sense of this conceptual blurriness: The first one deals with Democracy with Adjectives and the second one with Authoritarianism with Adjectives.

• Armony, Ariel C., and Hector E. Schamis. “Babel in Democratization Studies.” Journal of Democracy 16.4 (2005): 113–128.

  DOI: 10.1353/jod.2005.0055Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The authors cast many doubts on the plethora of concepts describing types of regime. They assert that, in fact, little has changed to justify such endeavors and that the current taxonomical effort fails to build mutual exclusive categories.

  Find this resource:

• Bogaards, Matthijs. “How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism.” Democratization 16.2 (2009): 399–423.

  DOI: 10.1080/13510340902777800Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Dissects the respective particularities of defective democracy versus electoral authoritarianism, why they are difficult to integrate into a single classification scheme, and why efforts should be devoted to this task.

  Find this resource:

• Gilbert, Leah, and Payam Mohseni. “Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes.” Studies in Comparative International Development 46.3 (2011): 270–297.

  DOI: 10.1007/s12116-011-9088-xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A look at the terminological confusion between hybrid and nondemocratic regimes, as well as at the diminishing subtypes of democracy and authoritarianism. The authors advance a three-dimensional mapping of regime types based on competitiveness, civil liberties, and tutelage interferences.

  Find this resource:

• Wigell, Mikael. “Mapping ‘Hybrid Regimes’: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics.” Democratization 15.2 (2008): 230–250.

  DOI: 10.1080/13510340701846319Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article lays down a list of criteria based on electoral and constitutional conditions to create a multitude of regime types and move beyond a linear representation along the continuum between autocracy and democracy.

  Find this resource:

Political Institutions

A regime rests on a number of political institutions, both formal and informal. Hybrid regime institutions tend to be depicted as informal in nature. Lehoucq 2003 centers on the prevalence of electoral fraud. Levitsky and Murillo 2009 affirms that formal institutions are weak given that very few actors comply with rules and the rules change all the time. Yet Gandhi 2008 asserts that legislatures are effective instruments of political communication between elites. That being said, as Gandhi and Lust-Okar 2009 concludes, many questions remain. In fact at the heart of the debate is the interplay between informal autocratic practices and formal democratic rules (Mechanisms of Co-optation touches on this subject). The real issue here is not whether formal institutions are meaningful or not, but which formal ones have bearing on the behavior of political actors, and which ones do not and why? To support this, Constraints on the Incumbent stresses the compromises rulers need to make in order to stay in power. The material in both headings, Mechanisms of Co-optation and Constraints on the Incumbent, is interconnected and clearly shows how the ability to co-opt opponents is intimately related to the existence of effective constraints on the incumbent’s arbitrary powers.

• Gandhi, Jennifer. Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511510090Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book tests the following hypothesis: formal institutions in hybrid regimes and various forms of nondemocratic regimes are not a mere façade in that they actually signal preferences and cement consensus about a specific set of public policies.

  Find this resource:

• Gandhi, Jennifer, and Ellen Lust-Okar. “Elections under Authoritarianism.” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (2009): 403–422.

  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060106.095434Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Outlines the main contributions surrounding electoral dynamics in authoritarian regimes. They come to the conclusion that the literature has little to say about how local and national elections link voters, candidates, and incumbents in authoritarian regimes and how this is connected to regime survival and policy outcome. There is also a dearth of evidence on many countries, with China, Mexico, and Egypt attracting all the attention.

  Find this resource:

• Lehoucq, Fabrice. “Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (2003): 233–256.

  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085655Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Discusses the complex issue of ballot rigging, a common and multidimensional practice in hybrid regimes. Overall, intensity and strategies of electoral fraud are a function of the level of political competition.

  Find this resource:

• Levitsky, Steven, and Maria Victoria Murillo. “Variation in Institutional Strength.” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (2009): 115–133.

  DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.091106.121756Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Two key dimensions of institutional strength are presented: enforcement and durability. On both counts, hybrid regimes are problematic. The source of institutional weaknesses is grounded in actor-level, societal-level, and international-level factors.

  Find this resource:

Causes of Emergence

The emergence of a hybrid regime is explained by a myriad of factors that are often specific to each country. Beyond the idiographic aspect, a number of causes come into effect across a variety of settings. Previously cited in the section Democracy with Adjectives, Merkel 2004 also includes a list of plausible causes to explain the emergence of hybrid regimes: modernization-related processes, economic crisis, lack of social capital, weak state status, past institutions, and transitional modes. While all are worth considering, some have been examined with greater scrutiny. Morlino 2009 focuses on past institutions, while Munck and Leff 1997 on transitional modes. Croissant 2003 injects the notion of social capital into the analysis. Fish 2006 stresses the weakness of certain Political Institutions. And Levitsky and Loxton 2013 develops its arguments against a background of deteriorating economic conditions. Overall, hybrid regimes are relatively new, their existence dating back to around the 1950s. That being said, the real puzzle is their recent proliferation. Joseph 1998 proposes an answer in the influence of international factors that simultaneously left their imprint on many sub-Saharan countries, where the bulk of new hybrid regimes are located.

• Croissant, Aurel. “Legislative Powers, Veto Players, and the Emergence of Delegative Democracy: A Comparison of Presidentialism in the Philippines and South Korea.” Democratization 10.3 (2003): 68–98.

  DOI: 10.1080/13510340312331293937Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Looking into small circles of elites, Croissant reveals that if veto players are reduced to a network of “friends” and “collaborators,” the onset of one subtype of hybrid regime, delegative democracy, is more likely; if competition, heterogeneity, and absence of cohesion prevail it is less likely.

  Find this resource:

• Fish, M. Steven. “Creative Constitutions: How Do Parliamentary Powers Shape the Electoral Arena?” In Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Edited by Andreas Schedler, 181–197. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An endogenous explanation of hybrid regime emergence, this chapter examines one very specific factor: weak legislative powers underscored in a constitution favor the creation of hybrid regimes, whereas strong legislatures give actors incentives to invest in political parties and encourage democratic practices.

  Find this resource:

• Joseph, Richard. “Africa, 1990–1997: From Abertura to Closure.” Journal of Democracy 9.2 (1998): 3–17.

  DOI: 10.1353/jod.1998.0028Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article summarizes the complexity of hybrid regime occurrence in sub-Saharan Africa: a fallout of political openings created by structural adjustment programs and the end of Cold War superpower patrons, followed by closure when social upheavals that burst into violent conflicts were harshly repressed by authorities.

  Find this resource:

• Levitsky, Steven, and James Loxton. “Populism and Competitive Authoritarianism in the Andes.” Democratization 20.1 (2013): 107–136.

  DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2013.738864Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The democratic breakdown leading to hybridity is in this case the end sequence of a charismatic new leader elected on the basis of antiestablishment rhetoric. In the name of the poor, he purges the public administration of old elites and destroys altogether the institutions associated with the positions they were holding.

  Find this resource:

• Morlino, Leonardo. “Are There Hybrid Regimes? Or Are They Just an Optical Illusion?” European Political Science Review 1.2 (2009): 273–296.

  DOI: 10.1017/S1755773909000198Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The argument links past regimes with certain types of hybrid regime. It explains and demonstrates empirically the multiple paths from personal, military, civil/military, mobilization, postcolonial, and democratic regimes to limited democracy, democracy without the state, and protected democracy.

  Find this resource:

• Munck, Gerardo L., and Carol Skalnik Leff. “Modes of Transition and Democratization: South America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective.” In Special Issue: Transitions to Democracy: A Special Issue in Memory of Dankwart A. Rustow. Edited by Lisa Anderson. Comparative Politics 29.3 (1997): 343–362.

  DOI: 10.2307/422125Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article focuses on the interlude between past and future regimes; how the strategy (confrontation or accommodation) and the identity (incumbent elite or counterelite) of the agent of change intervenes in the transformative process. The most conducive context to hybridity is when incumbent elites adopt a confrontational posture.

  Find this resource:

Conditions of Stability

There are interesting puzzles related to hybrid regime stability that have been studied more extensively as compared to Causes of Emergence and Transition from Hybridity. First, it is imperative to assess whether hybrid regimes are more or less stable than other types of regime and, if indeed that be the case, why is it so. Epstein, et al. 2006 found that hybrid regimes are more likely to experience instability than outright autocracies or full-fledged democracies, an empirical conclusion corroborated by many other studies. Gates, et al. 2006 puts forward the idea that such a state of decay is caused by institutional incoherence. Menocal, et al. 2008 insists on the fact that the entire regime rests on the shoulders of an individual orchestrating secretive pacts. As leaders come and go, so do regimes. Second, there is the question related to variations among hybrid regimes: why are certain hybrid regimes more stable than others? Hadenius and Teorell 2007 found that the most stable hybrid regimes are those governed by a dominant party, a claim confirmed by other inquiries on the subject. The two secondary headings, Economic Instruments and Organizational Capacities, will detail what makes a party dominant. Nevertheless, Langston 2006 pleads that a dominant party eventually disintegrates, confronted with the centrifugal forces of would-be rulers motivated by the opportunities created by competitive elections. For Case 2006, hybrid regime stability is about a leader’s skills. According to Svolik 2012, one of the greatest challenges that the ruler faces is the trade-off between curbing mass protest and sharing power with those with the means to repress. The failure to cope with this predicament often means the overthrow of the ruler. However, many theoretical problems remain such as elaborated in Art 2012, where it is stated that there is little research on the distinctive role of diverse coercive apparatus in maintaining stability.

• Art, David. “What Do We Know About Authoritarianism After Ten Years?” Comparative Politics 44.3 (2012): 351–373.

  DOI: 10.5129/001041512800078977Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A review of recent books on hybrid regimes, which highlights their contribution and pinpoints their main weakness—most of all, the unsound theoretical foundation of Political Institutions and the monolithic conception of coercive apparatus.

  Find this resource:

• Case, William. “Manipulative Skills: How Do Rulers Control the Electoral Arena?” In Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Edited by Andreas Schedler, 95–112. Boulder. CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An adamant attitude is a recipe for disaster. Using Southeast Asia as a source of illustrative cases, the author hypothesizes that coherent policies coupled with small and judicious institutional adjustments to resolve punctual crises go a long way toward explaining the success of certain hybrid regimes.

  Find this resource:

• Epstein, David L., Robert Bates, Jack Goldstone, Ida Kristensen, and Sharyn O’Halloran. “Democratic Transitions.” American Journal of Political Science 50.3 (2006): 551–569.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00201.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A refined statistical test of the determinants of regime stability and instability leads to a far-reaching conclusion: none of the standard factors explaining stability in autocracies and democracies hold for hybrid regimes.

  Find this resource:

• Gates, Scott, Håvard Hegre, Mark P. Jones, and Håvard Strand. “Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: The Duration of Polities.” American Journal of Political Science 50.4 (2006): 893–908.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00222.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This empirical study demonstrates that hybrid regimes are more likely to be unstable than other types of regime because incongruities in their institutional architecture prevent the self-reinforcing benefits of institutional harmony.

  Find this resource:

• Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell. “Pathways from Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 18.1 (2007): 143–156.

  DOI: 10.1353/jod.2007.0009Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using a duration analysis of authoritarian regimes, including hybrid regimes, the authors ascertain that the most potent way to achieve stability is the presence of a dominant party. Furthermore, instability, or regime change to be more precise, tends to operate within the boundaries of nondemocratic polities.

  Find this resource:

• Langston, Joy. “Elite Ruptures: When Do Ruling Parties Split?” In Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Edited by Andreas Schedler, 57–75. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Comparing the faith of the Kuomintang (Taiwan) and PRI (Mexico), this chapter alleges that regardless of organizational strength, succession crisis and electoral competition take their toll on the regime capacity to reproduce itself.

  Find this resource:

• Menocal, Alina Rocha, Verena Fritz, and Lise Rakner. “Hybrid Regimes and the Challenges of Deepening and Sustaining Democracy in Developing Countries.” South African Journal of International Affairs 15.1 (2008): 29–40.

  DOI: 10.1080/10220460802217934Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A reflection on the prospect of hybrid regimes, this work’s core argument is that hybrid regimes are unstable given the predominance of institutional volatility, a hallmark of personalism and informal practices.

  Find this resource:

• Svolik, Milan W. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

  DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139176040Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The focal point of this book is the interconnection of the problems of control of the masses and of power sharing among elites. Most of all, in order to prevent a revolution from below and stay in power, the ruling elites need the military to repress dissent. In that capacity, military officers obtain greater decision-making power, a condition for stability.

  Find this resource:

Transition from Hybridity

Political development is not automatically a linear process from autocracy all the way down to democracy. It may very well be a back-and-forth, trial-by-error process. Yet the closer a regime is to democracy, the more likely it will engage in a democratic transition. This is precisely the argument developed by Brownlee 2009. Furthermore, according to Lindberg 2009, there is a build-up phenomenon. Multiple experiences with elections lead to incremental openings. Beyond these statements, the outcome is largely contingent on opposition strategies and elite actions. Howard and Roessler 2006 points out how the opposition may resist attacks on its ability to operate freely. It comes down to forging political alliances. Van de Walle 2006 states that opposition parties join under a single banner when they are convinced that electoral victory is within their reach. Karl 1995 suggests what kinds of opposition alliances in hybrid regimes successfully generate democracy. Alexander 2008 tests the idea that confident elites are more willing to engage in democratization than insecure ones; Levitsky and Way 2005 redirects the object of inquiry to exogenous factors. Finally, Waterbury 1997 contends that a leader’s actions have unintended consequences. All these contributions adopt the following as a point of view: hybrid regimes become democracies and not the other way around; in fact, the literature is relatively silent on the transition to autocracy because it is a rather rare event. Once direct and frequent elections with universal suffrage as well as the legalization of parties are institutionalized, they are almost never canceled for a prolonged period.

• Alexander, Marcus. “Democratization and Hybrid Regimes: Comparative Evidence from Southeast Europe.” East European Politics and Societies 22.4 (2008): 928–954.

  DOI: 10.1177/0888325408327634Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Alexander exposes how a strong state and foreign support push a regime into institutional reforms whereas a united opposition pulls a regime into status quo—hence, cooperation is more conducive to transition from hybridity than confrontation.

  Find this resource:

• Brownlee, Jason. “Portents of Pluralism: How Hybrid Regimes Affect Democratic Transitions.” American Journal of Political Science 53.3 (2009): 515–532.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00384.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A quantitative study of regime trajectory that reveals a discernible trend: hybrid regimes with multiparty elections are not more likely to break down than other forms of nondemocratic regimes, but are more conducive to democracy once they do break down.

  Find this resource:

• Howard, Marc Morjé, and Philip G. Roessler. “Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes.” American Journal of Political Science 50.2 (2006): 365–381.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00189.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A cross-national time-series analysis of factors favoring a departure from hybridity, this article demonstrates that a divided opposition is vulnerable to repressive and co-opting tactics whereas an opposition coalition – not necessarily cohesive – changes significantly the balance of power. Suddenly it can make a legitimate claim as a credible contender.

  Find this resource:

• Karl, Terry Lynn. “The Hybrid Regimes of Central America.” Journal of Democracy 6.3 (1995): 72–86.

  DOI: 10.1353/jod.1995.0049Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  An assessment of the prospect of hybridity in a specific region, this socioeconomic snapshot of political institutionalization singles out a major prerequisite for democracy to flourish: the middle class and civil society should channel their effort into party politics.

  Find this resource:

• Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. “International Linkage and Democratization.” Journal of Democracy 16.3 (2005): 20–34.

  DOI: 10.1353/jod.2005.0048Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In an era of globalization, external factors cannot be ignored. This article explains how the balance of power between western democracies and authoritarian regimes may incite the latter to democratize and how the political, economic, social, communication, and cultural interactions between these two cultivate this liberalization process.

  Find this resource:

• Lindberg, Staffan I., ed. Democratization by Elections – A New Mode of Transition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This edited book examines the validity of the following hypothesis—iterated elections foster democratization—while also exploring how it resonates in different contextual settings, notably in hybrid regimes.

  Find this resource:

• van de Walle, Nicolas. “Tipping Games: When Do Opposition Parties Coalesce?” In Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Edited by Andreas Schedler, 77–92. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Opposition groups unite if their chance of winning is high. While the author mentions the drivers behind such an expectation, he stresses that the opposition alliance is often precarious: united in opposition yet divided in what should come next.

  Find this resource:

• Waterbury, John. “Fortuitous By-Products.” Comparative Politics 29.3 (1997): 383–402.

  DOI: 10.2307/422127Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  There is no clear-cut pattern to democratic transition, from a hybrid regime or other types of regimes. It is the isolated leader who, with no other viable option, will engage in democratization. Once the process is launched, it takes on a life of its own.

  Find this resource:

Datasets on Political Regimes

Although datasets on political regimes abound, few introduce considerations pertaining to hybrid regimes and have information updated on an annual basis. Those selected here not only cover the ongoing year, but also include at least three decades of political history as of the early 21st century. In many cases, the classification differs, sometimes significantly, among them even if they do follow a similar evaluation process involving regional experts, career analysts, and academics. Differences largely depend on how much weight is given to a specific dimension of a political regime. Freedom in the World appears to privilege the issue of civil liberties, Polity IV the activity surrounding the executive, and Database of Political Institutions electoral results.

• Database of Political Institutions. 1975–2012.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A project of the World Bank, this dataset provides concise information on a wide range of political institution characteristics. The legislative and executive indicators of electoral competition help in assessing the domination of the incumbent or party in power in hybrid regimes.

  Find this resource:

• Freedom in the World. 1972–2013.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  One of the most commonly used source of information by hybrid regime experts, this dataset divides world regimes into three categories: free, partly free, and not free. Hybrid regimes refer to the partly free category. The organization also provides a snapshot of the political situation and a regime evaluation for each country in its annual report.

  Find this resource:

• Polity IV. 1800–2012.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A unique source of information that embodies over two centuries of political development, it classifies polities as either full democracy, democracy, open anocracy, closed anocracy, or autocracy based on executive recruitment procedures, the independence of executive authority, and political competition and opposition. Hybrid regimes correspond to anocracy.

  Find this resource:

Academic Publishing

Research on hybrid regimes is found in few peer-review journals and university presses. Analytical issues are mostly dealt with in books; Cambridge University Press is undoubtedly a key source on the subject, while Johns Hopkins University Press also addresses the topic. Many journals in political science publish articles on hybrid regimes. Top-tier ones such as the American Journal of Political Science, Comparative Politics, Comparative Political Studies, World Politics and Annual Review of Political Science occasionally select papers discussing a variety of topics related to hybrid regimes, while using mostly (but not exclusively) quantitative methods. That being said, there are specialized journals that give a prominent place to hybrid regimes. In that matter The Journal of Democracy is probably a leading publication. Its new branch, the Taiwan Journal of Democracy, is also worth mentioning. Democratization as well as Studies in Comparative International Development both tend to focus on conceptual problems.

• Cambridge University Press. 1534–.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Publishes award-winning books on many aspects of hybrid regimes, notably on Conditions of Stability, covering mostly the autocratic side of hybrid regimes and encouraging multi-method design.

  Find this resource:

• Democratization. 1994–.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This journal examines at length the question of definitions and classification. What is a hybrid regime and how different is it from other types of regimes? There are also analyses that deal with international actors, including articles on all countries of the world, from industrialized democracies to poor autocracies. The perspective is mostly comparative in nature. Available by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Johns Hopkins University Press. 1878–.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This university press tends to favor the democratic side of hybrid regimes and the processes of regime change and transition. It publishes richly detailed case studies and statistical inquiries.

  Find this resource:

• Journal of Democracy. 1990–.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This journal often organizes special issues that cover cutting-edge debates on hybrid regimes between leading scholars around the world. Case studies are abundant and the writing style is accessible to all. Available by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Studies in Comparative International Development. 1965–.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This publication provides among other resources a forum to discuss mostly conceptual but also from time to time analytical issues related to hybrid regimes. Its interdisciplinary orientation makes it especially relevant to understanding a multidimensional phenomenon such as hybrid regimes. Available by subscription.

  Find this resource:

• Taiwan Journal of Democracy. 2005–.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A refereed journal that was established to address the specificities of democratic processes in Asia with increased references to other regions. Subnational politics is a common theme. The journal attributes equal importance to quantitative and qualitative methods. Available by subscription.

  Find this resource: