Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective

Abstract

This article introduces a modified and updated version of the authoritarian regime type dataset first introduced by Hadenius and Teorell. The basic logic and merits of this dataset is presented, previously published criticism of the index is addressed and practical advice for potential users is provided. The dataset is also compared theoretically and empirically with the datasets provided by Cheibub et al., and Geddes et al. It is argued that the choice of dataset is likely to have a substantial effect on the results of empirical research. The different datasets all have their respective strengths and weaknesses. However, our typology of authoritarianism distinguishes itself from the alternative categorisations in that it recognises the heterogeneous character of electoral regimes and provides a category corresponding to the theoretically interesting class of ‘electoral authoritarian’ regimes.

Keywords:

• authoritarian
• democracy
• dataset
• regime type
• classification

Notes

It is unclear what constitutes a ‘large party’ or how we should know whether a party is ‘large’ if it has never been legally permitted to stand for election.

We have used an updated version of the original dataset that extends to 2005. We are grateful to Michael Bernhard for sharing this data with us.

It would also have been possible to use the categorisation by Geddes et al. (2012a). However, while the other indices are measures of democracy, Geddes et al. provide a typology of authoritarianism. Geddes et al. has one residual category for ‘non-autocracies’; this category includes democracies but also other entities such as ‘transitional’ or ‘occupied’ regimes. The fact that transitional regimes are not coded as authoritarian also excludes a significant number of cases where the transition to democracy was a more gradual process. Consequently, the mean cutoff point in Geddes et al.'s typology is significantly lower than in the other indices (5.91).

The reason for only going back to 1972 is that our typology is dependent on Freedom House scores, which are only available from 1972 onward.

We use the variable referred to as Polit02 (type of regime) in the Banks and Wilson dataset to identify military regimes. Countries where Polit02=1 (civil–military) or Polit02=2 (military) are generally coded as military regimes. To identify monarchies, we rely on the variable Polit05 (effective head of state). Countries where Polit05=1 (monarch) are generally coded as monarchies.

No-party regimes have effective legislatures Legis03>0, but there are no legal parties Legis01=0.

Legis01 (the number of seats won by the largest party) = Legis02 (the number of seats in the lower house).

There is one regime amalgam that does not appear in Figure 1: the one-party monarchy. This however seems to be an extremely rare creature, only exemplified in our data by the last four years of Iran under Shah Pahlavi (1975–1978).

In the GWF codebook, they describe this as ‘one convention’, indicating that this might be done differently.

Scott's π=(observed concurrence – expected concurrence)/(1 – expected concurrence)

GWF does not have any monarchy hybrids, and HTW always consider ‘Monarchy’ as the dominant hybrid dimension.

Samoa is not included in the GWF data. A second, partial exception is that of Nepal in 2006 and 2007, coded as a royal dictatorship in CGV, a democracy in GWF and as a residual ‘other’ by ourselves. Our coding is based on the fact that Nepal's monarchy collapsed in 2006, but new parliamentary elections were not held until 2008 (Thapa and Sharma 2009).

In all honesty, it is not entirely correct to describe Geddes' personalist category as civilian or electoral. Personalist regimes can be civilian or electoral, but might also have a military origin (they are, however, never monarchies).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Wahman

Michael Wahman is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for European Studies, University of Texas at Austin. His research concerns elections and parties in new democracies, democratization and African politics.

Jan Teorell

Jan Teorell is Professor of Political Science at Lund University, Sweden, and the author of Determinants of Democratization (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Axel Hadenius

Axel Hadenius is Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has worked at Uppsala and Lund University and has for shorter periods of time been attached to academic institutions in the USA such as the University of California and the University of Notre Dame.