Gravity centres of authoritarian rule: a conceptual approach

Abstract

The resilience of autocratic regimes in various world regions and the emerging model of illiberal capitalist autocracies (China, Russia) have led scholars to shift their attention to the durability of such regimes. Autocracies not only resist the global spread of democracy, but are developing their own domestic efforts in the promotion of autocracy. This study argues that processes at the regional level aim at the dissemination and diffusion of autocratic norms, structures, processes, policy approaches or practices. Likewise, we propose that authoritarian gravity centres can be attributed with both the active promotion of autocracy as well as the inducement of diffusion effects. Our research tries to shed some light on their strategies and modes of influence on countries in their geopolitical proximity (target states).

Keywords:

• gravity centres
• autocracies
• foreign policy
• promotion of autocracy
• diffusion

Acknowledgements

This paper is a revised version of a former manuscript we presented at the GIGA International Workshop (Hamburg, 8–9 November 2012) on “International Learning and Cooperation of Authoritarian Regimes” and at the ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop (Mainz, 11–16 March 2013) on the “International Dimension of Authoritarian Rule”. We thank all the participants of both workshops for their very helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Marianne Kneuer is full professor of Political Science at the University of Hildesheim.

Thomas Demmelhuber is associate professor of Political Science at the same university.

Notes

1. When speaking of an “autocracy” we follow the definition of Wolfgang Merkel encompassing more than only authoritarian regimes as defined by Juan Linz but also all non-democratic, dictatorial regimes (Merkel, Systemtransformation, 40–1). As we expect our concept to be of significant help to understand the impact of various subtypes of autocracy on the promotion of autocratic practices, we also recur to the ongoing scholarly debate on diminished subtypes of autocracy (see Morlino, “Are there Hybrid Regimes?”, 273–96; Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism, 51–65).

2. Burnell, “Promoting Democracy Abroad”, 7.

3. The notion of “antagonization of democracy” goes back to a discussion with Sebastian Harnisch.

4. Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América – Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos; Alliance for the People of Our America.

5. Carothers, “The End of the Transition Paradigm”, 5–21.

6. Scholars have found different typologies for these intermediate regimes (see Schedler, Electoral Authoritarianism; Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism; Merkel et al., Defekte Demokratien) according to the concept of diminished subtypes (Collier and Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives”).

7. In our understanding of elites, we follow the concept of “Politically Relevant Elites (PRE)” developed by Volker Perthes (Perthes, Arab Elites, 1–30).

8. Defined as countries in geopolitical proximity of the AGC that are affected by the intended and unintended modes of autocracy promotion on behalf of the AGC.

9. O'Donnell and Schmitter, Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, 18; Morlino, Changes for Democracy, 144.

10. See also similar differentiation in Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism.

11. Knodt and Jünemann, “Introduction”, 9–32; Kneuer, Demokratisierung durch die EU; Pridham, “The International Dimension of Democratization”.

12. Bunce and Wolchik, “A Regional Tradition”, 34. See also Brinks and Coppedge, “Diffusion is No Illusion”; Gleditsch and Ward, “Diffusion and the International Context”; Mainwaring and Pérez-Liñán, Why Regions of the World are Important; Simmons et al., The Global Diffusion; Starr, “Democratic Dominoes”, 356–81.

13. Bunce and Wolchik, “International Diffusion“, 296; Lauth and Pickel, “Diffusion der Demokratie”, 42.

14. Erdmann and Kneuer, “Externe Faktoren der Demokratisierung”, 324–5.

15. Burnell and Schlumberger, “Promoting Democracy – Promoting Autocracy?”, 8; Grävingholt et al., The three Cs of Democracy; Kneuer, “Externe Faktoren der Demokratisierung”.

16. Whitehead, “International Dimensions of Democratization”.

17. Schmitter, “The Influence of the International Context”.

18. Morlino and Magen, “Methods of Influence”, 29–41.

19. Schmitter, “The Influence of the International Context”, 31.

20. Jackson, “The Role of External Factors”, 103.

21. Burnell, “Promoting Democracy and Promoting Autocracy”, 272.

22. Burnell, “Is there a New Autocracy Promotion?”; Vanderhill, Promoting Authoritarianism Abroad.

23. Bader et al., “Would Autocracies Promote Autocracy?”; Jackson, “The Role of External Factors”; Burnell and Schlumberger, “Promoting Democracy – Promoting Autocracy?”.

24. Schmitter, “The Influence of the International Context”, 29 (based on Whitehead, “International Dimensions of Democratization”, 3–25).

25. Vanderhill, Promoting Authoritarianism Abroad, 6.

26. Burnell, “Is there a New Autocracy Promotion?”, 246; Burnell, “Promoting Democracy and Promoting Autocracy”, 274.

27. McFaul and Spector, “External Sources and Consequences”.

28. Bader et al., “Would Autocracies Promote Autocracy?”, 84.

29. Ibid., 82.

30. See Burnell and Schlumberger, “Promoting Democracy – Promoting Autocracy?”, 8.

31. Exceptions are: Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism; Holbig, “Die Globale Finanzkrise in China”; Kneuer, “Auf der Suche nach Legitimität”.

32. Holbig, “Die Globale Finanzkrise in China”.

33. Kneuer, “Auf der Suche nach Legitimität”.

34. Ibid.

35. Magen and Morlino, “Hybrid Regime, the Rule of Law”, xiv; Erdmann and Kneuer, “Externe Faktoren der Demokratisierung”, 319–38; Geddes, “What Causes Democratization?”, 593–615; Burnell, “Is there a New Autocracy Promotion?”, 252.

36. Schmitter, “The Influence of the International Context”, 47.

37. Brinks and Coppedge, “Diffusion is No Illusion”; Gleditsch and Ward, “Diffusion and the International Context”; Bunce and Wolchik, “International Diffusion”; Börzel and Risse, “From Europeanisation to Diffusion”; Wejnert, Diffusion of Democracy.

38. Brinks and Coppedge, “Diffusion is No Illusion”, 464.

39. Ibid., 467.

40. This recurs to an often used resort in Social Sciences on the gravity model in order to grasp spatial interactions and processes (see Sen and Smith, Gravity Models of Spatial Interaction).

41. Gleditsch, All International Politics Is Local, 5.

42. Brinks and Coppedge, “Diffusion is No Illusion”; Abbott and DeViney, “Welfare State as Transnational Event”, 245–74.

43. O'Loughlin et al., “The Diffusion of Democracy”.

44. Wejnert, Diffusion of Democracy.

45. Bunce and Wolchik, “International Diffusion”, 287.

46. Wejnert, Diffusion of Democracy, 52.

47. Wejnert, Diffusion of Democracy, 38–44; Bunce and Wolchik, “International Diffusion”, 286–7.

48. Bunce and Wolchik, “International Diffusion”; O'Loughlin et al., “The Diffusion of Democracy”, 7.

49. McFaul, Advancing Democracy Abroad; Gershman and Allan, “Assault on Democracy Assistance”.

50. Holbig, “Die Globale Finanzkrise in China”; Merkel and Gerschewski, “Autokratien am Scheideweg”; Kneuer, “Auf der Suche nach Legitimität”.

51. Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism.

52. Kneuer, “Auf der Suche nach Legitimität”, 213.

53. Vachudova, Europe Undivided, 143.

54. Ibid., 65.

55. Schimmelfennig, “The Community Trap”, 142–72.

56. Risse-Kappen, “Bringing Transnational Relations Back in”; Checkel, “International Institutions and Socialization”.

57. Schimmelfennig, “The Community Trap”; Checkel, “International Institutions and Socialization”.

58. Bunce and Wolchik, “A Regional Tradition”, 34.

59. Ibid., 34–5.

60. Lauth and Pickel, “Diffusion der Demokratie”, 52.

61. Rose, Lesson Drawing in Public Policy, 30; Dolowitz, “Policy Transfer”, 9.

62. Dolowitz and Marsh, “Who Learns What”, 345–50.

63. The result of such dissemination processes – be it actor-driven and coercive or by diffusion or transfer and thus non-coercive – may lead to convergence. Convergence theories gained remarkable scholarly attention in the last decades (see Holzinger et al., Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz; Holzinger et al., Theorie und Empirie; Holzinger et al., Environmental Policy Convergence).

64. Risse-Kappen, “ Bringing Transnational Relations Back in”, 25.

65. Levitsky and Way, Competitive Authoritarianism, 43–4.

66. We recur on the policy transfer framework by Dolowitz (“Policy Transfer”, 10), who enumerates as possible objects of policy transfer: policies (goals, content, and instruments), programmes, institutions, ideologies, attitudes/and cultural values, and negative lessons.