Local determinants of an emerging electoral hegemony: the case of Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey

Bibliography

• Auyero, J. “The Logic of Clientelism in Argentina: An Ethnographic Account.” Latin American Research Review 35, no. 3 (2000): 55–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader, M. “Hegemonic Political Parties in Post-Soviet Eurasia: Towards Party-Based Authoritarianism?” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 44, no. 3 (2011): 189–197. doi: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2011.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buğra, A., and Candaş, A. “Change and Continuity under an Eclectic Social Security Regime: The Case of Turkey.” Middle Eastern Studies 47, no. 3 (2011): 515–528. doi: 10.1080/00263206.2011.565145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, J. M., and S. Hix. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 55, no. 2 (2011): 383–397. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00495.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çarkoğlu, A. “Economic Evaluations vs. Ideology: Diagnosing the Sources of Electoral Change in Turkey, 2002–2011.” Electoral Studies 31, no. 3 (2012): 513–521. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2012.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinar, K., and M. Ugur Cinar. “Building Democracy to Last: The Turkish Experience in Comparative Perspective.” Mediterranean Politics (2015). doi:10.1080/13629395.2015.1042246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Converse, P. E. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter, 206–261. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz-Cayeros, A., B. Magaloni, and B. R. Weingast. “Tragic Brilliance: Equilibrium Hegemony and Democratization in Mexico.” 2003. http://www.stanford.edu/~albertod/tragicbrilliance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, M. “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies 10 (1991): 33–51. doi: 10.1016/0261-3794(91)90004-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garner, L., and R. Garner. “Problems of the Hegemonic Party: The PCI and the Structural Limits of Reform.” Science & Society 45, no. 3 (1981): 257–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. L., and J. Suarez-Cao. “Federalized Party Systems and Subnational Party Competition: Theory and an Empirical Application to Argentina.” Comparative Politics 43, no. 1 (2010): 21–39. doi: 10.5129/001041510X12911363510312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grigoriadis, I. “Islam and Democratization in Turkey: Secularism and Trust in a Divided Society.” Democratization, 16, no. 6 (2009): 1194–1213. doi: 10.1080/13510340903271803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Güneş-Ayata, A., and S. Ayata. “Ethnic and Religious Bases of Voting.” In Politics, Parties and Elections in Turkey, edited by Y. Esmer and S. Sayarı, 137–156. Boulder, CO: Lynn Rienner, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Gunther, R., and L. Diamond. “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology.” Party Politics, 9, no. 2 (2003): 167–199. doi: 10.1177/13540688030092003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadenius, A., and J. Teorell. “Pathways from Authoritarianism.” Journal of Democracy 18, no. 1 (2007): 143–157. doi: 10.1353/jod.2007.0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, M. K. “Residues of a Movement: The Aging of the American Protest Generation.” The American Political Science Review 81, no. 2 (1987): 367–382. doi: 10.2307/1961957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalaycıoğlu, E. “Politics of Conservatism in Turkey.” Turkish Studies 8, no. 2 (2007): 233–252. doi: 10.1080/14683840701312211
   Google Scholar
• Keyman, F., and Ş. Gümüşçü. Democracy, Identity and Foreign Policy in Turkey: Hegemony through Transformation (Islam and Nationalism). New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Kirdis, E. “Immoderation: Comparing the Christian Right in the US and Pro-Islamic Movement-parties in Turkey.” Democratization (2015). doi:10.1080/13510347.2014.975125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H. “Party Systems.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, 522–554. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H., and S. I. Wilkinson, eds. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Lust-Okar, E. “Legislative Elections in Hegemonic Authoritarian Regimes.” In Democratization by Election: A New Mode of Transition, edited by Staffan I. Lindberg, 226–245. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Magaloni, B. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Magaloni, B., and R. Kricheli. “Political Order and One-Party Rule.” Annual Review of Political Science 13, no. 1 (2010): 123–143. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masoud, T. “Islamist Parties: Are They Democrats? Does it Matter?” Journal of Democracy 19, no. 3 (2008): 19–24. doi: 10.1353/jod.0.0012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müftüler-Baç, M., and Keyman, F. “Turkey under the AKP: The Era of Dominant-Party Politics.” Journal of Democracy 23, no. 1 (2012): 85–99. doi: 10.1353/jod.2012.0000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ocakli, F. “Notable Networks: Elite Recruitment, Organizational Cohesiveness, and Islamist Electoral Success in Turkey.” Politics & Society (2015). doi:10.1177/0032329215584790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ocakli, F. “Political Entrepreneurs, Clientelism, and Civil Society: Supply-side Politics in Turkey.” Democratization, (2015). doi:10.1080/13510347.2015.1013467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öniş, Z. “Sharing Power: Turkey's Democratization Challenge in the Age of the AKP Hegemony.” Insight Turkey 15, no. 2 (2013): 103–122.
   Google Scholar
• Özbudun, E. “AKP at the Crossroads: Erdoğan's Majoritarian Drift.” South European Society and Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 1–13. doi: 10.1080/13608746.2014.920571
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pempel, T. J. Uncommon Democracies: The One-Party Dominant Regimes. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Poterba, J. M. “Demographic Change, Intergenerational Linkages, and Public Education.” The American Economic Review 88, no. 2 (1998): 315–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, Jr., G. B., and G. S. Vanberg. “Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 30, no. 3 (2000): 383–411. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400000168
   Google Scholar
• Reuter, O. J., and J. Gandhi. “Economic Performance and Elite Defection from Hegemonic Parties.” British Journal of Political Science 41, no. 1 (2011): 83–110. doi: 10.1017/S0007123410000293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, G. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Schedler, Andreas. “What is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9, no. 2 (1998): 91–107. doi: 10.1353/jod.1998.0030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwedler, J. “Religion and Politics.” In Politics and Society in the Contemporary Middle East, edited by M. P. Angrist, 111–132. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth, R., A. Lowry, and B. Wilkening. “Engineering Victory: Institutional Reform, Informal Institutions, and the Formation of a Hegemonic Party Regime in the Russian Federation.” Post-Soviet Affairs 23, no. 2 (2007): 118–137. doi: 10.2747/1060-586X.23.2.118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer, M. “Moderation of Religious and Secular Politics, a Country's ‘Centre’ and Democratization.” Democratization 21, no. 2 (2014): 244–267. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2012.732069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, S. “Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina.” American Political Science Review 99, no. 3 (2005): 315–325. doi: 10.1017/S0003055405051683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suryadinata, L. “The Decline of the Hegemonic Party System in Indonesia: Golkar after the Fall of Suharto.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 29, no. 2 (2007): 333–358. doi: 10.1355/CS29-2F
   Google Scholar
• Tepe, S. “The Perils of Polarization and Religious Parties: The Democratic Challenges of Political Fragmentation in Israel and Turkey.” Democratization 20, no. 5 (2013): 831–856. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2013.801254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tessler, M. “Religion, Religiosity and the Place of Islam in Political Life: Insights from the Arab Barometer Surveys.” Middle East Law and Governance 2, no. 2 (2010): 221–252. doi: 10.1163/187633710X500748
   Google Scholar
• Tezcür, G. M. Turkish Elections at Province Level (TEPL) Dataset. 2012. www.luc.edu/faculty/gtezcur/data.html.
   Google Scholar
• Tomz, M., J. Wittenberg, and G. King. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software 8, no. 1 (2003): 1–29. doi: 10.18637/jss.v008.i01
   Google Scholar
• Trounstine, J. “All Politics is Local: The Reemergence of the Study of City Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 7, no. 3 (2009): 611–618. doi: 10.1017/S1537592709990892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, D. “Dominant Party Systems: A Framework for Conceptualizing Opposition Strategies in Russia.” Democratization 18, no. 3 (2011): 655–681. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2011.563122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, C., J. Chin, and N. Othman. “Malaysia-Towards a Topology of an Electoral One-Party State.” Democratization 17, no. 5 (2010): 920–949. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2010.501179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar