Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:44:25.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to Slater review ofCompetitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

Steven Levitsky  and
Lucan A. Way
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dan Slater offers thoughtful and incisive comments. We respond here to three of his points. The first is that by limiting our study to the post–Cold War period, we convert it into a “period piece,” akin to studies of fascist and communist regimes. Although this may be true, a historically bounded analysis is essential because of the changing character of the international environment. World historical time powerfully shapes regime outcomes. The prospects for democracy and authoritarianism during the Cold War, which was marked by global superpower rivalry, differed dramatically from those during periods of Western liberal hegemony. During the Cold War, for example, nearly all military coups ushered in authoritarian rule; after 1989, nearly 70 percent of coups led to multiparty elections In 1989, single-party rule predominated in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa; five years later, it had disappeared.

Type
Critical Dialogue
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 388 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bellin, Eva. 2004. “The Robustness of Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics 36(2): 139–57.Google Scholar
Brownlee, Jason. 2007. Durable Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, Timothy. 2006. “Introduction: Governance and Postcommunist Politics.” In The State After Communism: Governance in the New Russia, ed. Colton, Timothy and Holmes, Stephen. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Darden, Keith. 2008. “The Integrity of Corrupt States: Graft as an Informal State Institution.” Politics and Society 36(1): 35–59.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1999. “What Do We Know about Democratization after Twenty Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 2:115–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goemans, Hein, and Marinov, Nikolay. 2011. “Putsch for Democracy: The International Community and Elections after the Coup.” March 14, 2011. http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf (accessed May 3, 2011).Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen. 1997. “What Russia Teaches Us Now: How Weak States Threaten Freedom.” American Prospect 8 (33): 30–39 (July 1–August 1).Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan. 2010. “Beyond Patronage: Violent Struggle, Party Cohesion, and Authoritarian Durability.” Presented at the American Political Science Review, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2008. “Credible Power Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule.” Comparative Political Studies 41(4-5): 715–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Andrew. 2001. “Introduction: The Documents and Their Significance.” In The Tiananmen Papers, ed. Nathan, A. and Link, P.. New York: Public Affairs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1993. “On the State, Democratization, and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Some Postcommunist Countries.” World Development 21(8): 1355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar