Despite initial scepticism about their very existence, hybrid regimes have increasingly attracted scholarly attention. The rapid development of the debate, however, is in striking contrast with its often inconclusive results. The goals of this article are to identify the causes of this impasse and to seek a solution for it. In particular, the article focuses on a crucial point of contention: how to define hybrid regimes. The analysis shows why divergences on this issue hamper dialogue among researchers, as well as the accumulation of knowledge. We suggest shifting attention from regimes to institutions and propose a “consensus-sensitive” indicator to establish which regimes can be defined as hybrid regardless of disagreement on their conceptualisation. The new measure is used to replicate the contrasting results of two recent studies. The conclusion is that by going beyond conceptual barriers, we can successfully shed light on the “grey zone”.
AdcockRobertCollierDavid (2001) Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
2.
Baeg ImHyug (2004) Faltering democratic consolidation in South Korea: Democracy at the end of the “Three Kims” era. Democratization11(5): 179–198.
3.
BeicheltTimm (2004) Autocracy and democracy in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. Democratization11(5): 113–132.
4.
BlaydesLisa (2008) Authoritarian elections and elite management: Theory and evidence from Egypt. Presented at the “Dictatorships: Their Governance and Social Consequences” conference, Princeton University, USA.
5.
BogaardsMatthijs (2009) How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization16(2): 399–423.
6.
BoixCarlesSvolikMilan (2008) The foundations of limited authoritarian government: Institutions and power-sharing in dictatorships. Presented at the “Dictatorships: Their Governance and Social Consequences” conference, Princeton University, USA.
7.
BowmanKirkLehoucqFabriceMahoneyJames (2005) Measuring political democracy: Case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies38(8): 939–970.
8.
BrownleeJason (2007) Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BrownleeJason (2009) Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science53(3): 515–532.
10.
BrumbergDaniel (2002) The trap of liberalized autocracy. Journal of Democracy13(4): 57–68.
11.
BunceValerieWolchikSharon L. (2008) Mixed regimes in post-communist Eurasia: Tipping democratic and tipping authoritarian. SSDD Working Paper Series.
12.
BunceValerieWolchikSharon L. (2010) Defeating dictators: Electoral change and stability in competitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics62(1): 43–86.
13.
CarothersThomas (2002) The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy13(1): 5–21.
14.
CaseWilliam (2011) Electoral authoritarianism and backlash: Hardening Malaysia, oscillating Thailand. International Political Science Review32(4): 438–457.
15.
CheibubJose AntonioGandhiJenniferVreelandJames (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice143(1/2): 67–101.
16.
CollierDavidAdcockRobert (1999) Democracies and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science2: 430–451.
17.
CollierDavidLevitskySteven (1997) Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics49(3): 430–451.
18.
CollierDavidMahonJames E. (1993) Conceptual “stretching” revisited: Adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review87(4): 845–855.
19.
CroissantAurel (2004) From transition to defective democracy: Mapping Asian democratization. Democratization11(5): 156–178.
20.
DiamondLarry (2002) Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy13(2): 21–35.
21.
DiamondLarryLinzJuan J.LipsetSeymur M. (1989) Democracy in Developing Countries. Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner.
22.
EkmanJoakim (2009) Political participation and regime stability: A framework for analyzing hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review30(1): 7–31.
23.
ElkinsZachary (2000) Gradations of democracy? Empirical tests of alternative conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 293–300.
24.
EpsteinDavidBatesRobertGoldstoneJack. (2006) Democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 551–569.
25.
EzrowNatashaFrantzErica (2011) Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.
26.
Freedom House (2011) The authoritarian challenge to democracy. Freedom in the World Report. Available at: www.freedomhouse.org
27.
GandhiJennifer (2008) Political Institutions Under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
GandhiJenniferPrzeworskiAdam (2006) Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Economics and Politics18(1): 1–26.
29.
GandhiJenniferPrzeworskiAdam (2007) Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies40(11): 1279–1301.
30.
GeddesBarbara (2005) Why parties and elections in authoritarian regimes?Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
31.
GerschewskiJohannesSchmotzAlexander (2011) Contrary or contradictory? Autocracies and democracies between dichotomy and gradation. Presented at the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik.
32.
GilbertLeahMohseniPayam (2011) Beyond authoritarianism: The conceptualization of hybrid regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development46(3): 270–297.
33.
GreeneKenneth (2010) The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance. Comparative Political Studies43(7): 807–834.
34.
HadeniusAxelTeorellJan (2006) Authoritarian regimes: Stability, change and pathways to democracy, 1972–2003. Kellogg Institute Working Paper.
35.
HendersonKaren (2004) The Slovak Republic: Explaining defects in democracy. Democratization11(5): 133–155.
36.
HowardMarcRoesslerPhilip (2006) Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 365–381.
37.
HuntingtonSamuel (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
38.
KarlTerry Lynn (1995) The hybrid regimes of Central America. Journal of Democracy6(3): 72–86.
39.
LangstonJoyMorgensternScott (2009) Campaigning in an electoral authoritarian regime: The case of Mexico. Comparative Politics41(2): 165–181.
40.
LeeHans (1972) Obstacles to the accumulation of knowledge in the social sciences. Synthese24: 431–438.
41.
LevitskyStevenWayLucan (2002) Elections without democracy: The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy13(2): 51–65.
42.
LevitskyStevenWayLucan (2010) Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LindbergStaffan (2006) The surprising significance of African elections. Journal of Democracy17(1): 139–151.
44.
LinzJuan (2000) Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner.
45.
Lust-OkarEllen (2006) Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan. Democratization13(3): 456–471.
46.
MagaloniBeatriz (2006) Voting for Autocracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
MagaloniBeatriz (2008) Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies20(10): 1–27.
48.
MainwaringScottBrinksDanielPerez-LinanAnibal (2001) Classifying political regimes in Latin America, 1945–1999. Studies in Comparative International Development36(1): 37–65.
49.
MerkelWolfang (2004) Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization11(5): 33–58.
50.
MøllerJørgenSkaaningSvend-Erik (2010) Beyond the radial delusion: Conceptualizing and measuring democracy and non-democracy. International Political Science Review31: 261–283.
51.
MorlinoLeonardo (2009) Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion?European Political Science Review1(2): 273–296.
52.
MunckGerardo (1996) Disaggregating political regime: Conceptual issues in the study of democratization. Kellogg Institute Working Paper.
53.
O’DonnellGuillermo (1994) Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy5(1): 55–69.
54.
O’DonnellGuillermoSchmitterPhillippe (1986) Transition from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
55.
OttawayMarina (2003) Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
56.
ReichGary (2002) Categorizing political regimes: New data for old problems. Democratization9(4): 1–24.
57.
ReuterOra JohnGandhiJennifer (2011) Economic performance and elite defection from hegemonic parties. British Journal of Political Science41(1): 83–110.
58.
SartoriGiovanni (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
SartoriGiovanni (1984) Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
60.
SartoriGiovanni (1987) The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
61.
SchedlerAndreas (2002) The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy13(2): 36–50.
62.
SchedlerAndreas (2006) Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
63.
The Economist (2011) Democracy under stress. Report from the Economist Intelligence Unit. Available at: www.eiu.com
64.
WigellMichael (2008) Mapping “hybrid regimes”: Regime types and concepts in comparative politics. Democratization15(2): 230–250.
65.
ZakariaFareed (1997) The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs76(6): 21–43.
66.
ZineckerHeidrun (2009) Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions. International Studies Review11: 302–331.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
