Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2220655
Yi-Ting Wang
ABSTRACT Public support has long been considered crucial for the vitality and survival of democracy. Although the determinants of citizens’ support for democracy have been extensively studied, current literature puts emphasis on domestic factors. While another body of scholarship has documented the propensity of political diffusion, most studies focus on aggregate outcomes, and citizens’ attitudes within this tendency have received less attention. Extending the research on the influence of domestic performance on public attitudes and verifying the micro-foundation underlying political diffusion, we argue that economic performance of other countries can similarly shape citizens’ support for democracy. Using a sample of more than 90 democratic countries across the globe over the past three decades, we find that citizens in democratic countries are more likely to view democracy as the ideal regime type when there is a positive correlation between the level of democracy and economic growth across proximate countries, either geographically or culturally defined. We also show that the effects of proximate foreign democracies’ economic performance in boosting democratic support are particularly evident in countries where citizens have greater access to external information, as they are more aware of the political systems and economic conditions of foreign countries.
{"title":"Supporting democracy when other democracies prosper?","authors":"Yi-Ting Wang","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2220655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2220655","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Public support has long been considered crucial for the vitality and survival of democracy. Although the determinants of citizens’ support for democracy have been extensively studied, current literature puts emphasis on domestic factors. While another body of scholarship has documented the propensity of political diffusion, most studies focus on aggregate outcomes, and citizens’ attitudes within this tendency have received less attention. Extending the research on the influence of domestic performance on public attitudes and verifying the micro-foundation underlying political diffusion, we argue that economic performance of other countries can similarly shape citizens’ support for democracy. Using a sample of more than 90 democratic countries across the globe over the past three decades, we find that citizens in democratic countries are more likely to view democracy as the ideal regime type when there is a positive correlation between the level of democracy and economic growth across proximate countries, either geographically or culturally defined. We also show that the effects of proximate foreign democracies’ economic performance in boosting democratic support are particularly evident in countries where citizens have greater access to external information, as they are more aware of the political systems and economic conditions of foreign countries.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1240 - 1263"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43403006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2217083
Josef Hien, Ludvig Norman
ABSTRACT This article studies the response by public sphere institutions in democratic societies to far-right parties, focusing specifically on public broadcasting organizations in Germany and Sweden. With the upsurge of far-right parties these types of institutions are faced with difficult decisions on how to balance norms of inclusivity, impartiality and pluralism while also safeguarding substantive norms related to the protection of equal human dignity and non-discrimination. Public sphere institutions, and public broadcasting in particular, are of key importance for well-functioning democracies. They are also settings where democratic dilemmas appear that have received less attention in the existing literature on democracy's protection. We develop our contribution through a comparative study of the response by public broadcasting organizations to the far-right in Germany and Sweden. Results point to continuing difficulties in navigating dilemmas related to the response to these parties, especially as they are becoming an increasingly normalized part of the political landscape.
{"title":"Public broadcasting and democracy’s defense: responses to far-right parties in Germany and Sweden","authors":"Josef Hien, Ludvig Norman","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2217083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2217083","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article studies the response by public sphere institutions in democratic societies to far-right parties, focusing specifically on public broadcasting organizations in Germany and Sweden. With the upsurge of far-right parties these types of institutions are faced with difficult decisions on how to balance norms of inclusivity, impartiality and pluralism while also safeguarding substantive norms related to the protection of equal human dignity and non-discrimination. Public sphere institutions, and public broadcasting in particular, are of key importance for well-functioning democracies. They are also settings where democratic dilemmas appear that have received less attention in the existing literature on democracy's protection. We develop our contribution through a comparative study of the response by public broadcasting organizations to the far-right in Germany and Sweden. Results point to continuing difficulties in navigating dilemmas related to the response to these parties, especially as they are becoming an increasingly normalized part of the political landscape.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1160 - 1181"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43664356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2213163
Sven-Patrick Schmid
ABSTRACT For decades, Indigenous peoples and their movements have fought for the recognition of their rights. Since the multiculturalist turn, these demands are – at least partially – a legal reality in many countries in Latin America. Indigenous group rights can be attributed to individual group members or in a collective way to the group as such. Here, I investigate how these contrasting approaches impact on Indigenous citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. From normative theory, I derive the expectation that incorporating collective Indigenous rights increases satisfaction with democracy, because they address the historical loss of Indigenous sovereignty and open new spaces for the participation of previously marginalized groups. In contrast, the individualization of Indigenous group rights can be seen as a form of assimilation. The empirics show that collective rights increase the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples – and among the wider public. Thus, recognizing collective minority rights does not seem to stir division but sends a message that democracy is working well.
{"title":"Individual or collective rights? Consequences for the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples in Latin America","authors":"Sven-Patrick Schmid","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2213163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2213163","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For decades, Indigenous peoples and their movements have fought for the recognition of their rights. Since the multiculturalist turn, these demands are – at least partially – a legal reality in many countries in Latin America. Indigenous group rights can be attributed to individual group members or in a collective way to the group as such. Here, I investigate how these contrasting approaches impact on Indigenous citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. From normative theory, I derive the expectation that incorporating collective Indigenous rights increases satisfaction with democracy, because they address the historical loss of Indigenous sovereignty and open new spaces for the participation of previously marginalized groups. In contrast, the individualization of Indigenous group rights can be seen as a form of assimilation. The empirics show that collective rights increase the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples – and among the wider public. Thus, recognizing collective minority rights does not seem to stir division but sends a message that democracy is working well.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1113 - 1134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46282508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-29DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085
Chelsea Johnson
ABSTRACT While it may be necessary to secure elite buy-in to peaceful competition, the literature is pessimistic about the long-term effects of a power-sharing settlement on the quality of democracy. Designing institutions to guarantee political inclusion is commonly thought to undermine vertical and horizontal accountability by incentivizing rent-seeking over responsiveness to voters. This study employs data from the Varieties of Democracy project to test arguments about the pernicious institutional effects of political power-sharing settlements in post-conflict democracies, relying on a panel dataset of 28 conflict-prone states in Sub-Saharan Africa since the onset of democracy’s Third Wave (1990–2021). The analytical technique is a time-series linear regression distinguishing between upturns and downturns across a range of continuous measures of accountability. The results show that, in line with much of the literature, political power-sharing settlements are associated with increasing executive corruption and fewer improvements in the rule of law. However, none of the other proposed mechanisms linking political power sharing to poor accountability outcomes finds consistent or significant support in the cross-national sample. Overall, these findings suggest that the relatively undemocratic institutional concessions designed to resolve conflict may not pose the serious barrier to democratic deepening and consolidation as previously assumed.
{"title":"Political power sharing in post-conflict democracies: investigating effects on vertical and horizontal accountability","authors":"Chelsea Johnson","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 While it may be necessary to secure elite buy-in to peaceful competition, the literature is pessimistic about the long-term effects of a power-sharing settlement on the quality of democracy. Designing institutions to guarantee political inclusion is commonly thought to undermine vertical and horizontal accountability by incentivizing rent-seeking over responsiveness to voters. This study employs data from the Varieties of Democracy project to test arguments about the pernicious institutional effects of political power-sharing settlements in post-conflict democracies, relying on a panel dataset of 28 conflict-prone states in Sub-Saharan Africa since the onset of democracy’s Third Wave (1990–2021). The analytical technique is a time-series linear regression distinguishing between upturns and downturns across a range of continuous measures of accountability. The results show that, in line with much of the literature, political power-sharing settlements are associated with increasing executive corruption and fewer improvements in the rule of law. However, none of the other proposed mechanisms linking political power sharing to poor accountability outcomes finds consistent or significant support in the cross-national sample. Overall, these findings suggest that the relatively undemocratic institutional concessions designed to resolve conflict may not pose the serious barrier to democratic deepening and consolidation as previously assumed.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1135 - 1159"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48629359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-21DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2210504
Diego Fossati
{"title":"Illiberal resistance to democratic backsliding: the case of radical political Islam in Indonesia","authors":"Diego Fossati","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2210504","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2210504","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45044107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-17DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2207013
C. M. Jackson
ABSTRACT Since entering Kosovo politics in 2013, the Serb List (SL) monopolized political representation in the Kosovo Serb community. This study addresses dual questions of why a dominant party emerged within a distinct ethnic community in 2013, and how it monopolized representation. I argue that a dominant party was strategically developed to coordinate preferences and reduce intra-communal opposition, allowing representatives to participate uncontested in Kosovo’s institutions. The dominant party constrained political pluralism and constituent engagement in the intra-ethnic arena, allowing for freer bargaining in the inter-ethnic arena. Findings from an in-depth case study of the SL demonstrate the SL was formed to curb in-group opposition to negotiated settlements and coordinate disparate political factions in distinct ethnic enclaves. It monopolized political representation by coopting parallel structures of patronage and administration, moderate parties and elite cadres, and coercive mechanisms previously deployed to enforce ethnic closure. The outcome demonstrates that dominant parties can remedy problems of consociational representation, but at the cost of intra-group competition.
{"title":"Dominant party politics and ethnic coordination after conflict: the Serb List in Kosovo","authors":"C. M. Jackson","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2207013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2207013","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since entering Kosovo politics in 2013, the Serb List (SL) monopolized political representation in the Kosovo Serb community. This study addresses dual questions of why a dominant party emerged within a distinct ethnic community in 2013, and how it monopolized representation. I argue that a dominant party was strategically developed to coordinate preferences and reduce intra-communal opposition, allowing representatives to participate uncontested in Kosovo’s institutions. The dominant party constrained political pluralism and constituent engagement in the intra-ethnic arena, allowing for freer bargaining in the inter-ethnic arena. Findings from an in-depth case study of the SL demonstrate the SL was formed to curb in-group opposition to negotiated settlements and coordinate disparate political factions in distinct ethnic enclaves. It monopolized political representation by coopting parallel structures of patronage and administration, moderate parties and elite cadres, and coercive mechanisms previously deployed to enforce ethnic closure. The outcome demonstrates that dominant parties can remedy problems of consociational representation, but at the cost of intra-group competition.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"989 - 1014"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47158792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-15DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2209022
Sung-min Han, Kangwook Han
ABSTRACT Do political leaders influence the level of economic inequality in authoritarian countries? Building on previous studies on political leaders and authoritarian regimes, we argue that economic inequality is likely to decrease during the tenure of authoritarian leaders with personal experiences of economic hardship. Since authoritarian leaders have greater policy discretion than their democratic counterparts, their policy choices are less constrained by other political actors and institutions. As their material background makes authoritarian leaders more likely to favour introducing redistributive measures, they are expected to use such strategies for political survival, leading to a decrease in economic inequality. We created and analysed a new dataset on political leaders’ socioeconomic backgrounds in authoritarian regimes and found support for our arguments. In line with recent studies on political leaders and policy outcomes, our findings suggest that leaders’ personal experiences of economic hardship greatly affect their policy choices in authoritarian countries.
{"title":"Authoritarian leaders, economic hardship, and inequality","authors":"Sung-min Han, Kangwook Han","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2209022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2209022","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Do political leaders influence the level of economic inequality in authoritarian countries? Building on previous studies on political leaders and authoritarian regimes, we argue that economic inequality is likely to decrease during the tenure of authoritarian leaders with personal experiences of economic hardship. Since authoritarian leaders have greater policy discretion than their democratic counterparts, their policy choices are less constrained by other political actors and institutions. As their material background makes authoritarian leaders more likely to favour introducing redistributive measures, they are expected to use such strategies for political survival, leading to a decrease in economic inequality. We created and analysed a new dataset on political leaders’ socioeconomic backgrounds in authoritarian regimes and found support for our arguments. In line with recent studies on political leaders and policy outcomes, our findings suggest that leaders’ personal experiences of economic hardship greatly affect their policy choices in authoritarian countries.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1092 - 1112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45913676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-15DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2208355
Lance Y. Hunter
ABSTRACT Much speculation exists regarding how social media impacts the health of democracies. However, minimal scholarly research empirically examines the effect social media has on democracy across multiple states and regions. Thus, this article analyses the effect social media and disinformation transmitted over social media have on democracy. The findings from a cross-national, time-series analysis of 158 states from 2000–2019 indicate that different types of social media usage have varying effects on democracy. General social media consumption, the presence of diverse political viewpoints on social media, and the use of social media in political campaigns bolster democracy. However, social media disinformation, online political polarization, and the use of social media to organize offline violence reduce overall levels of democracy. In addition, a mediation analysis is conducted to identify the precise linkages between social media disinformation and democracy and indicates that government and political party disinformation impact democracy by weakening key democratic norms.
{"title":"Social media, disinformation, and democracy: how different types of social media usage affect democracy cross-nationally","authors":"Lance Y. Hunter","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2208355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2208355","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Much speculation exists regarding how social media impacts the health of democracies. However, minimal scholarly research empirically examines the effect social media has on democracy across multiple states and regions. Thus, this article analyses the effect social media and disinformation transmitted over social media have on democracy. The findings from a cross-national, time-series analysis of 158 states from 2000–2019 indicate that different types of social media usage have varying effects on democracy. General social media consumption, the presence of diverse political viewpoints on social media, and the use of social media in political campaigns bolster democracy. However, social media disinformation, online political polarization, and the use of social media to organize offline violence reduce overall levels of democracy. In addition, a mediation analysis is conducted to identify the precise linkages between social media disinformation and democracy and indicates that government and political party disinformation impact democracy by weakening key democratic norms.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1040 - 1072"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46074808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-12DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2209021
Felix S. Bethke, Jonas Wolff
ABSTRACT During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the globe implemented severe restrictions of civic freedoms to contain the spread of the virus. The global health emergency posed the risk of governments seizing the pandemic as a window of opportunity to curb (potential) challenges to their power, thereby reinforcing the ongoing, worldwide trend of shrinking civic spaces. In this article, we investigate whether and how governments used the pandemic as a justification to impose restrictions of freedom of expression. Drawing on the scholarship on the causes of civic space restrictions, we argue that governments responded to COVID-19 by curtailing the freedom of expression when they had faced significant contentious political challenges before the pandemic. Our results from a quantitative analysis indeed show that countries who experienced high levels of pro-democracy mobilization before the onset of the pandemic were more likely to see restrictions of the freedom of expression relative to countries with no or low levels of mobilization. Additional three brief case studies (Algeria, Bolivia and India) illustrate the process of how pre-pandemic mass protests fostered the im-position of restrictions on the freedom of expression during the pandemic.
{"title":"Lockdown of expression: civic space restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic as a response to mass protests","authors":"Felix S. Bethke, Jonas Wolff","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2209021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2209021","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the globe implemented severe restrictions of civic freedoms to contain the spread of the virus. The global health emergency posed the risk of governments seizing the pandemic as a window of opportunity to curb (potential) challenges to their power, thereby reinforcing the ongoing, worldwide trend of shrinking civic spaces. In this article, we investigate whether and how governments used the pandemic as a justification to impose restrictions of freedom of expression. Drawing on the scholarship on the causes of civic space restrictions, we argue that governments responded to COVID-19 by curtailing the freedom of expression when they had faced significant contentious political challenges before the pandemic. Our results from a quantitative analysis indeed show that countries who experienced high levels of pro-democracy mobilization before the onset of the pandemic were more likely to see restrictions of the freedom of expression relative to countries with no or low levels of mobilization. Additional three brief case studies (Algeria, Bolivia and India) illustrate the process of how pre-pandemic mass protests fostered the im-position of restrictions on the freedom of expression during the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1073 - 1091"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41650565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-09DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2205129
Alexander Schmotz, Oisín Tansey
ABSTRACT Governments around the world have been implementing measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and ease its economic fallout, and there has been extensive variation in the speed and extent to which they have introduced new policies. This article examines the role that regime type plays in determining the decisiveness of government policies to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and its spill over effects. We hypothesize that democratic regimes may be slower to introduce restrictions on civil liberties due to a “freedom commitment” and may be faster to provide economic protections due to a “welfare commitment”. We use event history analysis and data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker to examine whether less democratic regimes are more likely to implement restrictions faster, and spending programmes slower. Contrary to expectations, our findings suggest that more authoritarian regimes do not implement constraints more quickly or spending more slowly than more democratic regimes. The finding holds across various regime measures and model specifications.
{"title":"Do institutions matter in a crisis? Regime type and decisive responses to Covid-19","authors":"Alexander Schmotz, Oisín Tansey","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2205129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2205129","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Governments around the world have been implementing measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and ease its economic fallout, and there has been extensive variation in the speed and extent to which they have introduced new policies. This article examines the role that regime type plays in determining the decisiveness of government policies to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and its spill over effects. We hypothesize that democratic regimes may be slower to introduce restrictions on civil liberties due to a “freedom commitment” and may be faster to provide economic protections due to a “welfare commitment”. We use event history analysis and data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker to examine whether less democratic regimes are more likely to implement restrictions faster, and spending programmes slower. Contrary to expectations, our findings suggest that more authoritarian regimes do not implement constraints more quickly or spending more slowly than more democratic regimes. The finding holds across various regime measures and model specifications.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"938 - 959"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45851095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：