冲突后民主国家的政治权力分享:调查对纵向和横向问责制的影响

IF 3.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Democratization Pub Date : 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085
Chelsea Johnson
{"title":"冲突后民主国家的政治权力分享:调查对纵向和横向问责制的影响","authors":"Chelsea Johnson","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n 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":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n 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\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2214085","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然确保精英阶层支持和平竞争可能是必要的,但文献对权力分享解决方案对民主质量的长期影响持悲观态度。人们普遍认为,设计保障政治包容的制度会通过激励寻租而不是对选民的回应,从而破坏纵向和横向问责制。本研究使用来自民主多样性项目的数据来检验关于冲突后民主国家政治权力分享解决方案的有害制度影响的论点,依赖于撒哈拉以南非洲28个冲突易发国家的小组数据集,这些国家自民主第三波开始(1990-2021)以来。分析技术是一种时间序列线性回归,通过一系列连续的问责措施区分上升和下降。结果表明,与大多数文献一致,政治权力分享解决方案与行政腐败增加和法治改善较少有关。然而,其他将政治权力分享与不良问责结果联系起来的机制在跨国样本中都没有得到一致或显著的支持。总的来说,这些研究结果表明,旨在解决冲突的相对不民主的制度让步可能不会像以前假设的那样对民主的深化和巩固构成严重障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Political power sharing in post-conflict democracies: investigating effects on vertical and horizontal accountability
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Democratization
Democratization POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Democratization aims to promote a better understanding of democratization - defined as the way democratic norms, institutions and practices evolve and are disseminated both within and across national and cultural boundaries. While the focus is on democratization viewed as a process, the journal also builds on the enduring interest in democracy itself and its analysis. The emphasis is contemporary and the approach comparative, with the publication of scholarly contributions about those areas where democratization is currently attracting considerable attention world-wide.
期刊最新文献
Benign bureaucracies? Religious affairs ministries as institutions of political control Legitimation, co-optation, and survival: why is Turkey silent on China’s persecution of Uyghurs? Neoliberal Citizenship: Sacred Markets, Sacrificial Lives Neoliberal Citizenship: Sacred Markets, Sacrificial Lives , by Luca Mavelli, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2022, 190 pp., £75(hardback), index, ISBN 978-0-19-285758-3 Democratization, state capacity and developmental correlates of international artificial intelligence trade Bread, freedom or social justice? An empirical investigation into the determinants of the Arab Spring
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1