Abstract
In two decades of scholarship on hybrid regimes two significant advancements have been made. First, scholars have emphasized that the hybrid regimes that emerged in the post-Cold War era should not be treated as diminished sub-types of democracy, and second, regime type is a multi-dimensional concept. This review essay further contends that losing the lexicon of hybridity and focusing on a single dimension of regime type—flawed electoral competition—has prevented an examination of extra-electoral factors that are necessary for understanding how regimes are differently hybrid, why there is such immense variation in the outcome of elections and why these regimes are constantly in flux. Therefore, a key recommendation emerging from this review of the scholarship is that to achieve a more thorough, multi-dimensional assessment of hybrid regimes, further research ought to be driven by nested research designs in which qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used to advance mid-range theory building.
Highlights
As the Third Wave of Democracy ended in the 1990s, a plethora of regimes emerged in the non-western world that were qualitatively different from each other, and from Western democracies
Work on hybrid regimes focused on conceptualizing these regimes because it was necessary to distinguish the boundaries among different regime types— authoritarian, hybrid and democracy (Merkel, 2004; Puhle, 2005)
We have learnt that hybrid regimes are not transitional phases but political regimes that manifest a combination of both authoritarian and democratic tendencies that ought to be examined in comparison to each other and not against the standards of democracy
Summary
As the Third Wave of Democracy ended in the 1990s, a plethora of regimes emerged in the non-western world that were qualitatively different from each other, and from Western democracies. The main challenge that scholars of comparative politics faced was how to define and classify these hybrid regimes without falling prey to concept stretching This spawned a vast literature, which attempted to unpack this category of regimes. Qualitative research should be driven by single-n case studies, or paired comparisons based on in-depth field research with the intention to advance our contextual knowledge of these regimes and facilitate mid-range theory-building. This qualitative approach should be complemented by large-n statistical analysis that tests the strength of the independent variable gleaned from the case study.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call