Impact Of Regime Type Research Articles

Carbon Emission Performance and Regime Type: The Role of Inequality

Abstract Existing results about the impact of regime type on states’ environmental performance are inconclusive. This could stem from failure to allow for economic inequality—a largely overlooked factor. More equal democratic societies, we contend, are likely to make greater progress in dealing with environmental problems. However, inequality undermines those processes and characteristics of democratic polities that are supposed to further environmental protection. In contrast, inequality is unlikely to be of much importance in authoritarian states. Using data on carbon emission performance for the post-1970 period, we find strong and robust evidence that inequality moderates the influence of democracy. Our research adds to the debate about regime type and environmental politics.

The empirical factors of Twitter adoption by world governments: the impact of regime type and time on diffusion

ABSTRACTAlthough more than 90% of the countries in the world have already activated at least one Twitter account, the empirical determinants of Twitter adoption by world governments have been largely ignored in the study of politics and communication. This study builds on this relatively young field of research by using diffusion of innovation theory, together with an analysis of the role that communication plays in democratic regimes, and an account of the digital divide, to gauge what factors influence the adoption of Twitter. Using binary logistic regression, the results show that higher levels of democratisation and time are both associated with leader adoption of this social platform. Although the association identified is not causal, these findings reveal the relationship between the role of time in the diffusion of innovations and the political communication of democratic country leaders.

The Impact of Regime Type on Food Consumption in Low Income Countries

Competing studies use food consumption to measure the impact of political regime on the welfare of the poor. Democracies may outperform autocracies by using growth to hide redistribution, improving caloric consumption and currying favor. Alternatively, autocracies may have greater incentives to lower food prices to quell urban unrest. We test these competing theories using a more detailed, continuous, nuanced measure of food consumption quality – cereal equivalent values. We find evidence to support the second hypothesis, that autocracies outperform democracies at low incomes. For higher incomes, democracies perform significantly better. Segregated by growth, autocracies again outperform democracies at low incomes.

Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom

Mass media is critical for the functioning of every contemporary political system. Thus, we can expect a variation in media freedom depending on the type of government since political regimes differ with regard to the political, legal and economic framework in which news coverage operates. This article investigates the effects of regime types, namely democracy and autocratic subtypes, on media freedom. It is argued that regime legitimation and governance are the driving forces behind diverging media policies in autocracies. From this theory, hypotheses regarding media freedom and regime type are derived and tested empirically, relying on statistical analyses that cover 149 countries over a period from 1993 to 2010. The empirical results demonstrate that democracies lead to significantly higher levels of media freedom than autocracies, with other things being equal. Within the autocratic spectrum, electoral autocracies, monarchies and military regimes have the freest media, whereas the most illiberal media can be found in communist ideocracies, where the ruling party holds a communication monopoly. Media freedom in personalist and non-ideological one-party regimes is on an intermediate level.

The Impact of Regime Type on Health: Does Redistribution Explain Everything?

Many scholars claim that democracy improves population health. The prevailing explanation for this is that democratic regimes distribute health-promoting resources more widely than autocratic regimes. The central contention of this article is that democracies also have a significant pro-health effect regardless of public redistributive policies. After establishing the theoretical plausibility of the nondistributive effect, a panel of 153 countries for the years 1972 to 2000 is used to examine the relationship between extent of democratic experience and life expectancy. The authors find that democratic governance continues to have a salutary effect on population health even when controls are introduced for the distribution of health-enhancing resources. Data for fifty autocratic countries for the years 1994 to 2007 are then used to examine whether media freedom—independent of government responsiveness—has a positive impact on life expectancy.

Are Democracies the Better Allies? The Impact of Regime Type on Military Coalition Operations

This study asks which attributes make states the more valuable partners in military coalition operations. Due to the uncertainty inherent in combat in general and coalition operations in particular, successful military cooperation depends on the amount of discretion given to national armed forces. Since democracies usually have more harmonious civil-military relations, restricting the discretion of military agents is a relatively less attractive and needed tool for democratic principals. This in turn makes democratic states the more valuable allies. The argument has two empirical implications: On one hand, a state conducting a military intervention should be more likely to build a coalition with its allies, the more democratic allies it has. On the other hand, military interventions by democratic military coalitions should end more quickly with success for the interveners than interventions by nondemocratic coalitions. These hypotheses are tested and supported using data on military interventions between 1946 and 2001.

Redefining Russia: Hybrid Regimes, Fieldwork, and Russian Politics

All qualitative research faces fundamental hurdles in overcoming issues of access and ensuring the credibility of one's observations. These issues are particularly acute when conducting research in hybrid regimes when the area of investigation is explicitly political and local authorities are sensitive to scrutiny. In the study of Russian politics, growing authoritarianism has meant a shrinking of the field and a corresponding adjustment in fieldwork practices. The disciplinary silence concerning the impact of regime type on fieldwork further threatens the quality and usefulness of comparative research on non-democratic regimes beyond Eurasia. The danger is that interesting and necessary questions about hybrid regimes are sacrificed as scholars opt to conduct fieldwork in more congenial locales where high status methods may be utilized. One can already see this effect as Russianists leave Russia rather than risk isolation within the discipline.

The Dynamics of Bargaining and War

Filson and Werner (2002) introduce a formal model of bargaining and war to explore conditions under which states that can negotiate settlements choose to initiate and terminate violence. Filson and Werner (2004) apply the model to obtain testable hypotheses about the impact of regime type on war onset, duration, and outcomes. The model could provide a basis for a formal rational actor model of power transition with economic and political variables. However, additional dynamic structure would have to be added; Filson and Werner (2002, 2004) focus on simple environments. In this paper we begin to consider more complex dynamic environments using computational techniques. In doing so, we explore the conditions under which wars endure. The results clarify how the initial distribution of resources (power) and benefits, beliefs, and regime type affect whether wars begin, how quickly they end, and what deals are made.

Impact of Regime Type on the Influence of U.S. Foreign Aid

Past studies of U.S. foreign aid and UN voting have not taken into account the different incentives of leaders based on regime type. Democratic and nondemocratic leaders use different means to remain in power, conditioning their response to foreign aid. Nondemocratic leaders can use foreign aid to provide private goods to elites ensuring continued support or to improve their coercive capabilities to maintain power. Democratic leaders can use neither of these tools, as their tenure requires mass support. This means nondemocracies are more likely than democracies to change their voting behavior in the UN to match donor preferences. Controlling for the influence of regime type allows us to test for when foreign aid is an effective tool of state policy. We find that nondemocratic state leaders respond to increased foreign aid by voting with the U.S. in the UN, whereas democratic leaders are nonresponsive to foreign aid.

The Role of European Welfare States in Explaining Resources Deprivation

In a previous paper in this journal (Headey etal., 2000) a comparison was made between threeso-called `best cases' of welfare regime types,the `Liberal' US, `the `Corporatist' Germanyand the `Social-Democratic' Netherlands. Themain conclusion was that the Social-Democraticwelfare state performed best on nearly allsocial and economic indicators that wereapplied. That paper was based on the ten-yeardatasets drawn from the national socio-economicpanel studies. For this paper we use the uniquecomparative panel dataset of the EuropeanCommunity Household Panel. At the time ofresearch, only three waves of data covering the1994–96 period were available. Instead of threecountries representing three different welfarestate types as in the earlier paper we covertwelve countries allowing us to distinguish afourth Southern or Mediterranean welfare regimetype and to compare the performance of the fourregimes. Compared to the Headey's et al. paperwe focus on the comparative analysis of thelevel of deprivation and pay less attention toincome poverty and inequality. Because weconsider deprivation to be part of the conceptof social exclusion (see also Atkinson et al.,2002) our results also provide evidence on howwelfare regimes across the EU cope with socialexclusion. We conclude that theSocial-Democratic welfare state does a good jobof preventing income poverty but performs lesswell in equalising levels of deprivation. Ourresults also show that the immature Southernwelfare states perform worse with respect topreventing deprivation. Trying to explainlevels of deprivation by estimating Tobit panelregressions it turned out that the impact ofregime type remains significant though limited.Common, `structural' disparities between thecountries and regimes in terms of economicwelfare, the demographic structure, and theemployment situation explain most of thevariance across countries.

Bargaining and Fighting: The Impact of Regime Type on War Onset, Duration, and Outcomes

Bargaining and Fighting: The Impact of Regime Type on War Onset, Duration, and Outcomes

Bargaining and Fighting: The Impact of Regime Type on War Onset, Duration, and Outcomes

Recent research suggests that democracies have advantages and disadvantages in wars. Democracies are more likely to win the wars they initiate and the ones in which they are targeted. Wars initiated by democracies are also uniformly shorter and less costly than wars initiated by nondemocracies. However, democracies are also less likely to continue fighting and less likely to win as war drags on. Democracies are also particularly likely to be targeted. We present a bargaining model that reconciles these divergent findings. The model explains why democracies are more likely to win but are also more likely to settle and more likely to be targeted than other types of regimes. The model's explanation of these facts differs in important ways from existing explanations. The model also suggests several new hypotheses relating regime type to the terms of settlement and the onset of war.

The Unsheltering Sky

The cooperation of China and India in replacing chemicals that damage the stratospheric ozone layer is critical to the success of the world's first environmental agreement, the Montreal Protocol. China's leaders accepted the agreement more readily than did their Indian counterparts. These divergent responses are attributed to the nature of the policy issue in question, the impact of regime type upon state leaders' environmental policies, and dissimilar linkages between international and domestic actors and forces.

Impact of regime type on argentinean central government budgetary priorities 1961-82: a test of the o'donnell thesis

A large body of literature on Argentina suggests that transitions from military to civilian regimes bring about fundamental changes in policy-making in general and in economic, social, and military priorities in particular. This view has been developed by O'Donnell in his path breaking thesis about the emergence of new forms of authoratarianism in Latin America. According to O'Donnell each suocessive government is an alliance of various distinct interest groups. Each alliance is imbued with a distinct sense of what should be done and at whose expense and translates the goals and interests of the members of the coalition into public policies. The purpose of this paper is to test the O'Donnell thesis i.e., to determine the possib1e existence and nature of structural changes in the government's budgetary priorities associated with regime change. The empirical results yield considerable support to the general thesis that regime type in Argentina has a major impact on the amount and relative share of resources...