Regime
In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural, or social norms, that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic. Autocratic regimes can be further[1] divided into types such as dictatorial, totalitarian, absolutist, monarchic, and oligarchic. A key similarity across all regimes is the presence of rulers and formal or informal institutions, which interact dynamically to adapt to changes in their environment[1][2][3]
Political regimes
[edit]According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there are three main types of political regimes today: democracies, totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes, with hybrid regimes sitting between these categories.[4][5] The CIA website also has a complete list of every country in the world with their respective types of regime.[6] The term regime is often used in a demeaning, derogatory way usually to portray a leader as corrupt or undemocratic.[7] It is common to tie an individual or ideology to a government regime i.e. Putin's regime in Russia or China's Communist regime.
Usage
[edit]
While the term originally referred to any type of government, in modern usage it often has a negative connotation, implying authoritarianism or dictatorship. Merriam-Webster defines a regime simply as a form of government, while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a government, especially an authoritarian one."
Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."[9] In global studies and international relations, the concept of regime is also used to name international regulatory agencies (see International regime), which lie outside of the control of national governments. Some authors thus distinguish analytically between institutions and regimes while recognizing that they are bound up with each other:
Institutions as we describe them are publicly enacted, relatively-enduring bodies of practice, procedures and norms, ranging from formalized legal entities such as the WTO to more informal but legally-buttressed and abiding sets of practices and regimes such as the liberal capitalist market. The key phrases here are 'publicly enacted' and 'relatively enduring'. The phrase 'publicly enacted' in this sense implies active projection, legal sanction, and often as not, some kind of opposition.[10]
Regimes can thus be defined as sets of protocols and norms embedded either in institutions or institutionalized practices – formal such as states or informal such as the "liberal trade regime" – that are publicly enacted and relatively enduring.[10]
Urban regimes
[edit]Other regime theorists suggest that localized urban regimes exist, shaped by the unique interplay of interests, institutions, and ideas within a city. These regimes are characterized by the relationships between local government actors, political elites, and various institutions, all working toward specific policy goals and governance structures. [11] [12]
Urban regime theorist Jill Clark argues that these regime types are categorized by economic actors and policy-making within a community. The six urban regime types are: entrepreneurial, caretaker, player, progressive, stewardship, and the demand-side.[12]
An entrepreneurial urban regime is defined as: Strong ties to business leaders, formed to advance a cities hierarchy in relation to other cities, and are operated with closed development decision-making venues with relevant business interests and political leaders.[13]
A caretaker urban regime is: A regime designed to preserve the status quo, keep taxes low and preserve the same quality of life. Often associated with taxpayers and homeowners' interests[14].[15]
A player urban regime is: Active government participation in private decision making. This type of regime manages and resolves disputes between community groups and business. A player urban regime when combined with state actions develops into a stewardship urban regime.[16]
A progressive urban regime is: A key feature of progressive urban regimes is the redistribution of the benefits of a industrialized, developed society. The focus of the regime is economic equity, how to reallocate the benefits of society to various groups or areas of the city who need it most. Most commonly these are ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged people, and neighborhoods destroyed or changed by gentrification. Everyone in this system has a say on who is most deserving and who will receive these benefits. Progressive urban regimes become activist regimes when merged with a stewardship role.[17]
A stewardship urban regime is more adversarial toward business than an entrepreneurial regime and prioritizes protecting community interests over those of large corporations, focusing on the well-being of local residents. Unlike progressive urban regimes, which actively redistribute resources, stewardship regimes emphasize accountability in managing taxpayer investments without aiming for direct redistribution. This approach seeks a balanced governance model that advocates for "the little guy" while maintaining a sustainable investment environment.[18]
A demand-side urban regime is characterized by strong support for small businesses and neighborhood revitalization efforts. These regimes encourage and provide state assistance to small businesses, including launching state-operated venture capital programs to foster new enterprises. This approach allows the government to maintain an active role in local development. Demand-side urban regimes often emerge when progressive policies align with government initiatives aimed at supporting small business owners.[19]
Measuring regime
[edit]There are two primary methods for measuring regimes: continuous measures of democracy (e.g., Freedom House (FH), Polity, and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)) and binary measures of democracy (e.g., Regimes of the World).[20] Continuous measures classify regimes along a scale of democratic and autocratic characteristics, allowing for nuanced differentiation.[20] Historically, these measures primarily focused on distinguishing democracies from autocracies, but have since evolved to include various gradations of governance. [21] In contrast, binary measures classify regimes in simpler terms, categorizing them strictly as either democratic or non-democratic.[22]
Some scholars argue that unless a government meets certain democratic criteria, it cannot be considered a true democracy.[23] However, academics like Stanford professor Philippe C. Schmitter and associate professor Terry Lynn Karl suggest that democracy is better viewed as a matrix of outcomes.[24] This matrix includes factors such as consensus, participation, access, responsiveness, majority rule, parliamentary sovereignty, party government, pluralism, federalism, presidentialism, and checks and balances, offering a more comprehensive framework to evaluate democratic practices.[24]
The V-Dem Institute, an independent research organization, is a prominent example of continuous democracy measurement. It uses a detailed set of indicators, such as access to justice, electoral corruption, and freedom from government-sponsored violence, to assess governance quality.[25] V-Dem relies on country experts who provide subjective ratings for these latent regime characteristics over time, contributing to one of the most comprehensive data sources on democracy worldwide.[25]
Regime type by country
[edit]Afghanistan: Theocratic
Albania: Parliamentary republic
Algeria: Presidential republic
American Samoa: Unincorporated, unorganized Territory of the US self-government; republican form of territorial government
Andorra: Parliamentary democracy
Angola: Presidential republic
Anguilla: Parliamentary democracy, self-governing overseas territory of the UK
Antarctica: Governed by an international treaty that limits human exposure on Antarctica to exclusive scientific research
Antigua and Barbuda: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Argentina: Presidential republic
Armenia: Parliamentary democracy
Aruba: Parliamentary democracy, under the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Australia: Federal parliamentary democracy
Austria: Federal parliamentary republic
Azerbaijan: Presidential republic
Bahamas, The: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Bahrain: Constitutional monarchy
Bangladesh: Parliamentary republic
Barbados: Parliamentary republic
Belarus: Presidential republic
Belgium: Federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Belize: Parliamentary democracy, under a constitutional monarchy
Benin: Presidential republic
Bermuda: Parliamentary democracy, overseas territory of the UK
Bhutan: Constitutional monarchy
Bolivia: Presidential republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Parliamentary republic
Botswana: Parliamentary republic
Brazil: Federal presidential republic
British Virgin Islands: Parliamentary democracy, overseas territory of the UK
Brunei: Absolute monarchy
Bulgaria: Parliamentary republic
Burkina Faso: Presidential republic
Burma: Military regime
Burundi: Presidential republic
Cabo Verde: Parliamentary republic
Cambodia: Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Cameroon: Presidential republic
Canada: Federal parliamentary democracy, under a constitutional monarchy
Cayman Islands: Parliamentary democracy; overseas territory of the UK
Central African Republic: Presidential republic
Chad: Presidential republic
Chile: Presidential republic
China: Communist party-led state
Colombia: Presidential republic
Comoros: Federal presidential republic
Congo, Democratic Republic of the: Semi-presidential republic
Congo, Republic of the: Presidential republic
Cook Islands: Parliamentary democracy
Costa Rica: Presidential republic
Cote d'Ivoire: Presidential republic
Croatia: Parliamentary republic
Cuba: Communist state
Curacao: Parliamentary democracy
Cyprus: Presidential republic
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus: Parliamentary republic
Czechia: Parliamentary republic
Denmark: Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Djibouti: Presidential republic
Dominica: Parliamentary republic
Dominican Republic: Presidential republic
Ecuador: Presidential republic
Egypt: Presidential republic
El Salvador: Presidential republic
Equatorial Guinea: Presidential republic
Eritrea: Presidential republic
Estonia: Parliamentary republic
Eswatini: Absolute monarchy
Ethiopia: Federal parliamentary republic
Falkland Islands: Parliamentary democracy, overseas territory of the UK
Faroe Islands: Parliamentary democracy, under the Kingdom of Denmark
Fiji: Parliamentary republic
Finland: Parliamentary republic
France: Semi-presidential republic
French Polynesia: Parliamentary democracy, overseas collectivity of France
Gabon: Presidential republic
Gambia, The: Presidential republic
Georgia: Semi-presidential republic
Germany: Federal parliamentary republic
Ghana: Presidential republic
Gibraltar: Parliamentary democracy, overseas territory of the UK
Greece: Parliamentary republic
Greenland: Parliamentary democracy
Grenada: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Guam: Unincorporated organized territory of the US with local self-government
Guatemala: Presidential republic
Guernsey: Parliamentary democracy
Guinea: Presidential republic
Guinea-Bissau: Semi-presidential republic
Guyana: Parliamentary republic
Haiti: Semi-presidential republic
Holy See (Vatican City): Ecclesiastical elective monarchy
Honduras: Presidential republic
Hong Kong: Presidential limited democracy, special administrative region of the People's Republic of China
Hungary: Parliamentary republic
Iceland: Unitary parliamentary republic
India: Federal parliamentary republic
Indonesia: Presidential republic
Iran: Theocratic republic
Iraq: Federal parliamentary republic
Ireland: Parliamentary republic
Isle of Man: Parliamentary democracy
Israel: Parliamentary democracy
Italy: Parliamentary republic
Jamaica: Parliamentary democracy, under a constitutional monarchy
Japan: Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Jersey: Parliamentary democracy
Jordan: Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
Kazakhstan: Presidential republic
Kenya: Presidential republic
Kiribati: Presidential republic
Korea, North: Dictatorship, single-party communist state
Korea, South: Presidential republic
Kosovo: Parliamentary republic
Kuwait: Constitutional monarchy
Kyrgyzstan: Parliamentary republic
Laos: Communist party-led state
Latvia: Parliamentary republic
United States: Constitutional federal republic
Uruguay: Presidential republic
Uzbekistan: Presidential republic
Vanuatu: Parliamentary republic
Venezuela: Federal presidential republic
Vietnam: Communist party-led state
Virgin Islands: Unincorporated organized territory of the US with local self-government
Wallis and Futuna: Parliamentary democracy, overseas collectivity of France
Yemen: In transition
Zambia: Presidential republic
Zimbabwe: Presidential republic
See also
[edit]
Citations
[edit]- ^ a b Karl, Terry; Schmitter, Phillippe (Summer 1991). "What Democracy Is...and Is Not". Journal of Democracy (3): 76–78. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
- ^ Young, Oran R. (1982–2004). "Regime dynamics: the rise and fall of international regimes". International Organization. 36 (2): 277–297. doi:10.1017/S0020818300018956. ISSN 1531-5088.
- ^ Herre, Bastian (December 2, 2021). "The 'Regimes of the World' data: how do researchers measure democracy?". Our World in Data. Retrieved March 14, 2023.
- ^ Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
- ^ Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
- ^ "Government type - The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
- ^ "Regime | Autocratic, Democratic & Totalitarian | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
- ^ "World citizens living under different political regimes". Our World in Data. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
- ^ Ufheil-Somers, Amanda (December 2, 2014). "The Breakdown of the GCC Initiative". MERIP.
- ^ a b James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications. p. xiv.
- ^ Rhomberg, Chris (1995). ""Collective Actors and Urban Regimes: Class Formation and the 1946 Oakland General Strike"". Theory and Society. 24 (4): 567–594. doi:10.1007/BF00993523. S2CID 144406981.
- ^ a b Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 25. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. JSTOR 40861827. S2CID 152728694.
- ^ "Decision-making in the public sector". Volume 46, Number 5, October 2019. 2019-09-19. doi:10.1287/orms.2019.05.11. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
- ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
- ^ "Decision-making in the public sector". 2019-09-19.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|url=(help) - ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
- ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
- ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
- ^ Clark, Jill (2001). "Six Urban Regime Types: The Effects of State Laws and Citizen Participation on the Development of Alternative Regimes". Public Administration Quarterly. 25 (1): 3–48. doi:10.1177/073491490102500101. ISSN 0734-9149. JSTOR 40861827.
- ^ a b Elkins, Zachary. 2000. "Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science. 44(2): 293-300.
- ^ Lauth, H., & Schlenkrich, O. (2018). Making Trade-Offs Visible: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations about the Relationship between Dimensions and Institutions of Democracy and Empirical Findings. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 78-91. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1200
- ^ Herre, B. (2021). “The ‘Regimes of the World’ data: how do researchers measure democracy?”, Our World in Data
- ^ Przeworski, A. (1999). “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense”, In I. Shapiro, & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s Value Cambridge University Press. 12-17.
- ^ a b Karl, Terry, and Philippe Schmitter. “What Democracy Is…and Is Not”. Journal of Democracy 2, no. 3 (January 1970): 75-88.
- ^ a b Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K.L., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y., Medzihorsky, J., Krusell, F., von Romer, J. (2023). “The V-Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross-National and Cross-Temporal Expert-Coded Data”, The Varieties of Democracy Institute. Series 2023:21. 1-32.
Sources
[edit]- James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications.
- O'Neill, Patrick, Essentials of Comparative Government