Authoritarianism research has evolved into one of the fastest growing research fields in comparative politics. The newly awakened interest in autocratic regimes goes hand in hand with a lack of systematic research on the results of the political and substantive policy performance of variants of autocratic regimes. The contributions in this second volume of Comparing Autocracies are united by the assumption that the performance of political regimes and their persistence are related. Furthermore, autocratic institutions and the specific configurations of elite actors within authoritarian regime coalitions induce dictators to undertake certain policies, and that different authoritarian institutions are therefore an important piece of the puzzle of government performance in dictatorships. Based on these two prepositions, the contributions explore the differences between autocracies and democracies, as well as between different forms of non-democratic regimes, in regard to their outcome performance in selected policy fields; how political institutions affect autocratic performance and persistence; whether policy performance matter for the persistence of authoritarian rule; and what happens to dictators once autocratic regimes fall. This book is an amalgam of articles from the journals Democratization, Contemporary Politics and Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

Authoritarianism research has evolved into one of the fastest growing research fields in comparative politics. The newly awakened interest in autocratic regimes goes hand in hand with a lack of systematic research on the results of the political and substantive policy performance of variants of autocratic regimes. The contributions in this second volume of Comparing Autocracies are united by the assumption that the performance of political regimes and their persistence are related. Furthermore, autocratic institutions and the specific configurations of elite actors within authoritarian regime coalitions induce dictators to undertake certain policies, and that different authoritarian institutions are therefore an important piece of the puzzle of government performance in dictatorships. Based on these two prepositions, the contributions explore the differences between autocracies and democracies, as well as between different forms of non-democratic regimes, in regard to their outcome performance in selected policy fields; how political institutions affect autocratic performance and persistence; whether policy performance matter for the persistence of authoritarian rule; and what happens to dictators once autocratic regimes fall.

This book is an amalgam of articles from the journals Democratization, Contemporary Politics and Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

Despite the so-called Third Wave of Democratization, many autocracies have been resilient in the face of political change. Moreover, many of the transition processes that could be included in the Third Wave have reached a standstill, or, at the very least, have taken a turn for the worse, leading sometimes to new forms of non-democratic regimes. As a result of these developments, the research on autocracies has experienced a revival in recent times. This unique two-volume work aims at taking stock of recent research and providing new conceptual, theoretical, and empirical insights into autocratic rule in the early twenty-first century. It is organized into two parts. The contributions in this first volume analyse the trajectories, manifestations and perspectives of non-democratic rule in general and autocratic rule in particular. It brings together some of the leading authoritarianism scholars in Europe and North America who address three broad questions: How to conceptualize and measure forms of autocratic regimes? What determines the persistence of autocratic rule? What is the role of political institutions, legitimation, ideology, and repression for the survival of different forms of autocratic rule? This book is an amalgam of articles from the journals Democratization, Contemporary Politics and Politische Vierteljahresschrift.

This book brings together a unique team of academics and practitioners to analyse interests, institutions, and issues affecting and affected by the transition from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific has emerged as the world's economic and strategic centre of gravity, in which established and rising powers compete with each other. As a strategic space, the Indo-Pacific reflects the rise of geo-political and geo-economic designs and dynamics which have come to shape the region in the early twenty-first century. These new dynamics contrast with the (neo-)liberal ideas and the seemingly increasing globalisation for which the once dominant 'Asia-Pacific' regional label stood.

This book brings together a unique team of academics and practitioners to analyse interests, institutions, and issues affecting and affected by the transition from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific has emerged as the world's economic and strategic centre of gravity, in which established and rising powers compete with each other. As a strategic space, the Indo-Pacific reflects the rise of geo-political and geo-economic designs and dynamics which have come to shape the region in the early twenty-first century. These new dynamics contrast with the (neo-)liberal ideas and the seemingly increasing globalisation for which the once dominant 'Asia-Pacific' regional label stood.

Parteien in Entwicklungs- und Transformationslandern zeichnen sich ahnlich wie im Westen durch abnehmende gesellschaftlich Verankerung, abnehmende programmatische Orientierung und Parteiidentifikation der Wahler sowie Mitgliederzahl aus. In Entwicklungslandern sind sie auch schwacher formal organisiert, wobei dieses Defizit teilweise durch andere Formen der gesellschaftlichen Verankerung von Parteien kompensiert wird. Hierunter fallen Phanomene wie der Klientelismus, der Faktionalismus und Patronage, sowie der Appell an ethnische/religioese Identitaten, die im Prozess der Modernisierung keineswegs zuruckgetreten sind. Sie sind nicht pauschal als demokratieschadigend anzusehen, gefahrden aber die demokratische Konsolidierung dann, wenn sie ihren verfassungsmassigen Rahmen unterhoehlen.