Ballard-Rosa, Cameron Carnegie, Allison and Gaikwad, Nikhar 2016. Economic Crises and Trade Policy Competition. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
Demchenko, Oleg and Golosov, Grigorii V 2016. Federalism, gubernatorial power and the incorporation of subnational authoritarianism in Russia: A theory-testing empirical inquiry. Acta Politica, Vol. 51, Issue. 1, p. 61.
Frantz, Erica and Kendall-Taylor, Andrea 2016. Pathways to democratization in personalist dictatorships. Democratization, p. 1.
Gehlbach, Scott Sonin, Konstantin and Svolik, Milan W. 2016. Formal Models of Nondemocratic Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 565.
Golosov, Grigorii V. 2016. The September 2015 Regional Elections in Russia: A Rehearsal for Next Year's National Legislative Races. Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 255.
Kanchoochat, Veerayooth 2016. Reign-seeking and the Rise of the Unelected in Thailand. Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 46, Issue. 3, p. 486.
Kanchoochat, Veerayooth and Hewison, Kevin 2016. Introduction: Understanding Thailand’s Politics. Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 46, Issue. 3, p. 371.
Liu, Amy H. Gandhi, Jennifer and Bell, Curtis 2016. Minority Languages in Dictatorships: A New Measure of Group Recognition. Political Science Research and Methods, p. 1.
Poczter, Sharon and Pepinsky, Thomas B. 2016. Authoritarian Legacies in Post–New Order Indonesia: Evidence from a New Dataset. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 52, Issue. 1, p. 77.
Schedler, Andreas and Hoffmann, Bert 2016. Communicating authoritarian elite cohesion. Democratization, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, p. 93.
von Soest, Christian and Grauvogel, Julia 2016. Politics and Legitimacy in Post-Soviet Eurasia.
Gallagher, Mary E. and Hanson, Jonathan K. 2015. Power Tool or Dull Blade? Selectorate Theory for Autocracies. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 367.
Golosov, Grigorii V. 2015. Do spoilers make a difference? Instrumental manipulation of political parties in an electoral authoritarian regime, the case of Russia. East European Politics, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, p. 170.
Hoffmann, Bert 2015. The international dimension of authoritarian regime legitimation: insights from the Cuban case. Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 18, Issue. 4, p. 556.
Krug, Barbara and Libman, Alexander 2015. Commitment to local autonomy in non-democracies: Russia and China compared. Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 221.
LaPorte, Jody 2015. Hidden in plain sight: political opposition and hegemonic authoritarianism in Azerbaijan. Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 31, Issue. 4, p. 339.
Lewis, David 2015. “Illiberal Spaces:” Uzbekistan's extraterritorial security practices and the spatial politics of contemporary authoritarianism. Nationalities Papers, Vol. 43, Issue. 1, p. 140.
Ong, Elvin 2015. Complementary Institutions in Authoritarian Regimes: The Everyday Politics of Constituency Service in Singapore. Journal of East Asian Studies, Vol. 15, Issue. 03, p. 361.
schmotz, alexander 2015. vulnerability and compensation: constructing an index of co-optation in autocratic regimes. European Political Science, Vol. 14, Issue. 4, p. 439.
von Soest, Christian 2015. Democracy prevention: The international collaboration of authoritarian regimes. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 54, Issue. 4, p. 623.
The institutional turn in comparative authoritarianism has generated wide interest. This article reviews three prominent books on authoritarian institutions and their central theoretical propositions about the origins, functions and effects of dominant party institutions on authoritarian rule. Two critical perspectives on political institutions, one based on rationalist theories of institutional design and the other based on a social conflict theory of political economy, suggest that authoritarian institutions are epiphenomenal on more fundamental political, social and/or economic relations. Such approaches have been largely ignored in this recent literature, but each calls into question the theoretical and empirical claims that form the basis of institutionalist approaches to authoritarian rule. A central implication of this article is that authoritarian institutions cannot be studied separately from the concrete problems of redistribution and policy making that motivate regime behavior.
Department of Government, Cornell University (email
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.