This chapter develops our theoretical approach to understanding regime change and survival. Our perspective is situated between structural and contingent action or agency approaches to studying political regimes. We emphasize the moderate or radical nature of actors’ policy preferences, their value preferences about political regimes, and the impact of international influences and actors.

Our theory focuses on political organizations, organized movements, and presidents as the most powerful actors. We situate the domestic regime game within an international context. We link regime outcomes (survival and failure) with micro-conditions (the normative attitudes and policy preferences of concrete political actors). Our approach explicitly emphasizes political processes operating in the medium term. Although we do not deny the role of long-term historical factors, specific political actors are responsible for the actions that lead to regime change or survival.

MAKING THEORY USEFUL: ASSUMPTIONS

In our view, theories advance social science only if (1) their assumptions are realistic and (2) they can generate testable hypotheses that are supported by the bulk of the empirical evidence. Theory generated from unrealistic assumptions easily generates unrealistic hypotheses and reaches distorted conclusions. Abstruse theory that does not guide empirical work or theory that is not supported by the evidence likewise fails to adequately explain regime outcomes. On both accounts, existing structural and cultural theories of political regimes have shortcomings. On both accounts, we believe our theory holds up.