“What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years?” Barbera Geddes, 1999
Summary of Geddes’ Findings
“Many of the contradictory conclusions reached by analysts who focus primarily on one region or another make sense once we take into account the predominance of different forms of authoritarianism in different parts of the world and the systematic differences in the ways these different parts of the world and the systematic differences in the ways these different forms disintegrate” (pg 117)
Two General findings that hold across regions
“In short, after 20 years of observation and analysis during the third wave of democratization, we can be reasonably certain that a positive relationship between development and democracy exists, though we do not know why” (Geddes, 1990, pg 119)
“poor economic performance increases the likelihood of authoritarian breakdown, as it increases democratic breakdown and defeat of incumbents in stable democracies” (Geddes, 1990, pg 119)
Findings Supported by Particular Regions
Latin America
“there is no transition whose beginning is not the consequence – direct or indirect – of important divisions within the authoritarian regime itself” (O’Donnell & Schmitter, 1986, pg 19) * Quoted in Geddes pg 120
Popular mobilizations “usually occurred relatively late in the process when democratization was well underway and the risks of opposition had diminished. Popular protest may have pushed democratization farther and faster than regime elites initially intended” (Geddes, 1999, 120) * Geddes cites (Collier and Mahoney 1997, Bermeo 1997, R Collier, unpublished manuscript {which does not appear in the article’s bibliography})
“Elites facilitate successful transition to democracy” (Geddes, 1990, pg 120) *Geddes Cites (Burton et al 1992, Karl 1990)
“…’stronger’ outgoing regimes are able to negotiate transition outcomes more favorable to themselves than those forced out by crisis” (Geddes, 1990, pg 120) * Geddes cites Agüero (1992, 1995) ~ This finding relates especially to Chile and Brazil
Mediterranean Europe (Greece and Portugal)
“there is no transition whose beginning is not the consequence – direct or indirect – of important divisions within the authoritarian regime itself” (O’Donnell & Schmitter, 1986, pg 19) * Quoted in Geddes pg 120
“Elites facilitate successful transition to democracy” (Geddes, 1990, pg 120) *Geddes Cites (Burton et al 1992, Karl 1990)
Africa (Sub-Saharan)
“…popular protest was the main reason old-regime elites agreed to begin negotiation” (Geddes, 1990, pg 120) * Geddes cites Bratton & Van de Walle (1992, 1997)
“No evidence of pacts” (Geddes, 1990, pg 120) *Geddes cites (Bratton & Van de Walle 1997)
“transitions in Africa seem to be occurring more commonly from below…[R]ulers are driven by calculations of personal political survival: They resist political openings for as long as possible (Bratton & Van de Walle, 1997, pg 83) * Quoted in Geddes, pg 120
Eastern Europe
“…popular protest was the main reason old-regime elites agreed to begin negotiation” (Geddes, 1999, pg 120)
“…democratization…could not in most cases be traced to splits within the old regime” (Geddes, 1990, pg 120)
Geddes’ Explanatory Variable for Differing Regional Causes of Transition
“One of the reasons regime transitions have proved so theoretically intractable is that different kinds of authoritarianism differ from each other as much as they differ from democracy” (Geddes, 1999, pg 121)
Solution: Authoritarianism with Adjectives
“I classify authoritarian regimes as personalist, military single-party, or amalgams of pure types”
Definitions (Geddes notes that there are classification issues with these definitions of pure types and tries to resolve this with amalgams)
Military Regimes are when “a group of officers decides who will rule and exercise some influence on policy” (Geddes, 1999, pg 121)
Personalist Regimes are when "access to office and the fruits of office depends much more on the discretion of an individual leader. The leader may be an officer and may have created a party to support himself, but neither the military nor the party exercises independent decision-making power insulated from the whims of the ruler" (Geddes, 1999, pgs 121-122)
Single-Party Regimes are when “access to political office and control over policy are dominated by one party, though other parties may legally exist and compete in elections” (Geddes, 1999, pg 121)
* link to democracy with adjectives and methodology article on conceptual stretching revisited
No comments:
Post a Comment