Jump to content

Regime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[2][1]

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.[3][4] The CIA website also has a complete list of every country in the world with their respective types of regime.[5] The term regime is often used in a demeaning, derogatory way usually to portray a leader as corrupt or undemocratic.[6] 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]
World citizens living under different political regimes, as defined by Polity IV.[7]


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)."[8] 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.[9]

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.[9]

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. [10] [11]

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.[11]

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.[12]

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[13].[14]

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.[15]

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.[16]

A stewardship urban regime is: More adversarial towards business then a entrepreneurial regime, and more protective of community interests in relation to big business i.e. looking out for the little guy. A stewardship regime holds itself accountable for protecting taxpayer investments, but not in the redistribution of them like a progressive urban regime would.[17]

A demand-side urban regime is: A key feature of demand-side urban regimes are their support for small business and neighborhood revitalization. They encourage and provide state assistance for small business, as well as birthing small business through state operated venture capital programs. This also allows the government to retain an active role in development. Demand side urban regimes can be created when a progressive regime is connected to state assistance for small business owners.[18]

Measuring regime

[edit]

There are two primary ways in which regimes are measured: 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).[19] A continuous measure of democracy creates categorical classifications based on gradations of democracy and autocracy[19] though previously, primarily focused on the differentiation of democracies and autocracies.[20] A binary measure of democracy classifies a country as either a democracy or not.[21]

While some argue that unless a government is “x” or generates “x”, then such an institution is not worthy of being declared a democracy,[22] academics establish that there is no single set of practices that embody democracy, but rather a matrix of various outcomes and combinations.[23] According to Stanford political science professor Philippe C. Schmitter and associate professor Terry Lynn Karl, such matrices take into consideration factors such as consensus, participation, access, responsiveness, majority rule, parliamentary sovereignty, party government, pluralism, federalism, presidentialism, and checks and balances.[23]

V-Dem Institute, an independent research institute that aims to conceptualize and measure democracy, serves as one of the world’s most well-known continuous measures of democracy. V-Dem formally describes their data utilizing a notation that contains ratings of numerous indicators.[24] Such indicators include access to justice, electoral corruption, and freedom from government sponsored violence.[24] V-Dem then relies on country experts who supply subjective ratings of said latent or concealed regime indicators over any given period of time.[24]

See also

[edit]
Look up regime or regimen in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Karl, Terry; Schmitter, Phillippe (Summer 1991). "What Democracy Is...and Is Not". Journal of Democracy (3): 76–78. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
  2. ^ Herre, Bastian (December 2, 2021). "The 'Regimes of the World' data: how do researchers measure democracy?". Our World in Data. Retrieved March 14, 2023.
  3. ^ Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
  4. ^ Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
  5. ^ "Government type - The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  6. ^ "Regime | Autocratic, Democratic & Totalitarian | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
  7. ^ "World citizens living under different political regimes". Our World in Data. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  8. ^ Ufheil-Somers, Amanda (December 2, 2014). "The Breakdown of the GCC Initiative". MERIP.
  9. ^ a b James, Paul; Palen, Ronen (2007). Globalization and Economy, Vol. 3: Global Economic Regimes and Institutions. London: Sage Publications. p. xiv.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ "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.
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ "Decision-making in the public sector". 2019-09-19. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ a b Elkins, Zachary. 2000. "Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations. American Journal of Political Science. 44(2): 293-300.
  20. ^ 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
  21. ^ Herre, B. (2021). “The ‘Regimes of the World’ data: how do researchers measure democracy?”, Our World in Data
  22. ^ Przeworski, A. (1999). “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense”, In I. Shapiro, & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s Value Cambridge University Press. 12-17.
  23. ^ a b Karl, Terry, and Philippe Schmitter. “What Democracy Is…and Is Not”. Journal of Democracy 2, no. 3 (January 1970): 75-88.
  24. ^ a b c 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regime&oldid=1252595857"