EXECUTIVE CONSTRAINTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN AUTOCRACIES

Evgeniya Mitrokhina

Аннотация


Authoritarian regimes differ in the degree to which the leader is constrained in his ability to influence the decision-making process. It has been argued that an unlimited executive can either lead to adverse economic policy outcomes or improve economic performance. The paper reassesses the impact of executive constraints on economic performance. While most of the previous studies in this area focus on regime typologies, this research uses observable indicators of power personalization in 90 autocratic countries from 1960 to 2010 to estimate their impact on economic performance. The author considers power concentration, the range of powers available to chief executives and their ability to dismiss ministers as the indicators for measuring the leaders’ potential for influencing the decision-making process. It is concluded that the countries where the leaders can stay longer in office, have a possibility to change the cabinet unrestrictedly, and concentrate more power in their hands tend to be more opportunistic. The results imply that strong leaders establish such a power-sharing regime that allows them to act in a self-interest way. 


Ключевые слова


executive constraints; power personalization; political regimes; economic growth; autocracies

Полный текст:

PDF PDF (English)

Литература


Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P. and Robinson, J. A. (2014) Democracy does cause growth. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w20004.

Acemoglu, D., Verdier, T. and Robinson, J. A. (2004) ‘Kleptocracy and Di-vide‐and‐Rule: A Model of Personal Rule’, Journal of the European Eco-nomic Association, 2(2–3), pp. 162–192.

Besley, T. J. and Kudamatsu, M. (2007) Making autocracy work. Manuscript.

Boix, C. and Svolik, M. W. (2013) ‘The foundations of limited authoritarian gov-ernment: Institutions, commitment, and power-sharing in dictator-ships’, The Journal of Politics, 75(2), pp. 300–316.

Brownlee, J. (2007) Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge University Press.

Escribà-Folch, A. (2013) ‘Accountable for what? Regime types, performance, and the fate of outgoing dictators, 1946–2004’, Democratization, 20(1), pp. 160–185.

Ezrow, N. M. and Frantz, E. (2011) Dictators and dictatorships: Understanding authoritarian regimes and their leaders. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Gandhi, J. (2003) Dictatorial Institutions and their Impact on Policies. New York University.

Gandhi, J. (2008) ‘Dictatorial institutions and their impact on economic growth’, European Journal of Sociology, 49(01), pp. 3–30.

Gandhi, J. and Przeworski, Adam (2006) ‘Cooperation, cooptation and rebellion under dictatorship’, Economics and Politics, 18(1), pp. 1–26.

Gandhi, J. and Sumner, J.L. (2014) Measuring Personalism and its Effects in Non-Democracies. Manuscript.

Geddes, B. (1999) Authoritarian breakdown: Empirical test of a game theoretic argument. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Vol. 2, September.

Geddes, B., Wright, J. and Frantz, E. (2014) ‘Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set’, Perspectives on Politics, 12(02), pp. 313–331.

Hadenius, A. and Teorell, J. (2007) ‘Pathways from authoritarianism’, Journal of democracy, 18(1), pp. 143–157.

Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2002) ‘The rise of competitive authoritarian-ism’, Journal of democracy, 13(2), pp. 51–65.

Levitsky, S. and Way, L. A. (2010) Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.

Linz, J. J. (2000) Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publish-ers.

Magaloni, B. (2008). ‘Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule’, Comparative Political Studies, 41(4-5), pp. 15–741.

Magaloni, Beatriz, Chu, J. and Min, E. (2013) Autocracies of the World, 1950-2012 (Version 1.0). Dataset, Stanford University.

Meng, A. (2017) Ruling Parties in Authoritarian Regimes: Rethinking Institution-al Strength. Manuscript.

Olson, M. (1993) ‘Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development’, American Politi-cal Science Review, 87(03), pp. 567–576.

Papaioannou, E. and Siourounis, G. (2008) ‘Democratisation and growth’, The Economic Journal, 118(532), pp. 1520–1551.

Pepinsky, T. (2014) ‘The institutional turn in comparative authoritarian-ism’, British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), pp. 631–653.

Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2006) Democracy and development: The devil in the details. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w11993.

Sudduth, J. (2016) ‘Strategic logic of elite purges in dictatorships’, Comparative Political Studies, pp. 1–39.

Svolik, M. W. (2009) ‘Power-sharing and leadership dynamics in authoritarian regimes’, American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), pp. 477–494.

Svolik, M. W. (2012) The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press.

Weede, E. (1996) ‘Political regime type and variation in economic growth rates’, Constitutional Political Economy, 7(3), pp. 167–176.

Wilson, M. C. (2014) ‘A discreet critique of discrete regime type da-ta’, Comparative Political Studies, 47(5), pp. 689–714.

Wright, J. (2008) ‘Do authoritarian institutions constrain? How legislatures affect economic growth and investment’, American Journal of Political Sci-ence, 52(2), pp. 322–343.


Ссылки

  • На текущий момент ссылки отсутствуют.


(c) 2019 Вестник Пермского университета. Политология / Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science

Вестник Пермского университета. Политология на elibrary