Electoral autocracies, hybrid regimes, and multiparty autocracies: same, same but different?

Abstract

There is a wide range of labels, such as electoral autocracy, hybrid regimes, or multiparty autocracy, and corresponding empirical measures to describe and measure political regimes that combine authoritarian rule with institutions and practices that are traditionally associated with democracy. Although these different labels and measures are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, it is unclear whether this is warranted. By systematically comparing seven measures of regime categories that combine authoritarian rule with institutions and practices that are traditionally associated with democracy, I show that they are not interchangeable and differ considerably from each other, drawing vastly different boundaries towards democracies and especially towards other types of autocracies, both conceptually and empirically. Conceptual differences and measurement choices further exert a strong influence on empirical research, as even conceptually very similar regime categories capture vastly different sets of cases. Using a range of exemplary analyses, I show that conclusions derived from using a particular measure rarely generalize to autocratic regimes that incorporate institutions and practices that are traditionally associated with democracy more broadly. This has important implications for future research and highlights the difficulties of aggregating knowledge gained from studies using different measures of this type of autocracy.