Palabras clave
democracia
autocratización
regímenes híbridos
formación de conceptos
Resumen
Los procesos graduales de autocratización han provocado que algunos regímenes se deslicen hacia la zona gris entre la democracia y el autoritarismo. ¿Cómo determinar cuál es el tipo de régimen que prevalece en cada caso? ¿Se trata de “regímenes híbridos”? Usualmente, éstos son definidos como regímenes con atributos propios de las democracias y las autocracias. Sin embargo, existe mucha confusión en el sentido y alcance de ese término. El objetivo de este artículo es distinguir entre diferentes concepciones de los regímenes híbridos en función de su coherencia conceptual. El análisis se basa en los criterios de validez, diferenciación y parsimonia, propuestos por Collier y Levitsky (1997) para la formación de conceptos y muestra las diferencias existentes en la medida en que las concepciones de regímenes híbridos cumplen con esos criterios. Los estudios asociados a la perspectiva de los “regímenes con adjetivos” ofrecen herramientas conceptuales más sistemáticas. En contraste, los trabajos que definen a los regímenes híbridos como regímenes que no son ni democracias ni autoritarismos tienen limitaciones en el plano conceptual.
Citas
Alvarez, M.; Cheibub, J. A.; Limongi, F.; y Przeworski, A. (1996). Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31 (2), 3-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02719326
Angiolillo, F.; Lundstedt, M.; Nord, M.; y Lindberg, S. I. (2024). State of the world 2023: democracy winning and losing at the ballot. Democratization, 1-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2024.2341435
Armony, A.; y Schamis, H. (2005). Babel in Democratization Studies. Journal of Democracy, 16 (4), 113-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2005.0055
Bogaards, M. (2009). How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism. Democratization, 16 (2), 399-423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340902777800
Brownlee, J. (2009). Portents of Pluralism: How Hybrid Regimes Affect Democratic Transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53 (3), 515-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00384.x
Carothers, T. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13 (1), 5-21.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0003
Cassani, A. (2014). Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 35 (5), 542-558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512113495756
Cassani, A., y Tomini, L. (2019). Post-Cold War autocratization: trends and patterns of regime change opposite to democratization. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 49 (2), 121-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2019.4
Collier, D., y Adcock, R. (1999). Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (Volume 2, 1999), 537-565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.537
Collier, D.; LaPorte, J.; y Seawright, J. (2012). Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytic Rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65 (1), 217-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162
Collier, D., y Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics, 49 (03), 430-451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1997.0009
Collier, D., y Mahon, J. E., Jr. (1993). Conceptual “Stretching” Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review, 87 (04), 845-855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2938818
Coppedge, M. (2012). Democratization and Research Methods. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139016179.001
Coppedge, M. (2023). V-Dem’s Conceptions of Democracy and their Consequences. Working Paper. Núm. Series 2023: 135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4410921
Coppedge, M.; Lindberg, S.; Skaaning, S.-E.; y Teorell, J. (2016). Measuring High Level Democratic Principles using the V-Dem Data. International Political Science Review, 37 (5), 580-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115622046
Coppedge, M.; Gerring, J.; Knutsen, C. H.; Krusell, J.; Medzihorsky, J.; Pernes, J.; Skaaning, S.-E.; Stepanova, N.; Teorell, J.; Tzelgov, E.; Wilson, S. L.; y Lindberg, S. I. (2019). The Methodology of “Varieties of Democracy” (V-Dem)1. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 143 (1), 107-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106319854989
Coppedge, M.; Gerring, J.; Glynn, A.; Knutsen, C. H.; Lindberg, S. I.; Pemstein, D.; Seim, B.; Skaaning, S.-E.; y Teorell, J. (2020). Varieties of Democracy: Measuring Two Centuries of Political Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347860
Croissant, A., y Merkel, W. (2004). Introduction. Democratization in the Early Twenty-First Century. Democratization, 11 (5), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pcjb.1790
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13 (2), 21-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0025
Diamond, L.; Hartlyn, J.; Linz, J. J.; y Lipset, S. M. (eds.) (1999). Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
EIU (2024). Democracy Index 2023: Age of Conflict. The Economist Intelligence Unit. DOI: http://www.eiu.com/home.aspx
Freedom-House (2024). Nations in Transit 2024. A Region Reordered by Autocracy and Democracy. Washington, D.C., New York, Freedom House.
Geddes, B. (1999). What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (Volume 2, 1999), 115-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115
Gerring, J.; Pemstein, D.; y Skaaning, S.-E. (2021). An Ordinal, Concept-driven Approach to Measurement: The Lexical Scale. Sociological Methods & Research, 50 (2), 778-811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782531
Gilbert, L., y Mohseni, P. (2011). Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46 (3), 270-297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-011-9088-x
Goertz, G. (2020). Social Science Concepts and Measurement: New and Completely Revised Edition. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). Facticidad y Validez. Madrid, Taurus.
Haggard, S., y Kaufman, R. (2021). Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108957809
Karl, T. L. (1995). The hybrid regimes of Central America. Journal of Democracy, 6 (3), 72-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0049
Knutsen, C. H.; Marquardt, K. L.; Seim, B.; Coppedge, M.; Edgell, A. B.; Medzihorsky, J.; Pemstein, D.; Teorell, J.; Gerring, J.; y Lindberg, S. I. (2024). Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding. PS: Political Science & Politics, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652300077X
Levitsky, S., y Way, L. A. (2002). Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13 (2), 51-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0026
Levitsky, S., y Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781353
Lindstaedt, N., y den Bosch, J. J. J. (2024). Research Handbook on Authoritarianism. Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802204827
Lührmann, A., y Lindberg, S. I. (2019). A Third Wave of Autocratization is Here: What is New About It? Democratization, 26 (7), 1095-1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
Lührmann, A.; Tannenberg, M.; y Lindberg, S. (2018). Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes. Politics and Governance, 6 (1), 60-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214
Maerz, S. F.; Edgell, A. B.; Wilson, M. C.; Hellmeier, S.; y Lindberg, S. I. (2023). Episodes of regime transformation. Journal of Peace Research, 0 (0), 00223433231168192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231168192
Mainwaring, S.; Brinks, D.; y Pérez-Liñán, A. (2007). Classifying political regimes in Latin America, 1945-2004. En G. Munck (ed.), Regimes and democracy in Latin America: Theories and methods (pp. 123-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199219896.003.0006
Meng, A.; Paine, J.; y Powell, R. (2023). Authoritarian Power Sharing: Concepts, Mechanisms, and Strategies. Annual Review of Political Science, 26 (Volume 26, 2023), 153-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052121-020406
Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11 (5), 33-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340412331304598
Morlino, L. (2009). Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion? European Political Science Review, 1 (2), 273-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773909000198
Mufti, M. (2018). What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship? Politics and Governance, 6 (2), 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400
Munck, G. (2009). Measuring Democracy: A Bridge between Scholarship and Politics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/book.3406
Munck, G. (2016). What is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy. Democratization, 23 (1), 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.918104
Munck, G. (2023). Reimagining the Social Sciences: Knowledge, Epistemic Change, and the Study of Democracy. En G. Munck (ed.), In progress (pp. 134-180). N. A.: N. A. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368898649_Reimagining_the_Social_Sciences_Knowledge_Epistemic_Change_and_the_Study_of_Democracy
Munck, G. L., y Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35 (1), 5-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500101
O'Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5 (1), 55-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1994.0010
Przeworski, A. (1999). Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense. En I. Shapiro y C. Hacker-Cordon (eds.), Democracy's Value (pp. 23-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, A. (2010). Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778490
Rawls, J. (2005). Political Liberalism. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Table of contents only: DOI: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0812/2008009112.html
Sartori, G. (2008). Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. En D. Collier y J. Gerring (eds.), Concepts and Methods in Social Science (pp. 13-43). Londres: Routledge.
Schedler, A. (2002). The Menu of Manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13 (2), 36-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0031
Schedler, A. (2013). The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680320.001.0001
Schumpeter, J. (1971 [1950]). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3a ed.). Nueva York, Harper Perennial.
Szmolka Vida, I. (2010). Los regímenes híbridos: democracias y autoritarismos con adjetivos. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 147 (enero-marzo), 103-135.
Teorell, J.; Coppedge, M.; Lindberg, S.; y Skaaning, S.-E. (2019). Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900-2017. Studies in Comparative International Development, 54 (1), 71-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z
Waldner, D., y Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21 (1), 93-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628
Warren, M. (2017). A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory. American Political Science Review, 111 (1), 39-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000605
Wigell, M. (2008). Mapping “Hybrid Regimes”: Regime Types and Concepts in Comparative Politics. Democratization, 15 (2), 230-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340701846319
Zakaria, F. (1997). The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76 (6), 22-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20048274