Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=phd.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Comparative Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
Review Article
The Missing Variable
103
ComparativePolitics October 1999
104
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
105
ComparativePolitics October 1999
106
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
107
ComparativePolitics October 1999
108
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
Regime Type and Challenger Strategies In contrast to Roeder, who limits his
study to institutional dynamics inside the authoritarianstate, Bratton and van de
Walle analyze how institutionsmediate the state'srelationshipwith society. By con-
structing a typology of neopatrimonialregimes that highlights varied patterns of
state-society relations, they show how institutionalfactors condition the likelihood
and level of popularprotest. Because Brattonand van de Walle combine their focus
on challengers with a focus on incumbents,they can explain more components of
the process of regime change than Roeder, who, as noted earlier, focuses only on
incumbentsand their capacitiesto achieve reform.
Building on the work of Robert Dahl, Brattonand van de Walle distinguish four
types of neopatrimonialregimes according to varied levels of "participation"(the
extent to which the state permits social mobilization) and "competition"(the extent
to which the state tolerates autonomouspolitical associations): military oligarchies
(low participation,low competition),multipartysystems (medium to high participa-
109
ComparativePolitics October 1999
110
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
Ill
ComparativePolitics October 1999
112
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
113
ComparativePolitics October 1999
Linz and Stepan show that the paradigmaticmodel of a four player transition
game, based on the democratizationof Spain'sauthoritarianregime in the late 1970s,
does not fit transitionsfrom othertypes of nondemocraticregimes. Old regime insti-
tutions can narrowthe cast of actors. For example, the characteristicallyhigh degree
of penetrationinto state and society by the patronagenetworksof sultanisticregimes
and the mobilizational parties of totalitarian regimes minimizes possibilities for
groups with reformist or moderate identities to organize. Softline incumbents and
moderatechallengersare typically absent in such regimes, resulting either in stable
one player equilibria (just hardliners) or volatile two player games (hardliners
opposed by maximalist, usually armed oppositions, as often occurs with sultanistic
regimes). Linz and Stepanhighlight the constitutiveeffects of regime institutionsby
describingthe violent overthrowofNicolae Ceausescu'shybridsultanisticltotalitarian
regime in Romaniaas a case of "missing players for a 'pacted transition."'(p. 356).
Their analysis shows how the absence of softline incumbents and moderate chal-
lengers foreclosedthe possibility of a nonviolentnegotiatedtransitionin Romania.
Old regime institutions also affect the capabilities of incumbent and opposition
factions. For example, Linz and Stepanshow how the distinctive featuresof Poland's
"authoritariancommunist"regime help account for the far greaterstrengthof maxi-
malist opposition groups in Poland than in East Europeancountries that were ruled
by full-blown totalitarianregimes. The party-statein Poland did not penetratecivil
society as fully as party-stateselsewhere in easternEurope (pp. 255-69). This limit-
ed penetration provided a comparatively favorable context for forging opposition
identities; social groups had the space to experimentwith noncommunistmodes of
self-identification. Once these identities were forged, the relatively circumscribed
reach of the Polish state facilitated an extraordinarydegree of "self-organization"
and anticommunistmobilizationby civil society (p. 262). Hence the distinctiveinsti-
tutions of the old regime contributedto the emergence of a powerful opposition,
which in turn helps explain why Poland experienced a pacted transition in which
incumbentsnegotiatedthe terms of their extricationwith the opposition.
114
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
Linz and Stepan address the linkage between opposition practice and identity in
their analysis of the East European and post-Soviet cases, where the "flattened"
political landscapes left by totalitarianregimes provide an excellent opportunityto
explore issues of group formation (p. 269). Poland offers a vivid example. The
Polish opposition forged an identity of "antipolitics"in the process of challenging
the old regime.As noted above, Linz and Stepan show how authoritarianCommunist
institutionsprovideda favorablecontext for craftingopposition identities.They also
analyze the complex process through which these identities were constructed.
Repeated accumulated interactions between opposition groups and the incumbent
regime yielded a disdain by the former for routinized institutionsand compromise.
Between 1976 and 1989 the opposition developed a language, self-definition, and
set of tactics orientedtowardspontaneityand informality.Takentogether,these ele-
ments formed a coherent "ethics of oppositional behavior"that was in many ways
the mirrorimage of the bureaucratizedregime institutionsthe opposition sought to
transform.According to Linz and Stepan, the opposition was "so eager to avoid
becoming capturedin the routines and symbols of the party-statethat they elevated
the situationalethics of oppositionalbehaviorinto a generalprincipleof the 'politics
of anti-politics"'(p. 271).
Although its "antipolitical"identity helps explain the Polish opposition'sremark-
able ability to sustainitself for nearlytwo decades, this quasi-anarchistconception of
opposition politics as the antithesis of old regime practices created importantbarri-
ers to the subsequent consolidation of democracy.Not surprisingly,after years of
dominationby a single party,political parties became a dirty word for the opposi-
tion. Hence the old regime left a legacy of strongambivalenceabout core democratic
political institutions such as political parties and hindered the consolidation of
democracy.
Opposition identities forged during the transitionto democracy in Brazil had a
similarconstrainingeffect on democraticconsolidation.In Brazil a powerfulmilitary
organizationled the authoritarianregime and tightly controlled the pace of political
liberalization. Consequently, Brazil witnessed a "long, constrained transition" in
which the opposition struggled against the regime for more than a decade (p. 166).
Like their Polish counterparts,the Brazilian opposition developed an "antipolitical"
identity during this struggle. In both Brazil and Poland the long, slow struggle
against a bureaucratic,highly routinizedregime "engenderedvalues and patternsof
action in the arenaof civil society that impededthe constructionof a democratically
effective political society" (pp. 232-33). Since completing the democratictransition,
Brazilianshave been strikinglyambivalentabout the value of democracy,especially
when comparedto citizens of other SouthAmericandemocracies.22
These similaritiesbetween Poland and Brazil raise intriguingquestions for future
researchon how constitutivepropertiesof old regime institutionsinfluence prospects
for democratic consolidation. Do slow transitions from highly bureaucratized
115
ComparativePolitics October 1999
116
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
117
ComparativePolitics October1999
in explainingregime change. Roeder shows how the formal and informalrules under
which incumbents strive to maintain power can explain the failure of reformersto
solve problems of regime maintenance.Brattonand van de Walle demonstratehow
broad cross-nationalvariationsin regime institutionsdefine the strategic options of
both incumbentswho defend the old regime and challengerswho undermineit. Linz
and Stepan, in additionto underscoringthe impact of institutionalfactors on actors'
strategies,highlight how the constitutivepropertiesof institutionsshape group iden-
tities, interests,and goals.
In their sharedrecognitionthat regime change can be a rule-governedprocess, all
three analyses unequivocallyretreatfrom the extreme voluntarismthat characterized
most previous studies inspiredby the thirdwave of democratization.However,none
of these works seeks to revive the old structuralism,which privileged macro-level
socioeconomic or cultural variables to the neglect of human agency. By focusing
instead on the institutionalcontexts of choice and decision making, they achieve a
high degree of sensitivity to agency and political action. Through this linkage of
institutional constraints to the shaping of actor's choice, these studies stake out a
long-awaited middle ground between the voluntarist and structuralextremes that
dominatedearlierwork on regime change.25
Future research should take several directions to fortify this emerging middle
ground. First, importantconceptualwork needs to be done. In the past regime cate-
gories served mainly to describe and classify different political systems, entering
into explanationprimarilyas dependentvariables.As regime categories are increas-
ingly employed as explanatoryvariables,however,scholars need to modify existing
conceptual frameworks.For example, Linz and Stepan (pp. 39-40) show that the
standardtripartitedistinction among democracy,authoritarianism,and totalitarian-
ism is inadequate in explaining regime transitions because it fails to discriminate
among the more thanninety percentof modernnondemocraticregimes that sharethe
same typological space, authoritarianism.To achieve a conceptual frameworkwith
greaterdiscriminatingpower Linz and Stepanexpand the existing tripartitetypology
by adding two new categories, posttotalitarianismand sultanism.26Likewise, the
need for more finely grained typologies is evident in the limitations of Brattonand
van de Walle's highly aggregated categories of neopatrimonialregimes. An impor-
tant priority in futureresearchthus involves crafting nuanced concepts that expose
the institutionallogics of nondemocraticregimes by pinpointingthe core rules that
constrainincumbentsand social actors.
Second, scholars who wish to explore how institutionsconstitute actors' interests
and identities should strive for greatermethodologicalrigor and sophistication.They
should avoid the temptation to conflate independent and dependent variables and
should carefullyspecify when institutionalfactors are causes of actors' identities and
interests and when actors are causers of institutional outcomes.27 In addition to
adhering closely to standardmethodological guidelines for causal assessment, stu-
118
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
NOTES
The authorsthank GerardoMunck and Ezra N. Suleiman for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Richard Snyder's work on this article was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Harvard
Academy for InternationalandArea Studies.
1. PeterA. Hall and RosemaryC. R. Taylor,"PoliticalScience and the Three New Institutionalisms,"
Political Studies, 44 (1996), 936-57; Karen L. Remmer, "Theoretical Decay and Theoretical
Development: The Resurgence of Institutional Analysis," WorldPolitics, 50 (October 1997), 34-61;
119
ComparativePolitics October 1999
120
RichardSnyderand James Mahoney
10. Both Remmer,MilitaryRule, and Huntingtonhave arguedthat the outcomes of political transitions
tend to covary with old regime type, beyond the highly aggregated categories of authoritarianismand
democracy.
11. See Richard Snyder, "ExplainingTransitions from NeopatrimonialDictatorships,"Comparative
Politics, 24 (July 1992), 379-99.
12. O'Donnell and Schmitter,TentativeConclusions.
13. Ruth Berins Collier and James Mahoney, "Adding Collective Actors to Collective Outcomes:
Labor and Recent Democratizationin South America and Southern Europe,"ComparativePolitics, 29
(April 1997), 285-303, have questioned whether the paradigmatic voluntarist account accurately
describesdemocratictransitionsin LatinAmericaand southernEurope.
14. Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchv.:Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1971).
15. As noted above, the likelihood of protest varied across regime type. However, the majority of
countries(twenty-nineout of forty-seven)analyzed by Brattonand van de Walle were one party systems,
the regime type that correlates most strongly with opposition protest. By contrast,only eleven countries
were military oligarchies,the regime type that correlatesmost weakly with protest. Hence protestcharac-
terized most of the cases.
16. Snyder,"ExplainingTransitionsfrom NeopatrimonialDictatorships."
17. These regime types are defined along the dimensions of pluralism, ideology, mobilization, and
leadership.Linz, "Totalitarianand AuthoritarianRegimes."
18. Such perspectivescharacterizemost rationalchoice analyses. On the differences between rational
choice and constitutive approaches to institutional analysis, see Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo,
"Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics," in Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank
Longstreth,eds., StructuringPolitics: Historical Institutionalismin ComparativeAnalysis (Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress, 1992); Hall andTaylor.
19. For example, Guillermo O'Donnell, "Transitionsto Democracy:Some NavigationalInstruments,"
in RobertA. Pastor,ed., Democracyin the Americas(New York:Holmes & Meier, 1989).
20. For example, Terry Lynn Karl, "Dilemmas of Democratizationin Latin America," Comparative
Politics, 23 (October 1990), 1-21; Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C. Schmitter,"Modes of Transitionin
Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe,"InternationalSocial Science Journal, 128 (May 1991),
269-84; GerardoL. Munck and Carol Skalnik Leff, "Modes of Transitionand Democratization:South
America and Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective," Comparative Politics, 29 (April 1997),
343-62.
21. As Linz and Stepan, p. 366, argue, "political identities are less primordialand fixed than contin-
gent and changing.They are amenableto being constructedor erodedby political institutions."
22. This ambivalenceabout democracy in Brazil was probablyexacerbatedby two enduring institu-
tional factors that preceded the authoritarianregime: weak political parties and a strong federal design
that tended to fragmentthe nationalpolitical arena. Indeed,accordingto Linz and Stepan, p. 166, Brazil
has had the most difficulty in consolidatinga democraticregime among the SouthAmericanand southern
Europeancases they analyze.
23. See Karl,"Dilemmasof Democratization."
24. Brazil has had an especially importantinfluence in redirectingattentionto structuralfactors. See
Frances Hagopian, TraditionalPolitics and Regime Change in Brazil (New York:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1996); Guillermo O'Donnell, "Challengesto Democratizationin Brazil,"WorldPolicy Journal, 5
(Spring 1988), 281-300; Scott Mainwaring,Guillermo O'Donnell, and J. Samuel Valenzuela,eds., Issues
in DemocraticConsolidation:The New SouthAmericanDemocracies in ComparativePerspective(South
Bend: Universityof Notre Dame Press, 1992). Adam Przeworskiand FernandoLimongi, "Modernization:
Theories and Facts,"WorldPolitics, 49 (January1997), 155-83, arguethat, althoughtransitionsto democ-
racy should be viewed as contingent events, economic constraintshave a major impacton the stability of
121
ComparativePolitics October 1999
122