Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:30:53.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Authoritarian Survival, Resilience, and the Selectorate Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2013

By
Mary Gallagher  and
Jonathan K. Hanson
Edited by
Martin K. Dimitrov
Martin K. Dimitrov
Affiliation:
Tulane University, Louisiana
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we delve into two of the key questions that Dimitrov (Chapter 1) argues are central to a theory of communist resilience. First, what is the basis of the rule of communist regimes, and how does it change over time? Second, why do some regimes collapse while others survive? As a framework for this analysis, we draw upon the selectorate theory as set forward in the Logic of Political Survival (LPS) by Bueno de Mesquita et al. and later amended by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith. This theory is presented as a parsimonious explanation for the survival of rulers, authoritarian and otherwise, based on key characteristics of a country’s institutions for selecting a ruler. As such, it is a useful point of reference for evaluating many of the arguments raised in this volume. If the theory’s predictions are accurate, a more narrow theory of communist resilience is unnecessary. We find, however, that the theory cannot explain the divergent outcomes of communist regimes.

The crux of the matter is that the selectorate theory predicts that outcomes in communist countries should resemble the outcome in North Korea: highly repressive rule by a narrow elite, unaccountable to the mass of citizens and offering little improvement in general welfare. The theory is thus unable to provide an adequate explanation for authoritarian rulers who mix political repression and growth-generating public goods, producing resilient authoritarian regimes buttressed by robust economic performance. Two of the five surviving communist regimes, China and Vietnam, fit this description, and the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party appears intent upon pursuing a similar strategy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Why Communism Did Not Collapse
Understanding Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Asia and Europe
 , pp. 185 - 204
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, Smith, Alastair, Siverson, Randolph M., and Morrow, James D., The Logic of Political Survival (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003)Google Scholar
de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno and Smith, Alastair, “Political Survival and Endogenous Institutional Change,” Comparative Political Studies 42:2 (2009), 167–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Mary and Hanson, Jonathan K., “Coalitions, Carrots, and Sticks: Economic Inequality and Authoritarian States,” PS: Political Science & Politics 42:4 (2009), 667–672Google Scholar
Wintrobe, Ronald, The Political Economy of Dictatorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Barbara, “What Do We Know about Democratization after Twenty Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 2:1 (1999), 115–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer, Political Institutions under Dictatorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knack, Stephen, “The Logic of Political Survival,” Journal of Economic Literature 43:4 (2005), 1068–1070;Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A. and Stone, Randall W., “Democracy and the Logic of Political Survival,” American Political Science Review 102:3 (2008), 387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D., de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair, “Retesting Selectorate Theory: Separating the Effects of W from Other Elements of Democracy,” American Political Science Review 102:3 (2008), 393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James A., Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
North, Douglass C., Structure and Change in Economic History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981)Google Scholar
Almeida, Heitor and Ferreira, Daniel, “Democracy and the Variability of Economic Performance,” Economics and Politics 14:3 (2002), 225–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, ’s “stationary bandit” is one noteworthy example: Mancur Olson, “Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development,” American Political Science Review 87:3 (1993), 567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Cheibub, José Antonio, and Limongi, Fernando, Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heston, Alan, Summers, Robert, and Aten, Bettina, Penn World Table Version 6.2 (Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, 2006), at (accessed August 31, 2009)Google Scholar
Kohli, Atul, State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo-Cumings, Meredith, ed., The Developmental State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 17
Pempel, T. J., “The Developmental Regime in a Changing World Economy,” in Woo-Cumings, Meredith, ed., The Developmental State (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 166Google Scholar
Doner, Richard F., Ritchie, Bryan K., and Slater, Dan, “Systemic Vulnerability and the Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective,” International Organization 59:2 (2005), 327–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yasheng, “Why China Will Not Collapse,” Foreign Policy, no. 99 (1995), 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A., “The Coming Chinese Collapse,” Foreign Policy, no. 99 (1995), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, David S. G. and Segal, Gerald, China Deconstructs: Politics, Trade and Regionalism (London: Routledge, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Andrew J., “Authoritarian Resilience,” Journal of Democracy 14:1 (2003), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Elizabeth J., “Studying Chinese Politics: Farewell to Revolution?” China Journal, no. 57 (2007), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno and Downs, George W., “Development and Democracy,” Foreign Affairs 84:5 (2005), 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Dali L., “Review: Governing China’s Transition to the Market: Institutional Incentives, Politicians’ Choices, and Unintended Outcomes,” World Politics 48:3 (1996), 424–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zang, Xiaowei, “The Fourteenth Central Committee of the CCP: Technocracy or Political Technocracy?” Asian Survey 33:8 (1993), 787–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Li and White, Lynn, “The Fifteenth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: Full-Fledged Technocratic Leadership with Partial Control by Jiang Zemin,” Asian Survey 38:3 (1998), 231–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Victor, Shan, Wei, and Liu, Mingxing, “The Central Committee, Past and Present: A Method of Quantifying Elite Biographies,” in Carlson, Allen, Gallagher, Mary, Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Manion, Melanie, eds., Contemporary Chinese Politics: New Sources, Methods and Field Strategies (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, Susan, “The Cadre Evaluation System at the Grass Roots: The Paradox of Party Rule,” in Naughton, Barry J. and Yang, Dali, eds., Holding China Together: Diversity and National Integration in the Post-Deng Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweig, David, Internationalizing China: Domestic Interests and Global Linkages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Gallagher, Mary E., Contagious Capitalism: Globalization and the Politics of Labor in China (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
Yang, Dali, Beyond Beijing: Liberalization and the Regions in China (London: Routledge, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malesky, Edmund, “Gerrymandering – Vietnamese Style: Escaping the Partial Reform Equilibrium in a Nondemocratic Regime,” Journal of Politics 71:1 (2009), 132–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×