Classifying Non-Democracies: A Typology and a New Data-Set

Autocratic systems have received increasing attention in recent years. However, authors differ markedly in terms of how non-democratic systems should be classified. The three most widely used data sets on autocratic systems are the ones proposed by Cheibub et al. 2010, Geddes et al. 2014, and Hadenius et al. 2013. Cheibub et al. recognize three types of non democratic regimes: military, monarchy and civilian, whereas Geddes et al. operate with the following ones: dominant-party, military, personalist, monarchic, oligarchic, and indirect military. In addition they account for hybrids of the first three mentioned categories. Their data set also applies a fourfold categorization of authoritarian regimes, namely military, monarchy, party, and personal. Hadenius et al., finally, make use of the following six categories of autocratic systems: military, monarchy, multi-party, one-party, no-party, and other. In the present paper I propose that non-democratic systems should be classified into the following six categories: Monarchy, Military, Party, Personalist, Oligarchy, and Monarchic oligarchy. The classification builds on the categorization proposed by Geddes et al. (2014) but the criteria of inclusion in the respective categories differ to a considerable extent from the ones Geddes et al. apply. Based on my scheme of classification I present a data set, where all autocratic systems that have existed in the currently independent countries of the world during the time period 1800-2104, are confined to one of my six categories. To my knowledge it is far more extensive in time than any similar data set on autocratic regimes. References Cheibub, JA. Gandhi, J. and Vreeland, JR. (2010) ‘Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited’. Public Choice, 143(1): 67-101. Geddes, B., Wright, J. and Frantz, E. 2014. ‘Autocratric Regimes and Transitions’. Perspectives on Politics 12(2). Hadenius, A., Teorell, J. & Wahman, M. 2013. ‘Authoritarian Regime Types Revisited: Updated data in comparative perspective’. Contemporary Politics 19: 19-34.