Loading AI tools
In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is the form of government or the set of rules, cultural, or social norms, that regulate the operation of a government or institution and its interactions with society. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic. Autocratic regimes can be further[1] divided into types such as dictatorial, totalitarian, absolutist, monarchic, and oligarchic. A key similarity across all regimes is the presence of rulers and formal or informal institutions, which interact dynamically to adapt to changes in their environment[1][2][3]
According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there are three main types of political regimes today: democracies, totalitarian regimes, authoritarian regimes, with hybrid regimes sitting between these categories.[4][5] The CIA website also has a complete list of every country in the world with their respective types of regime.[6] The term regime is often used in a demeaning, derogatory way usually to portray a leader as corrupt or undemocratic.[7] It is common to tie an individual or ideology to a government regime i.e. Putin's regime in Russia or China's Communist regime.
While the term originally referred to any type of government, in modern usage it often has a negative connotation, implying authoritarianism or dictatorship. Merriam-Webster defines a regime simply as a form of government, while the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a government, especially an authoritarian one."
Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."[9] In global studies and international relations, the concept of regime is also used to name international regulatory agencies (see International regime), which lie outside of the control of national governments. Some authors thus distinguish analytically between institutions and regimes while recognizing that they are bound up with each other:
Institutions as we describe them are publicly enacted, relatively-enduring bodies of practice, procedures and norms, ranging from formalized legal entities such as the WTO to more informal but legally-buttressed and abiding sets of practices and regimes such as the liberal capitalist market. The key phrases here are 'publicly enacted' and 'relatively enduring'. The phrase 'publicly enacted' in this sense implies active projection, legal sanction, and often as not, some kind of opposition.[10]
Regimes can thus be defined as sets of protocols and norms embedded either in institutions or institutionalized practices – formal such as states or informal such as the "liberal trade regime" – that are publicly enacted and relatively enduring.[10]
Other regime theorists suggest that localized urban regimes exist, shaped by the unique interplay of interests, institutions, and ideas within a city. These regimes are characterized by the relationships between local government actors, political elites, and various institutions, all working toward specific policy goals and governance structures. [11] [12]
Urban regime theorist Jill Clark argues that these regime types are categorized by economic actors and policy-making within a community. The six urban regime types are: entrepreneurial, caretaker, player, progressive, stewardship, and the demand-side.[12]
An entrepreneurial urban regime is defined as: Strong ties to business leaders, formed to advance a cities hierarchy in relation to other cities, and are operated with closed development decision-making venues with relevant business interests and political leaders.[13]
A caretaker urban regime is: A regime designed to preserve the status quo, keep taxes low and preserve the same quality of life. Often associated with taxpayers and homeowners' interests[14].[15]
A player urban regime is: Active government participation in private decision making. This type of regime manages and resolves disputes between community groups and business. A player urban regime when combined with state actions develops into a stewardship urban regime.[16]
A progressive urban regime is: A key feature of progressive urban regimes is the redistribution of the benefits of a industrialized, developed society. The focus of the regime is economic equity, how to reallocate the benefits of society to various groups or areas of the city who need it most. Most commonly these are ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged people, and neighborhoods destroyed or changed by gentrification. Everyone in this system has a say on who is most deserving and who will receive these benefits. Progressive urban regimes become activist regimes when merged with a stewardship role.[17]
A stewardship urban regime is more adversarial toward business than an entrepreneurial regime and prioritizes protecting community interests over those of large corporations, focusing on the well-being of local residents. Unlike progressive urban regimes, which actively redistribute resources, stewardship regimes emphasize accountability in managing taxpayer investments without aiming for direct redistribution. This approach seeks a balanced governance model that advocates for "the little guy" while maintaining a sustainable investment environment.[18]
A demand-side urban regime is characterized by strong support for small businesses and neighborhood revitalization efforts. These regimes encourage and provide state assistance to small businesses, including launching state-operated venture capital programs to foster new enterprises. This approach allows the government to maintain an active role in local development. Demand-side urban regimes often emerge when progressive policies align with government initiatives aimed at supporting small business owners.[19]
There are two primary methods for measuring regimes: continuous measures of democracy (e.g., Freedom House (FH), Polity, and the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)) and binary measures of democracy (e.g., Regimes of the World).[20] Continuous measures classify regimes along a scale of democratic and autocratic characteristics, allowing for nuanced differentiation.[20] Historically, these measures primarily focused on distinguishing democracies from autocracies, but have since evolved to include various gradations of governance. [21] In contrast, binary measures classify regimes in simpler terms, categorizing them strictly as either democratic or non-democratic.[22]
Some scholars argue that unless a government meets certain democratic criteria, it cannot be considered a true democracy.[23] However, academics like Stanford professor Philippe C. Schmitter and associate professor Terry Lynn Karl suggest that democracy is better viewed as a matrix of outcomes.[24] This matrix includes factors such as consensus, participation, access, responsiveness, majority rule, parliamentary sovereignty, party government, pluralism, federalism, presidentialism, and checks and balances, offering a more comprehensive framework to evaluate democratic practices.[24]
The V-Dem Institute, an independent research organization, is a prominent example of continuous democracy measurement. It uses a detailed set of indicators, such as access to justice, electoral corruption, and freedom from government-sponsored violence, to assess governance quality.[25] V-Dem relies on country experts who provide subjective ratings for these latent regime characteristics over time, contributing to one of the most comprehensive data sources on democracy worldwide.[25]
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
