Comparing regime types – ‘most similar’ cases in East Asia
| Published date | 01 December 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20578911231164767 |
| Author | Dirk Berg-Schlosser,Ursula Hoffmann-Lange |
| Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Research Articles |
Comparing regime types –
‘most similar’cases in East Asia
Dirk Berg-Schlosser
Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Germany
Ursula Hoffmann-Lange
University of Bamberg, Germany
Abstract
The People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, the
Republic of China (Taiwan) and the Republic of Singapore represent different types of political
regimes and provide a fascinating contrast concerning their performance with regard to the global
conflict between liberal democracies and autocracies. This paper examines briefly their common
historical backgrounds and provides a detailed analysis of common ‘Asian’cultural features and
popular support for democracy on the micro-level. It then systematically assesses their perform-
ance concerning liberal democracy and quality, governance scores, and socio-economic develop-
ment. Finally, the reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic are documented showing again specific
regime characteristics. We use most recent V-Dem, World Bank, United Nations Development
Programme, World Values Surveys and similar data. The conclusions point to possible inter-
national consequences and the crucial position of Taiwan.
Keywords
Covid-19, East Asia, most similar conditions–different outcomes design, political systems, regime
performance
Introduction
The end of the Cold War has not led to ‘the end of history’(Fukuyama, 1992) and a universal
victory of liberal democracy and market-oriented economies. Instead, a new ‘system competition’
between different types of regimes has emerged. In this context, the ‘most similar’historical, cul-
tural and geo-political background of selected East Asian countries can shed some light on the
respective strengths and weaknesses of these regimes and their future role in international politics.
Corresponding author:
Dirk Berg-Schlosser, Political Science, Philipps-Universitat Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany.
Email: bergschl@staff.uni-marburg.de
Original Research Article
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2023, Vol. 8(4) 865–894
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20578911231164767
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
In an ideal-typical way, the People’s Republic of China (‘closed autocracy’), the Republic of
Singapore (‘electoral autocracy’), the ‘Special Administrative Region’(SAR) of Hong Kong
(‘electoral democracy’) and the Republic of China (RoC, Taiwan) (‘liberal democracy’) until
recently represented such major political system types with a ‘most similar’background. This (sim-
plified) regime classification follows the recent terminology and definitions of Luehrmann et al.
(2018: 63). These types are characterized by the following criteria: (Table 1)
‘Closed autocracies’comprise sub-types such as absolutist monarchies, theocratic regimes, mili-
tary dictatorships and single-party totalitarian states. ‘Electoral autocracies’represent ‘hybrid’
authoritarian states with some façade democratic features. ‘Electoral democracies’correspond to
Robert Dahl’s (1971) ‘polyarchy’with high levels of political participation and pluralist multi-party
contestation. ‘Liberal democracies’,finally, come closer to the democratic ideal granting basic
human and social rights enforced by the rule of law and an independent judiciary.
In the following, we specify in how far the four selected cases correspond to this typology and how
they foreshadow the present international system competition. This reflects a ‘most similar conditions–
different ou tcomes’design (Berg-Schlosser and De Meur, 2009). In this way, the specificfeaturesof
each type and their respective strengths and weaknesses become apparent. We first discuss some his-
torical and cultural commonalities of these cases including aspects of ‘Confucian’political culture and
assessments of popular perceptions of regime support and evaluations on the micro-level with World
Values Surveys (WVS) data. We then turn to assessments of their system characteristics and perform-
ance in crucial areas such as socio-economic development, ‘good governance’and the overall func-
tional and normative qualities of these regimes. For this purpose, we employ the latest Varieties of
Democracy (V-Dem) data (Coppedge et al., 2022) and similar most recent UN and World Bank indi-
cators on the macro-level. In this way we combine a ‘bottom-up’(micro) and‘top-down’(macro) per-
spective (for such terms see Inoguchi, 2022). With the outbreak of the current Covid-19 pandemic in
late 2019, the system competition has received a new dramatic twist, which we address in a special
section. Based on these data and findings, we arrive at conclusions about the future viability and attract-
iveness (or not) of the four system types and the implications for international politics. These are par-
ticularly relevant in the renewed global conflict between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes,
exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and the increased tensions in the Taiwan Straits.
Historical background
For our present purposes, the period under consideration begins with the end of World War II and
the outcome of the civil war in China in 1949. The revolutionary Communist forces led by Mao
Table 1. Regime classification.
Closed autocracy Electoral Autocracy Electoral democracy Liberal democracy
No de-facto multiparty, or free and fair elections, or Dahl’s
institutional prerequisites not minimally fulfilled
De-facto multiparty, free and fair elections, and
Dahl’s institutional prerequisites minimally
fulfilled
No multiparty elections for
the chief executive or the
legislature
De-jure multiparty elections
for the chief executive and
the legislature
The rule of law, or
liberal principles not
satisfied
The rule of law, and
liberal principles
satisfied
866 Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 8(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial