Contingent Instrumental and Intrinsic Support: Exploring Regime Support in Asia
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321715622791 |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
622791PSX0010.1177/0032321715622791Political StudiesHuhe and Tang
research-article2016
Article
Political Studies
2017, Vol. 65(1) 161 –178
Contingent Instrumental and
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Intrinsic Support: Exploring
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032321715622791
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Regime Support in Asia
Narisong Huhe1 and Min Tang2
Abstract
This study presents a contextual explanation of regime support by arguing that although an
individual’s instrumental economic calculation and intrinsic democratic value are important
predictors of political support, the extent to which they matter is contingent on the nature of the
regime, as defined primarily by democracy. Using data drawn from the second wave of the Asia
Barometer, we find that economic perceptions are less important for regime support in democratic
countries than they are in authoritarian countries, and an affection for democracy makes people
more critical of the political system in authoritarian countries than in democratic countries.
Keywords
regime support, economic perceptions, democratic values, multilevel analysis, democratic
stability
Accepted: 29 October 2015
To survive and exercise power effectively, any regime, whether democratic or authoritar-
ian, must induce a sufficient level of popular support. A comparison of the sources of
political support under different regime settings provides a valuable perspective on a
series of critical questions, ranging from authoritarian resilience to democratic consolida-
tion (Dalton, 2004; Diamond, 2011; Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier, 2013; Rose et al., 2011).
Earlier studies of regime support identify two types of sources at the individual level—a
performance-based instrumental calculation and an affection-driven value commitment.
In particular, the perceptions of government economic performance and value orienta-
tions towards democracy are two key factors that have been intensively researched in the
literature. It is argued that whether regime support is instrumentally or intrinsically driven
is of critical importance to the stability and viability of the regime (Brancati, 2014;
The order of the authors is based on the principle of alternation.
1Department of Politics, School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
2 School of Public Economics and Administration, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai,
China
Corresponding author:
Narisong Huhe, Department of Politics, School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde,
Rm. 442, McCance Building, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1QX, UK.
Email: hoohnaris@gmail.com
162
Political Studies 65 (1)
Easton, 1975; Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier, 2013; Rose et al., 2011). However, as yet there
is little consensus as to when and under what conditions political support is likely to be
economic- or value-driven (e.g. Booth and Seligson, 2009; Norris, 1999b). Moreover,
most studies focus separately either on democracies (Dalton and Anderson, 2011; Lewis-
Beck and Stegmaier, 2013) or autocracies (Chen, 2004; Lewis-Beck et al., 2014; Lü,
2014; Rose et al., 2011), shedding little light on how popular support varies across regime
types.
In this study, we intend to fill this gap in the literature and present a contextual expla-
nation for the sources of regime support by synthesizing insights from studies of indi-
vidual perceptions and values with studies focusing on macro factors such as regime
attributes. We argue that although individuals’ instrumental economic calculations and
intrinsic political values are important predictors of political support, the extent to which
they matter is contingent upon the nature of the regime, as defined primarily by democ-
racy. That is, regime support is shaped by both micro mechanisms (i.e. economic calcula-
tions and value commitments) and macro contexts in which these micro mechanisms are
embedded. Specifically, we hypothesize that people in democracies are less likely than
those in authoritarian countries to support a political system based on economic concerns.
In contrast, citizens in democracies are more likely than citizens in autocracies to support
a political system based on their affective identification with democratic values.
Drawing on data collected from the second wave of the Asian Barometer Survey
(ABS) (2005–2008), we explore how Asian publics from different regime contexts weigh
between economic benefits and political goods. Employing Bayesian multilevel analyses,
we find that the overall regime context strongly affects the manifestation of people’s
instrumental and intrinsic support. Public support in Asian societies is more sensitive to
economic perceptions in autocracies than it is in democracies, and people’s democratic
affections make them less critical of the political system in democracies than in
autocracies.
This study extends the literature by highlighting the contextual contingency of politi-
cal support. It thus bridges the micro explanations of regime support and the macro theo-
ries of democratic transition and consolidation (Haggard and Kaufman, in press).
Increasingly, scholars have recognized that the Third Wave gave rise to many “median
regimes” as labeled by Rose and Mishler (2002), or what Levitsky and Way (2010) called
“competitive authoritarian regimes.” Moreover, some revert to dictatorship after only a
brief democratic period (Svolik, 2015). Whereas most current studies focus on macro
structural (e.g. economic development) and institutional factors (e.g. parliamentarism),
this study highlights the important, yet understudied role of attitudinal changes. By focus-
ing on the ways in which popular support is contingent upon the varying regime context,
this study provides an integrative perspective to understand the separate research enter-
prises on political support and regime change.
From a political perspective, a discussion on the interplay between correlates at the
individual level and the regime setting at the country level is particularly important in the
Asian context. For example, in the region’s resilient authoritarian regimes, like Singapore,
China, and Vietnam, the ostensibly high levels of regime support, despite decades of
rapid economic development that have successfully boosted regime legitimacy, rest on a
fragile basis and are highly vulnerable to periodic economic downturns and the rise of
democratically minded citizens. This contrasts sharply with the essential strength of dem-
ocratic polities during periods of economic duress and the emergence of critical citizens
(e.g. Mongolia). The contextual contingency of regime support thus suggests that the
Huhe and Tang
163
seemingly idiosyncratic popular support is epiphenomenal on the more fundamental
socioeconomic and sociopolitical changes in the region.
Instrumental and Intrinsic Sources of Regime Support
Conventional approaches to regime support focus primarily on correlates at the individual
level. It has been argued that an individual’s support for a regime rests mainly on two
attitudinal bases—instrumental calculations and intrinsic values (Bratton and Mattes,
2001; Easton, 1975; Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier, 2013; Norris, 1999a; Rose et al., 2011).
To examine their relative salience, empirical studies focus on comparing the most direct
form of instrumental consideration (i.e. economic orientation) on the one hand, and
adherence to democratic principles on the other (e.g. Bratton et al., 2005; Chu et al.,
2008; Dalton, 1999, 2004; Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier, 2013; Przeworski et al., 1996;
Rose et al., 2011).1 In a nutshell, ordinary citizens may comply with a regime either
because it “pays” in terms of improving living standards or because it conforms to their
inherent political values.
However, until now, there is still no scholarly consensus with regard to the relative
importance of the two sources of political support in different regimes. For instance,
Russell Dalton (2004) concludes “beliefs matter more” after a systematic examination of
political support in advanced industrial democracies. It is the societal value changes (i.e.
the diffusion of post-materialism), rather than economic performance, that explain the
declining political support in these countries. More recently, Conroy-Krutz and Kerr
(2015) note that citizens’ adherence to democratic values strongly predicts their support
for democracy as regime type in developing and transitional countries like Uganda. On
the other hand, however, Milan Svolik’s (2013, 2015) studies emphasize the importance
of economic performance in securing support for new democracies. He finds that the
public’s dissatisfaction with economic well-beings often depletes its support for democ-
racy as a political system. Given the mixed evidence on the relative salience of the eco-
nomic and value bases of political support, many scholars suggest that it is very difficult,
if not impossible, to reach any broad generalization across national boundaries (Booth
and Seligson, 2009; Rose et al., 2011).
In addition to factors at the individual level, scholars have also explored the direct
impacts of contextual factors (Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier, 2013; Wells and Krieckhaus,
2006). Hellwig and Samuels (2008), for example, reveal that popular support for demo-
cratic government is strongly affected by the fundamental institutional differences
between democratic regimes, that is, the separation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial