Introduction: Bringing Regime Types into Diffusion Studies
| Author | Jale Tosun,Aurel Croissant |
| Published date | 01 November 2016 |
| Date | 01 November 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12383 |
Introduction: Bringing Regime Types into
Diffusion Studies
Aurel Croissant and Jale Tosun
Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University
Abstract
This article introduces the main themes of the special section ‘The Global Diffusion of Policies, Practices and Values: Democra-
cies and Autocracies Compared’. It discusses various strenghts and shortcomings of the existing research, outlines the unifying
research questions that tie the various contributions to this special section together and briefly introduces each of the five
contributions to this special section.
Globalization, understood as ‘the broadening, deepening
and speeding up of world-wide interconnectedness’in almost
all aspects of social life in the early twenty-first century,
usually described as ‘globalisation’(Held et al., 1999, p. 2),
facilitates the distribution of political innovations across and
within states. Current examples include, the diffusion of
national mechanisms to respond to the international finan-
cial crisis; strategies to compete for knowledge and innova-
tions; preventive measures to minimize health risks;
mechanisms to adapt to the consequences of ecological
devastation and climate change; cascading spread of protest
repertoires in the so-called Arab Spring; but also the global
diffusion of religious extremism and new forms of terrorism;
and the spread of new counterterrorism policies which
have appeared to push democratic systems into less liberal
directions.
Are there systematic differences across countries and
regions? Can we identify differences in terms of the diffu-
sion of values and ideas, concrete policies or political institu-
tions, and repertoires of political contention? If so, what are
these differences and how can they be explained? This spe-
cial section of Global Policy adopts a fresh perspective in
order to provide new answers to the questions addressed
by a vast corpus of research. It aims to bring together differ-
ent strands of the ever-expanding diffusion literature in
political science and to identify some of the persistent issues
(see also Maggetti and Gilardi, 2016). The authors included
in this section take on a twofold approach: reflect on what
we know about transnational diffusion and suggest where
scholars should be directing their attention in the future. In
doing so, the papers place particular emphasis on the role
of political regimes as a quantit
en
eglig
ee in diffusion studies
–at least in the field of policy studies, where diffusion stud-
ies is best established (Simmons et al., 2008). In this regard,
the five articles address two research desiderata.
The first concerns the question regarding how and extent
to which ‘autocracies’(Tullock, 1987) are integrated in global
diffusion processes. Furthermore, research has yet to provide
answers to the question as to whether there are systematic
differences between democracies and autocracies in the glo-
bal adoption of policy innovations. As authoritarianism stud-
ies have been experiencing a revival in recent years,
scholars have begun to pay more attention to new varieties
of semi-democratic or authoritarian institutions that have
spread globally since the downfall of communist dictator-
ships (von Soest, 2015). Many studies suggest that different
institutional setups in autocracies (as in democracies) pro-
vide different political opportunity structures that offer
incentives for state regulation and social self-regulation. The
differing degrees of openness in political structures, differ-
ences in the configuration and coherence of both state and
social interests as well as the availability of social and politi-
cal patterns of coalitions are just as relevant to diffusion
processes as are other social, economic, cultural, geographic,
and climatic factors. While diffusion research has highlighted
the later variables to varying degrees, the relevance of dif-
ferent regime types or key institutional arrangement of
authoritarian rule has thus far been neglected.
The second desideratum relates to the interconnectedness
between the regulation of greater social units following dif-
fusion and processes of self-regulation of organizations,
political institutions, and social groups. The adoption of
political innovations largely depends, however, on the deci-
sion-making processes of affected individuals, institutions, or
organisations. These decision-making processes need to be
further investigated for autocracies. Additionally, the imple-
mentation of new political contents and their material or
immaterial consequences cannot be sufficiently analysed
without considering the conflicts which can result from dif-
fusion. The ability of political systems and societies to gov-
ern these conflicts in response to changes brought on by
state regulation is likely to have repercussions for the pro-
cesses of diffusion.
Starting from a broad understanding of international dif-
fusion as a process wherein new ideas, institutions, policies,
models, or repertoires of behaviour spread geographically
Global Policy (2016) 7:4 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12383 ©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 4 . November 2016 531
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial