2Резюме_Порошин_English_12.12.2018 (Условия устойчивости однопартийного доминирования в политических режимах различного типа), страница 6

– N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2006. - P. 3.129Austria, Guyana and Luxembourg have two periods of single-party dominance, that counted as a separate cases.128143) The level of electoral support for the ruling party’s competitors (calculationas 1 minus the share of the votes for the ruling party - the party that controlschief executive post);4) The prior experience with electoral democracy (presence or absence);5) The frequency of a chief executive turnover (the ratio of the number ofindividuals who controls chief executive post for one year or more, to theregime’s duration in months).The following control variables are analyzed in the research:1) The term length of high elected office;2) Type of political regime;3) The degree of dominant party’s control in the governing coalition.Variable «The level of electoral support for the ruling party’s competitors»does not differentiate opposition parties in terms of their closeness to the dominantparty.

Such operationalization is caused by the intention to forward this predictor tothe electoral choice between the ruling party, that seeks to have a maximumautonomous dominance, and all other parties, support for them under persistentcontrol over government by dominant party is indicates an alternative trend. Thereare several cases of close, stable and long-term cooperation between independentparties (Belgium, Germany, Australia). Such combined structures are considered asdominant parties.Perhaps, the selected control variables could be also classified as independentvariables due to they originally belong to political or institutional factors by theirnature. Nevertheless, these variables are specified as control ones, because there areno theoretical hypotheses on their connection with longevity of single-partydominance.These control variables are selected to examine their possible influence on thedependent variable.

In the case of the term length of high elected office it is thepossible connection of the duration of single-party dominance with term limits and15the frequency of regular elections. In the case of the political regime type it is thepossible influence of the democratic or authoritarian context on single-partydominance persistence. In the case of a degree of a dominant party’s control in thegoverning coalition it is the probable significance of the effect of one-party or multiparty government.An empirical examination of the determinants of the single-party dominancepersistence is carried out through the means of correlation analysis, regressionanalysis and survival analysis.Contribution to the discussion of the problem in existing literature. Thecontribution to the research field is follows:1) The causality of single-party dominance persistence is explained by theinfluence of institutional and political factors and analyzed within regimesthat have already overcome the critical duration threshold;2) Author's original conceptualization of the single-party dominance persistenceas the duration of its functioning with the time threshold for the qualificationofconfirmedsingle-partydominancehasbeendeveloped.Thisconceptualization makes it possible to obtain the most accurate and reliableempirical estimates of the impact of political and institutional factors on thesingle-party dominance persistence;3) An integrated system of theoretical assumptions has been developed andtheoretical hypotheses have been formulated and tested on causality of thesingle-party dominance persistence by impact of institutional and politicalfactors (the type of institutional design, the level of electoral system’sdisproportionality in parliamentary elections, the level of electoral support forthe ruling party's competitors, prior experience with electoral democracy, thefrequency of chief executive turnover) were formulated;4) The effects of institutional and political factors (the type of institutionaldesign, the level of electoral system’s disproportionality in parliamentaryelections, the level of electoral support for the ruling party's competitors, prior16experience with electoral democracy, the frequency of chief executiveturnover) on single-party dominance persistence were empirically assessed.The theoretical significance of the research is summarized in the followingpoints:1) The single-party dominance persistence was conceptualized as the duration ofcontinuous control over chief executive by the dominant party for 18 years ormore;2) The theoretical model of the relationship between institutional / politicalfactors and single-party dominance persistence was developed;3) The methodological approach for determining the degree of impact of theinstitutional and political determinants of dominant party regimes persistencewas developed, implemented and evaluated;4) The statistically significant effects were revealed for single-party dominancelonger duration in the conditions of lower level of electoral support for theruling party's competitors and under the presence of prior experience withelectoral democracy.The practical significance of the thesis is determined by the fact that it is aimedat assessing the effects of institutional and political factors on the dominant partyregimes persistence that occur widely in modern world.Statements to be defended.1) The empirical analysis of the causal institutional and political factors ofsingle-party dominance requires that the single-party dominance persistenceto be conceptualized and operationalized.

In this way the single-partydominance persistence is interpreted as the duration of continuous controlover chief executive by the dominant party with the establishment of a criticalduration threshold of 18 years in order to qualify as a confirmed single-partydominance under regular competitive elections;172) The single-party dominance as such largely determines the logic of politicalcompetition between the incumbent and the opposition. That validatesregimes’ empirical analysis based on this conceptualization;3) The single-party dominance persistence can be considered as a variable, thevariation of which is explained by five key institutional and political factors.The corresponding theoretical hypotheses for these factors have beenformulated.

In accordance to them the single-party dominance duration islonger under the parliamentary type of institutional design, higher electoralsystem’ disproportionality, a lower level of electoral support for the rulingparty’s competitors, presence of prior experience with electoral democracy,higher frequency of chief executive turnover;4) A statistically significant effects both of the level of electoral support for theruling party's competitors and the prior experience with electoral democracyon single-party dominance persistence have been revealed. The results ofstatistical analysis demonstrate the absence of a statistically significantlinkage of the single-party dominance persistence with the type of institutionaldesign, the level of electoral system’ disproportionality and the frequency ofchief executive turnover.Analysis of data and findingsIn the Introduction, the research design is presented.

The Introductionincludes statement of research problem, literature review, research question, aim,objectives and hypotheses of research, scope and limitations of research,methodology and methods of research, criteria of selection of empirical data,contribution of research to the discussion of the problem in existing literature,statements to be defended, publications and results of approbation of research.The first chapter sets out the conceptual and theoretical foundations for thestudy.18Section 1.1.

The ways to analyze single-party dominance considerstheoretical approaches to defining single-party dominance, as well as author'sconceptualization of the single-party dominance phenomenon. Main theoreticalways of understanding single-party dominance rely on such factors as control overcertain share of votes and seats in parliament, long-term control over chiefexecutive, systematic control over the political agenda, the role in forming the rulingcoalition, strong identification of the dominant party with the state.In terms of the required proportion of seats in the parliament, scholars proposecriteria varying from the relative majority130 to exceeding absolute majority, i.e. 70%of seats131.

In order to operationalize the moment of the regime’s transition todominant party regime, researchers suggest to use the number of electoral cycles(generally 3 or 4132) or the number of years of continuous rule (generally 15-20years133). Within the framework of understanding single-party dominance throughthe control over the political agenda, dominant party regimes are characterized by astrong systematic influence of the ruling party on the political decision-makingprocess134.

The understanding of single-party dominance as a strong dominantparty’s identification with the state is primarily used in relation to authoritarianregimes since much importance is given to the dominant party’s role as a mechanismfor elite coordination.In Section 1.2.

Conceptualization of single-party dominance the authordevelops conceptualization of a single-party dominance.The conceptualization of a single-party dominance combines two key criteria:Duverger M. Politicheskie partii (in Russian, ‘Political parties’). – Moscow: Academic project, 2002. – P. 377;Pempel T.J.

(ed.) Uncommon Democracies: The One-Party Dominant Regimes. – Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1990. – P. 3.131Coleman J.S. The Politics of Sub-Saharan Africa // Almond G., Coleman J. (eds.) Politics of the Developing Areas.- Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. – P. 295.132Sartori G. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis.