2Резюме_Порошин_English_12.12.2018 (1136351), страница 5
Текст из файла (страница 5)
Politicheskieissledovaniya. – 2001. – Vol. 1.126Zavadskaya M., Groemping M., Martinez-i-Coma F. (2017) Electoral Sources of Authoritarian Resilience inRussia: Varieties of Electoral Malpractice 2007-2016 // Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-SovietDemocratization, 25(4): 455-480; Zavadskaya M.A. Dumskie inkumbenty i «partiya vlasti» (Krosstemporalny analiz)(in Russian, ‘The State Duma incumbents and «party of power» (Crosstemporal analysis) // Politiya. – 2012. – Vol.3.127Panov P.V. «Edinaya Rossiya» kak instrument konsolidatsii elit na mestnykh vyborakh (in Russian, ‘«UnitedRussia» as an instrument for elite consolidation in local elections’) // Korgunyuk Y.G., Meleshkina E.Y., MikhalevaG.M.
(eds.) Politicheskie partii i politicheskaya konkurentsiya v demokraticheskikh i nedemokraticheskikhrezhimakh. – M.: KMK, 2010.11910Aim and objectives. The aim of the study is to reveal the determinants of thepersistence of single-party dominance. To achieve this aim, the following objectivesare set:1) To study theoretical approaches to understanding the dominant party regimesas a specific type of political regime;2) To develop conceptualization and operationalization of single-partydominance;3) To carry out a theoretical analysis of institutional and political factors’ impacton the persistence of single-party dominance;4) To develop theoretical hypotheses on the relationship between theinstitutional and political factors and the persistence of single-partydominance;5) To carry out correlation analysis, regression analysis and survival analysis inrelation to the linkage between institutional and political factors (independentvariables) and the single-party dominance persistence (dependent variable);6) To determine the degree of institutional and political factors influence on thepersistence of single-party dominance.Hypotheses.
The following hypotheses are formulated and tested for the aimsof the research:1) H1: Single-party dominance in parliamentary regimes has a longer durationthan in presidential ones;2) H2: Regimes with a higher electoral system’s disproportionality have a longerduration of single-party dominance;3) H3: Regimes with a higher electoral support for the ruling party’s competitorshave a shorter duration of single-party dominance;4) H4: Regimes with prior experience with electoral democracy have a longerduration of single-party dominance than regimes without prior experiencewith electoral democracy;115) H5: Regimes with more frequent chief executive turnover have a longerduration of single-party dominance.Scope and limitations of research.
The study does not explore the whole setof factors that determine the survival of dominant party regimes. The researchconcentrates on the role of institutional and political factors in determiningpersistence of single-party dominance. The limited scope is justified by theinsufficient attention to this research focus in existing literature. The choice of arelatively «narrow» set of determinants allows to conduct a deeper analysis of therelevant topics, looking more closely at the nature of the causal dependencies fromthe theoretical perspective.The research attempts to reveal the institutional and political factorsdetermining the longevity of single-party dominance, regardless of whether itoccurred in a democratic or an undemocratic regime. This decision, first of all, ismade because of the focus on single-party dominance as an independent descriptivecharacteristic of political regimes. It is definite that there are different mechanismsmaintaining single-party dominance under democratic and authoritarian regimes.However, it is also true that the existence of single-party dominance as such is asignificant characteristic of the political regime, regardless of whether it occurredunder democracy or authoritarianism.
Single-party dominance has a significantinfluence on the functioning of political institutions, electoral competition betweenthe incumbent and the opposition, the resource distribution among various actors.This choice is also explained by the relatively small size of the sample and theunfeasibility of its further reduction in the context of the need for a valid empiricalassessment of hypotheses.The single-party dominance is described as the long control over chiefexecutive by a single party. Therefore the research sample includes quite differentregimes by the nature of a dominant party, i.e.
cases of stable independentgovernments that entirely consisting of dominant party’s members, as well as casesof coalition governments with the participation of minor parties. The criterion of12maintaining party control over chief executive with regime duration for 18 years ormore well reflects the reality of single-party dominance. Even under the coalitiongovernment, party that holds chief executive post clearly has a distinctly dominantstatus within the party system, which essentially surpasses that of all other parties.The question whether the dominant party control over the agenda is monopolistic orthe dominant party is forced to share it with its minor coalition partners is notconsidered and left beyond the scope of the present research.
Thus, it seems fair tochoose the control over chief executive as a criterion to describe dominant partyregimes.The causality of the single-party dominance persistence by the influence ofinstitutional and political factors is explored within the ceased regimes. Thisdecision is due to, first, the original research design, and second, the need for anempirical assessment of the effects of the institutional and political determinants onthe single-party dominance persistence.Independent variables have a static measurement.
In particular, mean valuesfor the entire period of single-party dominance are used for two independentvariables and for one control variable. The basis for this approach originates fromthe focus of the research on the comparison within regimes, rather than on exploringthe evolution of any regime during the period of its existence. The usage of meanvalues limits the consideration of factors’ internal dynamics due to the fluctuationsof corresponding variables during the period of single-party dominance. However,it is not critically important for the objectives of the present comparative analysis.Fluctuations are moderate, and mean values expressed differences among regimescorrectly.Methodology.
The research is carried out within the framework of the rationalchoice institutionalism, the principles of which are used to analyze the institutionaland political determinants of dominant party regimes persistence. The core ofrational choice institutionalism is the idea of the actors’ rational behavior andinstitutions as a patterns of actors’ interaction.13The understanding of institutions relies on the approach of J.March andJ.Olsen.
In their view an institution is defined as «a relatively enduring collection ofrules and organized practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources thatare relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively resilientto the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changingexternal circumstances»128.Methods. The methods of multivariate statistical analysis (correlationanalysis, regression analysis, survival analysis) are used for an empirical assessmentof the impact of institutional and political factors on the single-party dominancepersistence.Selection of empirical data.
Single-party dominance is defined as the longcontinuous control over chief executive by a dominant party for 18 years or more ina system with regular competitive elections. 18-year threshold was chosen becausethis period is minimal, under which a regime exists at least for three electoral cycles.The research sample includes dominant party regimes that occurred from 1950to 2015 and collapsed no later than December 31, 2015.
The choice of time intervalis explained by the need to make sample entirely consisting of so-called presentregimes. The sample includes 30 cases of single-party dominance that occurred in27 countries129.The identification of determinants of the single-party dominance persistence(dependent variable) is carried out through the analysis of the impact of thefollowing institutional and political factors (independent variables):1) The type of institutional design (parliamentary or presidential);2) The level of electoral system’s disproportionality in parliamentary elections(calculation of the Gallagher Index);March J.G., Olsen J.P. Elaborating the “New Institutionalism” // Rhodes R.A.W., Binder S.A., Rockman B.A.(Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
