La infancia definida desde condición de Vulnerabilidad

Within political science, scholars use different labels to classify political regimes. For some scholars distinctions are clear cut, regime are either democratic or non-democratic (See eg. Huntington 1991; Alvarez, Cheibub, Limongi and Przeworski 1996; Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and Limongi 1996; Przeworski et al. 2000; Cheibub, Gandhi and Vreeland 2010). Other scholars see democracy as a continuum, where political regimes to a more or less

extent are democratic (See eg. Bollen 1993; Vanhanen 1990). Once settled for either a

dichotomous or continuous definition, the chosen indicator must also be addressed. While different measures of political regimes tend to highly correlate, it should not automatically be taken as an evidence of validity, as choice of democracy measure could lead to different

results (Casper and Tufis 2003; H¨ogstrom 2013). While there exist a variety of indicators

measuring democracy, the final choice should be guided by the theoretical underpinning. My framework has put an emphasis on how formal political institutions create incentives for leaders to (1) form policies addressed at reducing grievance and (2) act as neutral mediators when tension rise. I would argue that a continuous measure of democracy is best suited given my theoretic framework. A simplification of political regimes into either democracy or autocracy would potentially dismiss variations in incentives to regulate. One dichotomous

17_{Hendrix review is based on a factor analysis of 15 measures of state capacity. The other two dimensions}

are rentier-autocrticness and neopartimonality.

18_{This correlation is reported in the online appendix belonging to their study on ”Governance and Conflict}

4.3. OPERATIONALIZATION

alternative is the Alvarez et al. index of democracy and dictatorship.19 For a regime to be

categorized as a democracy, it has to pass four coding rules.20 _{For example is Botswana, a}

country considered by many scholars as a democracy, is recorded as a dictatorship. This is problematic, as stated in the words of Collier and Adcock (1999, pg. 549) ”(...) in our view it remain unclear why a regime that has competitive elections for the presidency, rotation in the presidential office, and more than one party - but lacks competition for legislative office, is not at least partially democratic.”

To recap, my definition of political regimes focus solely on representative institutions. I have defined the concept to be: institutions where the executive power is elected by a majority or a plurality of the population in an open recruitment process and that there exist constrains on executive powers by an elected legislative. This definition is based on three dimensions related to the overarching concept of democracy: executive recruitment, executive constraints and participation.

There exist many continuous measures of political regimes including the three aspects. One example is the Freedom House Index (FHI) which include measure of participation (FHI 2014). While the FHI index might enjoy great face validity, as it embraces a broader specter of meanings and understanding associated with the overarching term democracy, it is dismissed because of its broadness. Consequently, using the FHI index would lead to a situation where I am able to distinguish the effect of formal institutions from other aspects. A measure that lies closer to my theoretical concept is Marshall, Gurr and Jaggers (2010) widely used Polity Index. It is a continuous scale that characterizing political regime among the three dimensions I have included in my definition. There is one problem with the Polity Index. The sub-indicator measuring participation has an explicit reference to political violence in its coding rules (Gleditsch, Hegre and Strand 2009; Vreeland 2008). Non-state conflicts could potential then be captured in this indicator, making the index inappropriate. However, the Polity index is not completely dismissed, as the usefulness of the data lies in its components. To proxy representative institutions, I use the Scalar Index of Policies (SIP) developed by Gates et al. (2006). The index compress a three-dimensional conceptualization of democracy to one dimension. The SIP index combines data from the Polity Index, but replaces the measure of participation with the Vanhanen (2000) data on participation. The index is based

19_{This index is often referred ACLP index after the authors’ initials, or the DD index based on the}

distinction between democracy and dictatorship.

20_{These are: (1) The chief executive must be chosen by popular election or by a body that was popular}

elected, (2) the legislature must be popular elected, (2) there must be more than one party competing in elections and (4) An alteration in power under electoral rules identical to the ones that brought the incumbent to office must have taken place (Alvarez et al. 1996, pg. 69).

on an average score of the three dimensions of representative institutions I have addressed. It ranges from zero to one, where one equals perfect democracy and zero equal perfect autocracy. The SIP index operationalize executive recruitment based on three sub-indicators from the

Polity IV dataset.21 The three sub-indicators assess structural characteristics relating to

chief recruitment. The first looks at the degree of institutionalization in the succession of power, from one executive to another. If regulated and institutionalized, succession happens through scheduled competitive elections. If not regulated, succession happens through violent seizures, appointment from a tiny elite or an election where voting rights are limited. The second indicator measures to which extent there exist equal opportunities for candidates to challenge the governing body. For a minimum of equal opportunities to exist, succession must happen through an election with at least two competing parties. This disqualifies one- party systems, monarchies and designation by selection. The last sub-indicator also reflects candidates’ opportunities, whereas this measure captures whether there in principle exists an opportunity of attaining political leadership through a regularized process. In this case, solely elections qualifies.

The indicator of executive constraints reflects to which degree the executive enjoys unlimited

authority or not.22 _{When leaders have unlimited authority, they either ignore constraining}

bodies or there does not exist any constraining bodies. In the opposite case, leaders actions are restricted by an elected legislative who have the powers to dismiss leaders. The indicator also record intermediate categories. Such an example is Peru in 1992, where Polity record the execute to have some restrictions on authority, but still not unlimited. In this year, Pres- ident Fujimore dissolved Congress, reorganized the judiciary and suspended the constitution (Strong 1992).

The last indicator, participation, is operationalized by combining two sub-indicators from the Polyarchy dataset by Vanhanen (2000). The first one, participation, is the percentage of the population voting in an election. The second one, competition, is the percentage of valid votes won by all parties except the plurality winner or the winning coalition. If a successful coup follows the election, both indicators are coded as zero. The product of these

two sub-indicators constitute Gates et al. (2006) measure of participation in the SIP index.23

21_{Within the Polity IV dataset, these variables carry the names: XRREG (Regulation of Chief Executive}

Recruitment), XCOMP (Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment) and XROPEN (Openess of Executive Recruitmen) (Marshall, Gurr and Jaggers 2010)

22_{The name of the variable is XCONST (Executive constrains) in the Polity IV dataset (Marshall, Gurr}

and Jaggers 2010).

23_{In order to compensate for the possibility that regimes with that have high levels of competition and high}

levels of participation are given to much leverage, the coding rules are adjust for state where competition exceeds 70%. If the level of participation exceeds 70%, participation is multiplied by competition divided by

4.3. OPERATIONALIZATION Figure 4.3: Authority dimension and ideal polity types, 1989-2008

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Executive constrains P ar ticipation Ex ecutiv e recr uitment

Note: Ideal autocracy in the lower left corner. Ideal democracy in the upper right corner. Points in red are autocracies, black anocracies and green democracies. Source: Strand et al. (2012)

I use the information in the SIP index to construct the variable, regime type. The SIP index is taken from Strand, Hegre, Gates and Dahl (2012). The index is a continuous scale that range from 0 to 1 where 0 represents an ideal autocracy and 1 an ideal democracy. For the missing values on the SIP index, I used the previous regimes score. From Figure 4.3 we can see the relationship proposed by Gates et al. (2006). Democracies and autocracies tend to have high or low score on all the dimensions whereas anocracies vary much more.