IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/227137.html

Claiming the right to rule: regime legitimation strategies from 1900 to 2019

Author

Listed:
  • Tannenberg, Marcus
  • Bernhard, Michael
  • Gerschewski, Johannes
  • Lührmann, Anna
  • von Soest, Christian

Abstract

Governments routinely justify why the regime over which they preside is entitled to rule. These claims to legitimacy are both an expression of and shape of how a rule is being exercised. In this paper, we introduce new expert-coded measures of regime legitimation strategies (RLS) for 183 countries in the world from 1900 to 2019. Country experts rated the extent to which governments justify their rule based on performance, the person of the leader, rational-legal procedures, and ideology. They were also asked to qualify the ideology of the regime. The main purposes of this paper are to present the conceptual basis for the measure, describe the data, and provide convergent, content, and construct validity tests for new measures. Our measure of regime legitimation performs well in all these three validation tests, most notably, the construct validity exercise which explores commonly held beliefs about leadership under populist rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Tannenberg, Marcus & Bernhard, Michael & Gerschewski, Johannes & Lührmann, Anna & von Soest, Christian, 2021. "Claiming the right to rule: regime legitimation strategies from 1900 to 2019," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(1), pages 77-94.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:227137
    DOI: 10.1017/S1755773920000363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/227137/3/Full-text-article-Tannenberg-et-al-Claiming-the-right.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1017/S1755773920000363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Lührmann & Marcus Tannenberg & Staffan I. Lindberg, 2018. "Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 60-77.
    2. Gerschewski, Johannes, 2018. "Legitimacy in Autocracies: Oxymoron or Essential Feature?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(3), pages 652-665.
    3. Lane, Christel, 1984. "Legitimacy and Power in the Soviet Union Through Socialist Ritual," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 207-217, April.
    4. Adcock, Robert & Collier, David, 2001. "Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 529-546, September.
    5. Grauvogel, Julia & von Soest, Christian, 2013. "Claims to Legitimacy Matter: Why Sanctions Fail to Instigate Democratization in Authoritarian Regimes," GIGA Working Papers 235, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    6. Gerschewski, Johannes, 2013. "The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 20(1), pages 13-38.
    7. repec:cup:apsrev:v:53:y:1959:i:01:p:69-105_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Easton, David, 1975. "A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 435-457, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicole J Saam & Carmen Friedrich & Henriette Engelhardt, 2022. "The value conflict between freedom and security: Explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies in democracies and autocracies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Boussalis, Constantine & Dukalskis, Alexander & Gerschewski, Johannes, 2022. "Why It Matters What Autocrats Say: Assessing Competing Theories of Propaganda," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 70(3), pages 241-252.
    3. Ludger Helms, 2025. "Twenty‐First Century Autocrats and Their Followers: A Comparative Inquiry," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    4. Kim, Nam Kyu, 2023. "Regime legitimation strategies and competition laws in autocracies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. Grier, Robin & Young, Andrew T. & Grier, Kevin, 2022. "The causal effects of rule of law & property rights on fiscal capacity," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fenja Søndergaard Møller, 2019. "Blue blood or true blood: Why are levels of intrastate armed conflict so low in Middle Eastern monarchies?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(5), pages 517-544, September.
    2. Dukalskis, Alexander & Gerschewski, Johannes, 2020. "Adapting or Freezing? Ideological Reactions of Communist Regimes to a Post-Communist World," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(3), pages 511-532.
    3. Seraphine F. Maerz & Carsten Q. Schneider, 2020. "Comparing public communication in democracies and autocracies: automated text analyses of speeches by heads of government," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 517-545, April.
    4. Sina F Özdemir & Kristine Graneng & Pieter de Wilde, 2025. "EU executives on social media: Assessing the potential and trajectories of legitimation via public communication on Twitter," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(2), pages 255-280, June.
    5. von Soest, Christian & Grauvogel, Julia, 2015. "How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries," GIGA Working Papers 277, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    6. Nicole J Saam & Carmen Friedrich & Henriette Engelhardt, 2022. "The value conflict between freedom and security: Explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies in democracies and autocracies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Boussalis, Constantine & Dukalskis, Alexander & Gerschewski, Johannes, 2022. "Why It Matters What Autocrats Say: Assessing Competing Theories of Propaganda," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 70(3), pages 241-252.
    8. Irena Schneider, 2017. "Can We Trust Measures of Political Trust? Assessing Measurement Equivalence in Diverse Regime Types," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(3), pages 963-984, September.
    9. Kim, Nam Kyu, 2023. "Regime legitimation strategies and competition laws in autocracies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    10. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    11. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    12. Renato Tibiriçá de Saboya & Otavio Martins Peres, 2025. "CHASM: A configurational measure of socio-spatial residential segregation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 52(6), pages 1464-1481, July.
    13. Schakel, Arjan Hille, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of Regional Government," MPRA Paper 21596, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Soetkin Verhaegen & Marc Hooghe & Ellen Quintelier, 2014. "European Identity and Support for European Integration: A Matter of Perceived Economic Benefits?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 295-314, May.
    15. Ekkart Zimmermann, 2009. "Formen des politischen Terrorismus: ein Plädoyer für eine Differentialdiagnose," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 78(4), pages 11-28.
    16. Zim Nwokora & Riccardo Pelizzo, 2017. "Measuring Party System Change: A Systems Perspective," Research Africa Network Working Papers 17/048, Research Africa Network (RAN).
    17. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    18. Freyburg, Tina & Garbe, Lisa & Wavre, Véronique, 2022. "The political power of internet business: A comprehensive dataset of Telecommunications Ownership and Control (TOSCO)," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Online fi, pages 1-1.
    19. Tom Christensen & Mads Dagnis Jensen & Michael Kluth & Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson & Kennet Lynggaard & Per Lægreid & Risto Niemikari & Jon Pierre & Tapio Raunio & Gústaf Adolf Skúlason, 2023. "The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid‐19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 658-676, July.
    20. Malte Luebker, 2019. "Can the Structure of Inequality Explain Fiscal Redistribution? Revisiting the Social Affinity Hypothesis," LIS Working papers 762, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:227137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.