THE SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF HYBRID REGIMES.

Does political change short of democratization matter for the wellbeing of citizens? The last part of the 20th century saw the crisis and collapse of a dramatic number of dictatorial regimes. Contrary to expectations, however, many of the processes of regime transition that occurred during this phase did not result in full democratization. In these hybrid forms of regime political competition coexists with persistently authoritarian practices of governance. The phenomenon of so-called competitive authoritarianism, and its recent diffusion in the developing world, raises several questions about its practical implication on the life of so remarkable a share of world population. In particular while democratization is generally said to bring about improvements in citizens’ quality of life, it is not clear whether we should expect a similar change as a consequence of the institutionalization of a competitive authoritarian regime. The present research aims to start filling this void by focusing on three major issues, namely whether, how, and to what extent competitive authoritarianism influences citizens’ wellbeing. These questions have been addressed from both a theoretical and empirical point of view. The research has followed a comparative approach. The institutional structure of competitive authoritarian regimes has been contrasted with those of their respective full authoritarian and democratic counterparts. The discussion of the implications of competitive authoritarian institutions on governments’ commitment and capacity to promote social welfare has led to formulation of four testable hypotheses. Using as dependent variables twenty alternative indicators of development referring to the education and health care sectors, a time-series cross-sectional analysis reveals that competitive authoritarianism does make a difference for citizens’ wellbeing, although in a rather peculiar way.