politscienceПолитическая наукаPolitical science1998-1775ИНИОН РАНpolitscience-388Research ArticleСОСТОЯНИЕ ДИСЦИПЛИНЫПолитический порядок и однопартийная системаPolitical order and one-party ruleМагалониБ. .MagaloniB. .noemail@neicon.ruКричелиР. .KricheliR. .noemail@neicon.ru20151105202301Партии в соревновательных и несоревновательных политических системах3847Copyright © Магалони Б..., Кричели Р..., 20232023Магалони Б..., Кричели Р...Magaloni B..., Kricheli R...Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.politnauka.ru/jour/article/view/388

Вторая половина ХХ и начало ХХI в. были временем беспрецедентной экспансии однопартийных автократий. Продемонстрировав способность к большей стабильности и более быстрому росту на фоне других разновидностей авторитаризма, они стали наиболее распространенным типом такого рода режимов. Сделав обзор литературы об однопартийных режимах и основываясь на данных за 1950-2006 гг., мы предлагаем четыре направления будущих исследований: 1) способность автократий минимизировать опасности, угрожающие им как со стороны элит, так и со стороны масс; 2) условия, способствующие созданию и крушению однопартийных режимов; переход от одного типа авторитаризма к другому; 3) взаимные отношения между выборами в условиях авторитарных режимов и демократизацией; 4) глобальные и международные факторы, влияющие на распространение однопартийных режимов.

The second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of one-party autocracies. One-party regimes have become the most common type of authoritarian rule and have proved to be more stable and to grow faster than other types of authoritarianism. We review the literature on one-party rule and, using data from 1950-2006, suggest four avenues for future research: focusing on autocrats’ ability to simultaneously minimize threats from the elites and from the masses; focusing on the conditions that foster the establishment and the collapse of one-party regimes and on transitions from one type of authoritarianism to another; focusing on the relationship between authoritarian elections and democratization; and focusing on the global and international forces that influence the spread of one-party rule.

автократиястабильностьоднопартийные системысистемы с доминирующей партиейвыборыautocracystabilitysingle-partydominant-partyelectionsReferencesBates R.H. State failure // Annual review of political science. - Palo Alto, 2008 a. - Vol. 11. - P. 1-12Bates R.H. State failure // Annual review of political science. - Palo Alto, 2008 a. - Vol. 11. - P. 1-12Bates R.H. When things fell apart: State failure in Late Century Africa. - N.Y.: Cambridge univ. press, 2008 b. - 216 p.Bates R.H. When things fell apart: State failure in Late Century Africa. - N.Y.: Cambridge univ. press, 2008 b. - 216 p.Belova E, Lazarev V. Why parties and how much? The Soviet state and the party finance // Public choice. - Cambridge, 2007. - N 130 (3-4). - P. 437-456Belova E, Lazarev V. Why parties and how much? The Soviet state and the party finance // Public choice. - Cambridge, 2007. - N 130 (3-4). - P. 437-456Elster J. Marxism, functionalism and game-theory: the case for methodological individualism // Theory and Society. - Amsterdam, 1982. - N 11 (4). - P. 453-482Elster J. Marxism, functionalism and game-theory: the case for methodological individualism // Theory and Society. - Amsterdam, 1982. - N 11 (4). - P. 453-482Geddes B. What do we know about democratization after twenty years? // Annual review of political science. - Palo Alto, 1999. - N 2. - P. 115-144Geddes B. What do we know about democratization after twenty years? // Annual review of political science. - Palo Alto, 1999. - N 2. - P. 115-144Geddes B. Party creation as an autocratic survival strategy: Presented at conference dictatorships: Their governance and social consequences. - Princeton, NJ: Princeton univ., 2008.Geddes B. Party creation as an autocratic survival strategy: Presented at conference dictatorships: Their governance and social consequences. - Princeton, NJ: Princeton univ., 2008.Grzymala-Busse A.M. Redeeming the Communist past: The regeneration of Communist parties in East-Central Europe. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2002. - 341 p.Grzymala-Busse A.M. Redeeming the Communist past: The regeneration of Communist parties in East-Central Europe. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2002. - 341 p.Grzymala-Busse A.M. Rebuilding Leviathan: Party competition and state exploitation in Post-Communist democracies. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press. - 2007. - 294 p.Grzymala-Busse A.M. Rebuilding Leviathan: Party competition and state exploitation in Post-Communist democracies. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press. - 2007. - 294 p.Haber S.H, Maurer N., Razo A. The Politics of property rights: Political instability, credible commitments, and economic growth in Mexico, 1876-1929. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2003. - 380 p.Haber S.H, Maurer N., Razo A. The Politics of property rights: Political instability, credible commitments, and economic growth in Mexico, 1876-1929. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2003. - 380 p.Magaloni B. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2006. - 300 p.Magaloni B. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. - Cambridge: Cambridge univ. press, 2006. - 300 p.Smith B. Life of the party: the origins of regime breakdown and persistence under single-party rule // World politics. - Cambridge, 2005. - Vol. 57, N 3. - P. 421-451Smith B. Life of the party: the origins of regime breakdown and persistence under single-party rule // World politics. - Cambridge, 2005. - Vol. 57, N 3. - P. 421-451Wantchekon L. The paradox of “warlord” democracy: a theoretical investigation // The American Political Science Review. - Cambridge, 2004. - N 98 (1). - P. 17-33.Wantchekon L. The paradox of “warlord” democracy: a theoretical investigation // The American Political Science Review. - Cambridge, 2004. - N 98 (1). - P. 17-33.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.