modeling succession crises in authoritarian regimes: beyond “slime mold” complexity dr. britt...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Modeling Succession Crises in Authoritarian Regimes:Beyond “Slime Mold” Complexity
Dr. Britt CartriteSolomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict
University of Pennsylvania
Paper available at:http://www.psych.upenn.edu/sacsec/abir/
Research Questions Why are authoritarian regimes
relatively successful in surviving succession crises (Brownlee 2002)? Do different types of authoritarian
regimes “survive” differently?
When regime breakdown does occur, are there regime-type specific patterns to the breakdown?
Virtualstan’s “Slime Mold” Milieu
Activated identity Identities in repertoire Information:
local neighborhood + global “bias”
Agent evolution: Rotation Substitution Rotation + Substitution “Anger”
Virtualstan’s “Slime Mold” Milieu
20 identities in the landscape, including:
State Identity
Loyal Opposition
Regional identities
Types of Authoritarian Regimes
Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (O’Donnell 1973; Collier 1979)
Neopatrimonialism (Eisenstadt 1973; Bill and Springborg 1994; Bratton and van de Walle 1997)
Bureaucratic Feudalism (Baker 1978)
Types of Authoritarian Regimes:Bureaucratic Authoritarianism
Clearly hierarchical
Allegiances of subordinates are to their immediate superiors
Political and social institutions are relatively distinct
Types of Authoritarian Regimes:Neopatrimonialism
“Great Leader” linked to bureaucracy and various social elites at all levels, disrupting local hierarchies
Political and social institutions are relatively indistinct
Types of Authoritarian Regimes:Bureaucratic Feudalism
More coherent institutions than NP, less than BA
Great Leader influences bureaucracy and regional elites, but not their subordinates
Political and social institutions are linked, but not deeply
Operationalizing Authoritarian Regimes:Non-basic Agent classes
Lackeys (lower level bureaucrats)
Bureaucrats (higher level bureaucrats)
Vassals (regional/ethnic subordinate elites)
Lords (regional/ethnic prominent elites)
Great Leader
Agent classes and distributions
Bureaucrats
Lackeys
Vassals Lords Total Basic
BA 22 (22)
201 (201)
64 (12)
16 (3)
303 (239)
3792 (412)
BF 0 209 (209)
64 (64)
16 (16)
289 (289)
3806 (418)
NP 0 185 (185)
63 (11)
16 (3)
263 (199)
3831 (580)
Virtualstan Institutions
Great Leader
Lord
Vassal
Bureaucrat
Lackey
Bureaucratic Authoritarianism Great Leader influence = 4 Bureaucrat: influence = 3; includes
GL in decision-making Lackey: influence = 2; sight radius =
2; includes GL in decision-making Lord: influence = 3 Vassal: influence = 2; includes
Lord(s) in a radius of 4 in decision-making
Bureaucratic Authoritarianism
Bureaucratic Feudalism
Great Leader influence = 4 Bureaucrat = n/a Lackey: influence = 2; sight radius =
1; includes GL in decision-making Lord: influence = 3 Vassal: influence = 2; includes
Lord(s) in a radius of 4 in decision-making
Bureaucratic Feudalism
Neopatrimonialism Great Leader influence = 4 Bureaucrat = n/a Lackey: influence = 1; sight radius = 1;
includes GL in decision-making Lord: influence = 3; includes GL in
decision-making Vassal: influence = 2; includes Lord(s)
in a radius of 4 in decision-making; includes GL in decision-making
Neopatrimonialism
Operationalizing Succession Crises:GL_gone_trigger
Effects of GL_gone_trigger = 1 Cell of Great Leader (28,29)
becomes empty at t=33 Bias ceiling for identity 5 set at -2
for 32<t<58 Bias for identity 5 set to 0 at t=58
(all models), allowed to vary normally thereafter
Experimental Protocols 100 pairs of seeds used for each regime type (3) and
condition (succession / no succession) for 158 timesteps per run (100x3x2 = 600 runs)
Test of 100 random pairs of one type/condition against 100 seed pairs shows no significant difference
Virtually identical landscapes Some variation due to variation in non-basic agents
Bias range = 3,-3 Tests comparing conditions using 2,-2 range show
expected decrease
“Scramble” for 0<t<9 (bias volatility = 5000 (50%)), then set to 200 to allow the history to begin “in media res.”
Comparing regime types:Seed pairs #26 at t=33
BureaucraticAuthoritarianism
BureaucraticFeudalism
Neopatrimonialism
Comparing succession and non-succession:Neopatrimonialism (seed pairs #26)
t=33
t=58
t=158
Effect of Regime and Succession Crisis on Regime Identity Plurality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Neopatrimonialism Bureaucratic Authoritarianism Bureaucratic Feudalism
Regime Type
Futures Featuring Regime Identity Plurality at T=158
Futures FeaturingRegime IdentityPlurality, NoSuccession Crisis
Futures FeaturingRegime IdentityPlurality,Succession Crisis
Cht-PluralityVirtualstancompiled.xls
top related