This article examines how scholars use the concept of “regime” in comparative politics to provide stronger conceptual foundations for the future development of regime studies. We analyse 196 articles in five leading political science journals published between 1996 and 2023. We find that “regime” is rarely explicitly defined, but usage ...
This article examines how scholars use the concept of “regime” in comparative politics to provide stronger conceptual foundations for the future development of regime studies. We analyse 196 articles in five leading political science journals published between 1996 and 2023. We find that “regime” is rarely explicitly defined, but usage coalesces around three implicit definitions: a procedural approach that focuses on the rules for accessing and wielding political power; an actor-centred approach that defines regime in terms of the ruling elites and power coalition; and a sociological approach that foregrounds the character of existing relations between rulers and ruled. We demonstrate that each usage reveals essential aspects of “regime”, but definitions are often unreflectively applied and used differently for different regime types, risking biased and partial comparison. These inconsistencies result in fragmented debates on how regimes operate and, especially, change and in missed opportunities for advancing knowledge. To show a path forward, we highlight the (rare) scholarship that works at the intersection of multiple definitions, exploring the new avenues that this opens up. More generally, we argue that the future of regime studies must be grounded in better concept building. This article provides the needed groundwork for this to take place.
