It’s the state, indeed! How state capacity facilitates social equality in authoritarian regimes

Empirical evidence suggests that contemporary authoritarian regimes face several incentives to redistribute social policy concessions to their citizens. Yet autocracies differ extensively in their capacity to implement policy decisions. In this article, we identify three distinct but interrelated mechanisms through which state capacity determines a more equal provision of social benefits and services in healthcare and education sectors. Administrative capacity allows the regime to manage the implementation of social policy, extractive capacity ties in with more resources and information to be used for the provision of social benefits and services, and coercive capacity permits the state to effectively enforce policies. Using static and dynamic regression models for over 120 countries from 1960 to 2016, our findings show that state capacity enhances social equality in authoritarian contexts through these three interrelated mechanisms. Further analysis though suggests that the overall effect of state capacity dissipates in the long run

Policy convergence in authoritarian regimes: A comparative analysis of welfare state trajectories in post-Soviet countries

Panaro AV. Policy convergence in authoritarian regimes: A comparative analysis of welfare state trajectories in post-Soviet countries. Review of Policy Research . 2024.Do authoritarian regimes adopt similar or equal policies? Despite the large literature on policy convergence in democracies, we know little about whether and to what extent authoritarian regimes follow analogous paths. This article argues that similar policy legacy, political and institutional context, and international influences lead to policy convergence among nondemocratic regimes. Analyzing welfare state trajectories in Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan, the empirical analysis finds that the welfare state in the three post-Soviet countries has converged at the level of social spending and the source of welfare financing, while divergence persists in disaggregated levels of social spending; configuration of key welfare programs, particularly in old-age pensions and unemployment; and the extent of welfare state reforms. Overall, the findings provide important insights into the determinants of policy convergence in nondemocratic regimes and yield critical implications for future research on the welfare state's trajectory in former Soviet countries

Income Inequality in Authoritarian Regimes: The Role of Political Institutions and State Capacity

In recent decades, there has been an institutional shift in the literature on authoritarian regimes, with scholars investigating the role of political institutions, such as elections and political parties, in shaping regime stability and economic performance. However, scant attention has been devoted to the effect of political institutions on policy outcomes, and more specifically, on income inequality. This paper adds to this debate and sheds light on the role of formal and informal institutions, on the one hand, and state capacity, on the other, in influencing levels of income inequality in autocracies. We argue that, while the presence of elections and multiparty competition creates more favourable conditions for the adoption of redistributive policies, state capacity increases the likelihood of successfully implemented policy decisions aimed at reducing the level of inequality. Our empirical analysis rests on a time-series cross-sectional dataset, which includes around 100 countries from 1972 to 2014. The findings indicate that both political institutions and a higher level of state capacity lead to lower levels of income inequality in authoritarian contexts