Informal Interference in the Judiciary in New Democracies: A Comparison of Six African and Latin American Cases

This paper assesses the extent to which elected power holders informally intervene in the judiciaries of new democracies, an acknowledged but under-researched topic in studies of judicial politics. The paper first develops an empirical strategy for the study of informal interference based on perceptions recorded in interviews, then applies the strategy to six third-wave democracies, three in Africa (Benin, Madagascar and Senegal) and three in Latin America (Argentina, Chile and Paraguay). It also examines how three conditioning factors affect the level of informal judicial interference: formal rules, previous democratic experience, and socioeconomic development. Our results show that countries with better performance in all these conditioning factors exhibit less informal interference than countries with poorer or mixed performance. The results stress the importance of systematically including informal politics in the study of judicial politics

How Do Non-Democratic Regimes Claim Legitimacy? Comparative Insights from Post-Soviet Countries

The analysis using the new Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) demonstrates that non-democratic rulers in post-Soviet countries use specific combinations of legitimating claims to stay in power. Most notably, rulers claim to be the guardians of citizens' socioeconomic well-being. Second, despite recurrent infringements on political and civil rights, they maintain that their power is rule-based and embodies the will of the people, as they have been given popular electoral mandates. Third, they couple these elements with inputbased legitimation strategies that focus on nationalist ideologies, the personal capabilities and charismatic aura of the rulers, and the regime's foundational myth. Overall, the reliance on these input-based strategies is lower in the western post-Soviet Eurasian countries and very pronounced among the authoritarian rulers of Central Asia

Buying Veg Private Labels. Antecedents and Mediators

The current work focuses on consumer buying behavior concerning veg food branded with the private label. Studies on the factors driving consumers in buying veg private labels are uncommon and empirical studies on the topic are lacking. Specifically, we propose a model aimed at exploring the attitude-intention-behaviour path when veg private labels (VPL) are concerned and when a double kind of behavior is considered: behavioral loyalty (BLVPL) and willingness to pay (WTP). The study was performed via a survey accomplished administering a structured questionnaire to a sample of consumers via social networks and then applying structural equation modeling (SEM) to the dataset. Findings confirm the investigated path in developing a positive willingness to pay (WTP) and buying behavior (BLVPL) regarding VPL, through the mediating role of attitude towards vegan food consumption (ATTV) and intention to buy the vegan private label (INTB-VPL), activated by an ethical motive: planet concern. Theoretical and managerial implications are derived