Three Challenges in Political Regime Classification: The Regime Configuration Framework

ABSTRACT This article reviews political regime classification in the context of contemporary debates. We problematize the classical division between categorical and continuous approaches and recent responses to their limitations. We use hybrid regimes to question the conventional framing of political regime classification. Our analysis reveals three significant shortcomings: (1) a teleological bias toward democracy as a linear progression, excluding the definition of political regime, (2) reliance on hierarchical variables, relegating regimes that do not fit to subcategories, and (3) neglect of the transnational dimension of governance, including the role of regional and international organizations. In addition, we propose the Regime Configuration Framework to address these shortcomings and highlight these dimensions in classifying political regimes. Related Articles Pelizzo, Riccardo, and Zim Nwokora. 2016. “Bridging the Divide: Measuring Party System Change and Classifying Party Systems.” Politics & Policy 44(6): 1017–1052. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12188 . Yukawa, Taku, Kaoru Hidaka, Masanori Kubota, and Kaori Kushima. 2022. “Losing Power Safely: Explaining the Variation in Dictators' Responses to Anti‐regime Protests.” Politics & Policy 50(2): 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12461 . Peralta, J. Salvador. 2013. “Do Culture and Institutions Matter? Explaining the Sources of Cross‐National Regime Support.” Politics & Policy 41(4): 478–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12024 .