Slovik made numerous empirical claims that he tested through formal models (equations and mathematical formulas) and regression tables and graphs using data covering the period from 1946 to 2008 and containing 4,696 authoritarian country-years. The conceptualization of his variables is clear, and he emphasized the importance of collecting his own data and overcome the reliability and validity limitations of existing typologies. He argues that in contemporary political science the “types” of dictatorship that emerge are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive. They require a difficult classification that weighs aspects of authoritarian politics.

The most important feature of the book is the use of different approaches to explain the world of authoritarian politics. The structural and institutional approaches provide details on the formation of dictatorships and inform on their inherent characteristics. Slovik explains that the authoritarian setting shapes the behaviors that can arise and the institutions that can develop. First, dictatorships lack an independent authority with the power to enforce agreements among actors. Secondly, violence is an ever-present arbiter of political conflicts. He presents the interaction between government institutions (legislature) and political parties and their impact on resolving dictatorship problems. The rational approach looks at dictators and their allies’ behaviors. The dilemmas that they face and how they make decisions to solve them. For example, allies’ decision to rebel or not against an opportunist leader is made after carefully assessing the threat and evaluating the balance of power. If they do not hold enough control, even if it is evident that the ruler plan on establishing a personal autocracy, they will refrain from action. Because it is in their best interests, in explaining why some dictators decide to build institutions, Slovik used the same approach. Through them, leaders (1) try to alleviate misperceptions and trust and reassure their allies and (2) maintain a loyal popular base through co-optation. These, in turn, secure the survival of their regimes, which is in their best interest. 

In my opinion, it tells us a lot about the utility of these approaches in the study of comparative politics. They are complementary because they can help explain a concept at different levels and depict a more accurate and complete picture, for example, in explaining authoritarian politics. Slovik first looks at the system’s structure with the lack of an independent authority with the power to enforce agreements among actors; this feature encourages misperception and mistrust among allies toward the dictator. The decision in turn to rebel or not against an opportunist dictator is based on rationality. Do you think these approaches (structuralist, institutionalist, culturalist, rationalist) are mutually exclusive? Do some work better in tandem than others (maybe based on other books)?