CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 178Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Conflict and GovernancePolitical Theory and Democracy

Political Parties and Uncertainty in Developing Democracies

Lupu, Noam, Riedl, Rachel Beatty·2013·Comparative Political Studies
DOI 10.1177/0010414012453445
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article lays out a theoretical framework for understanding the effects of political uncertainty on party development and strategies of mobilization and competition. Defining uncertainty as the imprecision with which political actors are able to predict future interactions, the authors identify three types of political uncertainty: regime uncertainty, economic uncertainty, and institutional uncertainty. They argue that political uncertainty is particularly high among developing democracies, contributing to puzzling empirical patterns of party development and competition in these contexts. Taking into account the role of uncertainty in the strategic decision making of party elites will help scholars better understand the differences between parties in advanced and developing democracies. But it can also help scholars understand the less dramatic differences between parties even within advanced democracies. The authors’ theoretical framework can be applied broadly since uncertainty informs the strategic choices of a much wider range of political actors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0010414012453445

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Weak parties make it harder to hold politicians collectively accountable and create greater uncertainty about actors' preferences, time horizons, and commitment to democracy.

    “Weak parties make it harder to hold politicians collectively accountable (Moser and Scheiner 2012; Kitschelt et al. 2010), and create greater uncertainty about actors ' preferences, time horizons, and commitment to democracy (Lupu and Riedl 2013; Levitsky 2018; Flores-Macías 2018; Hicken 2016).”

    From Parties, Civil Society, and the Deterrence of Democratic Defection (2020) · cites this paper as Lupu and Riedl 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lupu, N., & Riedl, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Fundación Juan March (ES)
  • Northwestern University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Comparative Political Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-08-30
Volume
46
Issue
11
Pages
1339-1365
ISSN
  • 0010-4140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3829
DOI
10.1177/0010414012453445
OpenAlex
W2161959120
Cited by
178
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
24.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Comparative Political Studies (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Princeton University
  • Northwestern University
  • University of Notre Dame
  • Kellogg Institute for International Studies, University of Notre Dame
  • Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
political uncertainty, party development, developing democracies, regime uncertainty, economic uncertainty, institutional uncertainty, party mobilization, party competition, party elites, strategic decision-making, advanced democracies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review