Comparing Autocracies in Asia

After years of relative neglect, the study of autocracies has been revived in recent years. As a field of study, the research on autocracies has become more diverse in terms of the analytical lenses, theories and methods involved. For example, a number of large-N studies have investigated the broader causes of authoritarian stability and decline. Numerous case studies have also examined the structure and dynamics of individual authoritarian regimes. However, genuine comparative approaches have remained seldom. Few intraregional, context-sensitive comparisons exist. In this project, J. Gerschewski focused on the different paths of authoritarian rule in contemporary Asia, as well as – from both a theoretical and empirical perspective – on the instruments and mechanisms used by autocrats to shore up their rule ( in Asia and beyond). P. Koellner explored the issue of political succession in autocracies in Asia, focusing on the cases of North Korea and China. He also helped to advance the comparative study of autocracies by organizing a series of national and international workshops and panels.

While J. Gerschewski employed a mixed-methods design involving QCA and in-depth case study of the North Korean regime, P. Koellner relied on qualitative methods such as process tracing and pattern matching. The researchers also used primary sources (party statutes, internal documents of the former GDR embassy in Pyongyang) and conducted semi-structured interviews with academics in the region.