Regime Type, Institutional Capacity and Economic Development: A Theory-Driven Comparative Reassessment Using Latin American Evidence (1980–2024)

Abstract

This study reassesses the relationship between regime type and economic development by analysing how institutional capacity mediates this linkage in six Latin American countries between 1980 and 2024. Although debates often frame democracies as development-enhancing and authoritarian regimes as either efficient or unstable, Latin America’s institutional heterogeneity, commodity dependence, and political volatility reveal that regime labels alone cannot account for divergent development trajectories. Using a Structured-Focused Comparison within a qualitative comparative case study design, the research applies standardised analytical questions across cases and draws on triangulated quantitative indicators and qualitative evidence. Structured-Focused Comparison qualitative Comparative Case Study was used. All the cases were examined with the aid of standardised questions on regime type, institutional capacity and development indicators, backed up by triangulated qualitative and quantitative data. Divergent development outcomes cannot be explained by regime type. Strong institutions favour democracies, whereas weak institutional competencies demise both democratic and authoritarian systems. The outcomes of authoritarian and hybrid regimes are mixed, whereas institutional strength always leads to stability and development over time. Institutional capacity rather than regime type is what determines the developmental pathways in Latin America.