Governance, Institutions, and Economic Performance: A Comparative Study of Singapore and South Sudan

Öz

The ongoing debate between democratic and non-democratic systems has gained significant attention in contemporary political discourse. With the end of the Cold War, the rise of authoritarian regimes has presented an alternative model to democratic governance. As the number of authoritarian states has increased, so too has the focus on the relationship between governance structures and economic development. The long-held thesis that Western states' development is rooted in democratic principles has been challenged by the economic successes of authoritarian regimes such as China and South Korea. Consequently, the social and economic trajectories of authoritarian states have garnered substantial interest, particularly among Western democracies. This study explores the economic development of authoritarian regimes by conducting a comparative analysis of Singapore’s one-party rule beginning in 1965 and South Sudan’s post-independence period after 2011, employing a most-similar case design to investigate their development pats.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Democracy
• Authoritarian Regimes
• Economy
• South Sudan
• Singapore

Kaynakça

1. Bibliography
2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
3. Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). Democracy does cause growth. Journal of political economy, 127(1), 47-100.
4. Anckar, C. (2008). On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different systems design in comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 389-401.
5. Arıöz, Z., & Topdağ, D. (2024). Fragile States and Aid Allocation for Sub-Saharan African Countries: An Empirical Research. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 21(81), 45-59.
6. Austin, I. P. (2009). Singapore in transition: Economic change and political consequences. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 2(3), 266-278.
7. Baş, S. (2007). Bağımsızlığından günümüze Sudan; siyasi ve ekonomik yapı (Master's thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
8. Bell, D. A. (1997). A communitarian critique of authoritarianism: the case of Singapore. Political Theory, 25(1), 6-32.

9. Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19.
10. Besley, T., & Kudamatsu, M. (2008). Making autocracy work. The Economics Journal, 118(531), 1–24. Bilgenoğlu, A. (2013). İngiliz sömürgeciliğinin Mısır ve Sudan örneğinde karşılaştırmalı bir çözümlemesi (Doctoral dissertation, DEÜ Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
11. Bogaards, M. (2009) How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism, Democratization, 16(2), pp. 399-423.
12. Brownlee, J., (2007). Authoritarianism in an age of democratization. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-43.
13. Caramani, D. (2020) Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, pp. 35-66.
14. Chang, Y., & Wong, J. F. (2003). Oil price fluctuations and Singapore economy. Energy policy, 31(11), 1151-1165.
15. Chee, C. H. (1976). The role of parliamentary politicians in Singapore. Legislative studies quarterly, 423-441.
16. De Waal, A. (2014). When kleptocracy becomes insolvent: Brute causes of the civil war in South Sudan. African Affairs, 113(452), 347–369.
17. Devecioğlu, K. (2017). Türkiye-Afrika İlişkilerinin Politik Ekonomisi: Sudan Örneği (Doctoral dissertation, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
18. Doboš, B., & Mičko, B. (2024). Nomos, Hostis, and War: State-Building Process and Armed Forces in Africa. Armed Forces & Society, 50(2), 539-561.