2026-05-02T09:10:28Z https://datacatalogue.cessda.eu/oai-pmh/v0/oai

0228aa69a5e6046cbdfda65b3d062ac96bac6449928a5282827fc3016a5b6dfe 2025-06-17T03:14:37Z language:enopenaire_data

DDI study level documentation for study 10.7802/1545 Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) Regime Legitimation Expert Survey (RLES) 10.7802/154510.7802/154510.7802/154510.7802/1545 von Soest, Christian von Soest, Christian Grauvogel, Julia Grauvogel, Julia GESIS Data Archive for the Social SciencesGESIS Datenarchiv für Sozialwissenschaften We present a data set on authoritarian regimes’ claims to legitimacy that is based on leading experts’ assessments of 98 states for the period 1991–2010. The experts assessed these regimes on the basis of six conceptually distinguishable but interlinked claims to legitimacy – namely (1) foundational myth, (2) ideology, (3) personalism, (4) international engagement, (5) procedural mechanisms and (6) performance. For the survey, we contacted approximately 800 renowned international and local experts. They were selected on the basis of their publication records, their local expertise and their work for high-quality country-based indices, research institutes, and/or high-profile think tanks. 273 online questionnaires were completed. We collected expert assessments for the most recent non-democratic regime (as of 2013, the year of assessment). The survey comprised questions covering the strength of a regime’s six legitimation strategies, based on a six-point scale ranging from 0-5. In addition, the dataset includes information regarding the number of experts per country and the experts’ average confidence in answering the questions on the respective country.We present a data set on authoritarian regimes’ claims to legitimacy that is based on leading experts’ assessments of 98 states for the period 1991–2010. The experts assessed these regimes on the basis of six conceptually distinguishable but interlinked claims to legitimacy – namely (1) foundational myth, (2) ideology, (3) personalism, (4) international engagement, (5) procedural mechanisms and (6) performance. For the survey, we contacted approximately 800 renowned international and local experts. They were selected on the basis of their publication records, their local expertise and their work for high-quality country-based indices, research institutes, and/or high-profile think tanks. 273 online questionnaires were completed. We collected expert assessments for the most recent non-democratic regime (as of 2013, the year of assessment). The survey comprised questions covering the strength of a regime’s six legitimation strategies, based on a six-point scale ranging from 0-5. In addition, the dataset includes information regarding the number of experts per country and the experts’ average confidence in answering the questions on the respective country. EritreaEritreaEquatorial GuineaEquatorial GuineaEgyptEgyptBurundiBurundiBurkina FasoBurkina FasoAzerbaijanAzerbaijanZimbabweZimbabweYemenYemenTurkeyTurkeyTogoTogoTunisiaTunisiaThailandThailandTanzania, United Republic ofTanzania, United Republic ofTajikistanTajikistanSyrian Arab RepublicSyrian Arab RepublicSwazilandSwazilandSudanSudanRwandaRwandaRussian FederationRussian FederationRomaniaRomaniaQatarQatarPeruPeruPakistanPakistanNigerNigerNicaraguaNicaraguaNepalNepalMyanmarMyanmarMozambiqueMozambiqueMoroccoMoroccoMoldova, Republic ofMoldova, Republic ofMexicoMexicoMauritaniaMauritaniaMalaysiaMalaysiaLesothoLesothoLebanonLebanonLao People's Democratic RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicKyrgyzstanKyrgyzstanZambiaZambiaViet NamViet NamVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofUzbekistanUzbekistanUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Arab EmiratesUkraineUkraineUgandaUgandaTurkmenistanTurkmenistanSri LankaSri LankaSouth AfricaSouth AfricaSingaporeSingaporeSierra LeoneSierra LeoneSenegalSenegalSaudi ArabiaSaudi ArabiaOmanOmanKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofNigeriaNigeriaMalawiMalawiMadagascarMadagascarMacedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiberiaLiberiaGuinea-BissauGuinea-BissauGuatemalaGuatemalaGhanaGhanaGabonGabonFijiFijiEthiopiaEthiopiaKuwaitKuwaitKenyaKenyaKazakhstanKazakhstanJordanJordanIraqIraqIran, Islamic Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIndonesiaIndonesiaHondurasHondurasHaitiHaitiGuineaGuineaGeorgiaGeorgiaGambiaGambiaCongo, Democratic Republic of theCongo, Democratic Republic of theCubaCubaCroatiaCroatiaCongoCongoColombiaColombiaChinaChinaChadChadCentral African RepublicCentral African RepublicCameroonCameroonCambodiaCambodiaBelarusBelarusBahrainBahrainAngolaAngolaAlgeriaAlgeriaAlbaniaAlbaniaAfghanistanAfghanistanBhutanBhutanBangladeshBangladeshArmeniaArmenia Regime spell Self-administered questionnaireSelfAdministeredQuestionnaireSelbstausgefüllter FragebogenSelfAdministeredQuestionnaire Free access (with registration) - The research data can be downloaded by registered users. CC BY-NC 4.0: Namensnennung– Nicht kommerziell (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.de)Freier Zugang (mit Registrierung) - Die Forschungsdaten können von allen registrierten Nutzerinnen und Nutzern heruntergeladen werden. CC BY-NC 4.0: Namensnennung– Nicht kommerziell (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.de) http://dbkapps.gesis.org/dbkoai/oai.asp oai:dbk.gesis.org:SDN/10.7802_1545 2023-03-11 ddi:codebook:2_5