01650pab a2200169 454500008004000000100002200040245009200062260000900154300001600163362000800179520111100187650001601298773003401314909001001348999001701358952010501375180718b2002   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aAlexander, Gerard  aInstitutionalized uncertainty, the rule of law, and the sources of democratic stability  c2002  ap.1145-170.  aDec  aThe third wave of democratization has been accompanied by two innovative theoretical claims that procedural regime attributes have systematic consequences for substantive outcomes under democracy and authoritarianism.  Many "rule of law" claims associate democracy with lower risks and greater predictability over outcomes that authoritarianism.  The "institutionalized uncertainty" claim expects nearly the opposite pattern.  Each has important implications for regime support and thus for regime (in) stability.  This article argues that neither approach effectively captures global patterns of risk and predictability.  A reconsideration shows that both approaches mischaracterize both regime types.  Predictability  shown to vary at least as much across as between the two regime types.  This is the result of factors exogenous to procedures, such as structures of political, social, and economic conflict.  As a result, these structural conditions, rather than regime features alone, explain outcomes such as democratic instability and consolidation.  Evidence suggests this is the case. - Reproduced.  aRule of law  aComparative Political Studies  a54937  c54937d54937  00104070aIIPAbIIPAd2018-07-19hVolume no: 35, Issue no: 10pAR55382r2018-07-19w2018-07-19yAR