The Politics of Uncertainty pdf epub mobi txt 电子书 下载 2025
Andreas A. Schedler, Professor of Political Science, CIDE, Mexico City
Andreas Schedler is professor of political science at the Center for Economic Teaching and Research (CIDE) in Mexico City. He earned his PhD from the University of Vienna. He has conducted research on issues such as anti-political-establishment parties, accountability, democratic consolidation and transition, elections, and authoritarianism. In the field of methodology, he has worked on concept analysis and cross-national measurement. Between 2000 and 2012, he refounded and reconsolidated the Committee on Concepts and Methods (C&M) of the International Political Science Association (IPSA), first as its chair then as vice-chair. His articles have appeared in scholarly journals such as Comparative Political Studies, Perspectives on Politics, the Journal of Democracy, the European Journal of Political Research, Party Politics, the Journal of Political Philosophy, and Political Research Quarterly.
- 比较政治
- 政治学
- 比较威权
- 威权主义
- politics
- 选举威权
- 英文原版
- 竞争性威权主义
Dictatorship is not what it was once. Military and single-party regimes have been withering away. Today, most dictators organize multiparty elections. The Politics of Uncertainty presents an analytical framework and empirical data that allow us to understand the distinctive political dynamics of these new electoral authoritarian regimes. It argues that all autocracies suffer from institutional uncertainties: their hold on power is never secure. They also suffer from informational uncertainties: they can never know for sure how secure they are. The author identifies these uncertainties as the central axes of regimes conflicts under dictatorship. The "politics of uncertainty" comprises the struggle between rulers and dissidents over these twin uncertainties. In electoral autocracies, it unfolds primarily as competition over electoral uncertainty. The study of electoral authoritarianism is a vibrant growth industry in political science and this book is required reading for all students of elections, authoritarianism, and democratization.
Oxford Studies in Democratization is a series for scholars and students of comparative politics and related disciplines. Volumes concentrate on the comparative study of the democratization process that accompanied the decline and termination of the cold war. The geographical focus of the series is primarily Latin America, the Caribbean, Southern and Eastern Europe, and relevant experiences in Africa and Asia. The series editor is Laurence Whitehead, Official Fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
具体描述
读后感
评分
评分
评分
评分
用户评价
其实用“uncertainty”来用于威权政治的机制解释并不少见，作者在这里的贡献是区分了informational uncertainty和institutional uncertainty，前者是idea-based，后者是institution-based。但是一个似乎可以构成“反例”的是，为什么印尼在苏哈托下台之后爆发的冲突，烈度大于其治下的新秩序时期，对这种communal violence upsurge的经典解释恰恰就是“uncertainty”。Tajima在2014年出版的著作对这个问题有了一定的缓和性解释，就是从制度主义视角出发，认为institutional mismatch是解释冲突爆发的关键（可以用“institutional uncertainty”的label）
评分其实用“uncertainty”来用于威权政治的机制解释并不少见，作者在这里的贡献是区分了informational uncertainty和institutional uncertainty，前者是idea-based，后者是institution-based。但是一个似乎可以构成“反例”的是，为什么印尼在苏哈托下台之后爆发的冲突，烈度大于其治下的新秩序时期，对这种communal violence upsurge的经典解释恰恰就是“uncertainty”。Tajima在2014年出版的著作对这个问题有了一定的缓和性解释，就是从制度主义视角出发，认为institutional mismatch是解释冲突爆发的关键（可以用“institutional uncertainty”的label）
评分其实用“uncertainty”来用于威权政治的机制解释并不少见，作者在这里的贡献是区分了informational uncertainty和institutional uncertainty，前者是idea-based，后者是institution-based。但是一个似乎可以构成“反例”的是，为什么印尼在苏哈托下台之后爆发的冲突，烈度大于其治下的新秩序时期，对这种communal violence upsurge的经典解释恰恰就是“uncertainty”。Tajima在2014年出版的著作对这个问题有了一定的缓和性解释，就是从制度主义视角出发，认为institutional mismatch是解释冲突爆发的关键（可以用“institutional uncertainty”的label）
评分其实用“uncertainty”来用于威权政治的机制解释并不少见，作者在这里的贡献是区分了informational uncertainty和institutional uncertainty，前者是idea-based，后者是institution-based。但是一个似乎可以构成“反例”的是，为什么印尼在苏哈托下台之后爆发的冲突，烈度大于其治下的新秩序时期，对这种communal violence upsurge的经典解释恰恰就是“uncertainty”。Tajima在2014年出版的著作对这个问题有了一定的缓和性解释，就是从制度主义视角出发，认为institutional mismatch是解释冲突爆发的关键（可以用“institutional uncertainty”的label）
评分其实用“uncertainty”来用于威权政治的机制解释并不少见，作者在这里的贡献是区分了informational uncertainty和institutional uncertainty，前者是idea-based，后者是institution-based。但是一个似乎可以构成“反例”的是，为什么印尼在苏哈托下台之后爆发的冲突，烈度大于其治下的新秩序时期，对这种communal violence upsurge的经典解释恰恰就是“uncertainty”。Tajima在2014年出版的著作对这个问题有了一定的缓和性解释，就是从制度主义视角出发，认为institutional mismatch是解释冲突爆发的关键（可以用“institutional uncertainty”的label）
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 qciss.net All Rights Reserved. 小哈图书下载中心 版权所有