"M. Steven Fish's book, Democracy Derailed in Russia, offers a lively, original account of the failure of democratization in post-Soviet Russia. Fish uses a wide-angled comparative lens to identify the factors explaining the emergence of oligarchic capitalism and an increasingly closed polity in Russia. The findings are provocative and will stimulate considerable debate." Thomas Remington, Emory University
"By carefully comparing Russia's experience with that of other new democracies, M. Steven Fish has zeroed in on the factors that have impeded Russia's democratic development. Especially original and stimulating is the discussion of oil in Russia and the comparisons drawn with other petro-states throughout the world. Even scholars who disagree with Fish's analysis will want to engage it." Jeffrey Kopstein, University of Toronto
"Building on a decade and a half of intensive research on post-communist democratic transition and Russian politics, M. Steven Fish presents a thought-provoking analysis of the trajectory of regime change in post-Soviet Russia. Fish argues that the time has come to declare Russia's post-communist democratic experiment a failure: Russia under Putin is now an authoritarian regime. But he insists that many widespread explanations for democratic failure in Russia are simply wrong.(continued underneath)
Russia did not fail because of its Orthodox religious culture, its multi-ethnicity, its Leninist legacies, or its decision to implement radical economic reform. Rather, in comparative perspective, Russia's authoritarianism today can be traced largely to three factors: its dependence on raw material exports, the stateas continuing control over most economic resources, and superpresidentialism. Fish's book will become a standard reference in the fields of Russian and post-Communist politics, and a must read for those interested in comparative democratization in general." Stephen Hanson, University of Washington
"Why has the global wave of democratization produced so many semi democracies" that are perched precariously between authoritarian and fully democratic politics? By drawing on the details of Russian political and economic evolution and by placing the Russian experience in comparative perspective, M. Steven Fish provides a compelling answer that spans the two dominant approaches in comparative politics to explaining regime trajectories--the political economy of reform and the design of political institutions. For Fish, Russian democracy has been compromised by too much oil, too little economic reform, and too weak a legislature. It is an answer that promises to travel well." Valerie Bunce, Cornell University
"This is an important work, and should be read both by Russia specialists and those interested in comparative democratization. It is very well written and its presentation is easy to follow, making it amenable for undergraduate course use as well. With this book, Fish has raised the bar for future work on Russian politics." - Perspectives on Politics, Paul Kubicek, Oakland University
"Fish's Democracy Derailed is still one of the most creative and analytically insightful books published to date on Russia's post-communist political development. There is no doubt that Fish's conclusions will play a prominent role in debates about democratization and post-communist politics for years to come." - Leah Gilbert, Ph.D. student in Government at Georgetown University
"...this is a good piece of empirical work on contemporary Russia politics. Provocative in style, the book can be recommended for discussion by upper-level undergraduates and postgraduates studying Russian politics, comparative democratization, and the politics of transformation in the former communist world. Many themes in the book provide a good springboard for class discussions. There is an excellent bibliography and the author points readers in the direction of opposing views."
M. Steven Fish is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California–Berkeley. In 2000–2001 he was a Fulbright Fellow and Visiting Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the European University at St. Petersburg.
评分
评分
评分
评分
坦白说,我原本预期这是一本充满愤怒与道德审判的批判之作,但作者的克制与冷静超出了我的预料。他似乎更热衷于“解释”而非“谴责”,致力于构建一个能够解释“为何会是这样”的复杂模型,而不是急于给出“应该如何”的简单药方。书中对制度演化的“路径依赖”理论的应用,尤其独到。它描绘了早期改革的某些看似无害的妥协,是如何在时间的推移中,像滚雪球一样积累成难以撼动的结构性障碍。例如,作者详细分析了某个特定法律条款在初衷与实际执行效果之间的巨大偏差,这个分析的精妙之处在于,它将焦点从“恶意”转移到了“功能失调”上。这种去道德化的分析方式,反而使得整本书的论证更具穿透力,因为它迫使读者承认,许多困境并非源于纯粹的邪恶,而是在特定历史机遇下,各种力量相互作用、自我强化的必然结果。对于研究政治衰退的学者来说,这本书提供了一个极具参考价值的分析框架。
评分这本书的学术严谨性令人肃然起敬,但其叙事风格却完全没有传统政治学专著的枯燥感。作者成功地将宏大的国家叙事与微观的个体命运编织在一起,形成了一种强大的情感共鸣。我尤其被其中关于知识分子群体在政治高压下“自我审查”与“象征性抵抗”的章节所触动。那种在清晰的界限边缘,小心翼翼地试探、试图在不越雷池的前提下保持思想自由的挣扎,是如此真实而令人心碎。书中对几个关键性学者的命运轨迹进行了细致勾勒,他们的学术生涯的起落,成为了一个时代政治气候的晴雨表。这种“以小见大”的手法,避免了将复杂的政治变迁抽象化,而是将其具象化为一个个鲜活的面孔和他们难以言说的无奈。它提醒我们,每一次看似宏伟的政治决策背后,都有无数个被边缘化、被牺牲掉的个体选择与尊严。这本书不仅是关于国家的,更是关于人在极端环境下如何定义自身价值的深刻探讨。
评分这本书的篇幅虽长,但阅读体验却异常流畅,这得益于作者对结构性论点的清晰梳理和对跨学科概念的灵活运用。它并非只关注政治或经济的某一方面,而是将其视为一个相互渗透、相互定义的系统。特别是关于地方治理的松散与中央集权的强化之间的辩证关系探讨,颇具启发性。作者描绘了一种“表面统一、实则分化”的治理图景,即中央通过意识形态和关键资源控制保持了名义上的权威,而地方则在执行层面保持着高度的实用主义和对中央政策的“选择性执行”。这种张力与微妙的平衡,是理解当前社会运行效率低下的关键所在。书中的图表和数据分析部分做得扎实有力,但作者的笔锋从未因此变得晦涩难懂,他总是能巧妙地将数据背后的故事讲述出来。总而言之,这是一部极富洞察力、涵盖面广且论证严密的重量级作品,它提供了一套理解当代复杂政治现实的全新透镜。
评分这本关于当代政治演变的著作,笔触极其细腻,深入剖析了后苏联时代俄罗斯社会结构性矛盾如何一步步将国家推向权力的集中与民意的边缘化。作者似乎对中层精英群体的困境有着非同寻常的洞察力,他们既渴望现代化带来的稳定与繁荣,又在日益收紧的政治话语空间中感到窒息。书中对“技术官僚”如何从改革的推动者转变为维护现有秩序的工具这一过程的描摹,简直是一部令人心寒的权力腐蚀史。我特别欣赏作者没有采取简单的“好人与坏人”的二元对立视角,而是将焦点放在了制度设计的缺陷与历史路径依赖的巨大惯性之上。例如,书中对寡头经济与国家资本主义之间微妙的、不断变化的共生关系的论述,提供了理解当前经济决策背后政治逻辑的绝佳钥匙。每一次对关键历史节点的重构,都像是剥开洋葱皮一样,让我们看到了深埋于地下的,那些影响至今的复杂交易与妥协。它迫使读者反思,在面对结构性挑战时,一个社会在多大程度上能够保持其初始的理想与愿景不被现实的铁律所扭曲。
评分读罢此书,我最大的感受是其语言的张力与叙事的节奏感。作者仿佛一位经验丰富的交响乐指挥家,他知道何时该让低沉的大提琴(历史的厚重感)主导旋律,何时又该让尖锐的短笛(突发的政治事件)划破宁静。关于信息控制与社会认知重塑的部分,简直是教科书级别的分析。它不是简单地控诉“宣传”,而是拆解了“叙事工厂”的运作机制——从自上而下的口号灌输,到自下而上的“确认偏误”如何被巧妙地利用和放大,最终形成一个自我强化的信息茧房。这种对社会心理学与政治传播学交叉领域的深入挖掘,使得全书的论证具有了无可辩驳的说服力。更令人印象深刻的是,作者引用了大量鲜为人知的内部文件和深度访谈记录,这些一手资料的运用,为原本就错综复杂的政治棋局增添了无数细节的纹理。对于任何希望理解信息战前沿阵地的读者来说,这本书的价值是无可估量的,它揭示了“看不见的战争”是如何在人们的头脑中打响并取得胜利的。
评分结论很好理解:资源诅咒+经济国家主导+弱议会=民主的失败。通向好的研究有多条路径,这本书的取胜之处在于丰富的田野经历。行文不循正统,理论稍显粗糙,技术也并非精细,但比较政治学者们如果都能如此植根于自己的区域,也就足够了。
评分虽然这是俺们教授写的,虽然这教授很好玩很牛掰,但是这本书敢不敢再有趣点
评分结论很好理解:资源诅咒+经济国家主导+弱议会=民主的失败。通向好的研究有多条路径,这本书的取胜之处在于丰富的田野经历。行文不循正统,理论稍显粗糙,技术也并非精细,但比较政治学者们如果都能如此植根于自己的区域,也就足够了。
评分结论很好理解:资源诅咒+经济国家主导+弱议会=民主的失败。通向好的研究有多条路径,这本书的取胜之处在于丰富的田野经历。行文不循正统,理论稍显粗糙,技术也并非精细,但比较政治学者们如果都能如此植根于自己的区域,也就足够了。
评分行文略枯燥,但结论还是有点意思。作者认为俄罗斯的开放政治毁于:1)丰富的自然资源所带来的后果;2)经济政策上的国家主义导向(有趣的是作者用实证研究表明其实苏联解体后俄罗斯实行的并不是我们常说的休克疗法,并没有进行激进快速地自由化);3)政治制度上建立了超级总统制,立法机关衰弱无法制约超级总统的权力。
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
© 2026 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有