Ethnically homogenous communities often do a better job than diverse communities of producing public goods such as satisfactory schools and health care, adequate sanitation, and low levels of crime. Coethnicity reports the results of a landmark study that aimed to find out why diversity has this cooperation-undermining effect. The study, conducted in a neighborhood of Kampala, Uganda, notable for both its high levels of diversity and low levels of public goods provision, hones in on the mechanisms that might account for the difficulties diverse societies often face in trying to act collectively.
The Mulago-Kyebando Community Study uses behavioral games to explore how the ethnicity of the person with whom one is interacting shapes social behavior. Hundreds of local participants interacted with various partners in laboratory games simulating real-life decisions involving the allocation of money and the completion of joint tasks. Many of the subsequent findings debunk long-standing explanations for diversity’s adverse effects. Contrary to the prevalent notion that shared preferences facilitate ethnic collective action, differences in goals and priorities among participants were not found to be structured along ethnic lines. Nor was there evidence that subjects favored the welfare of their coethnics over that of non-coethnics. When given the opportunity to act altruistically, individuals did not choose to benefit coethnics disproportionately when their actions were anonymous. Yet when anonymity was removed, subjects behaved very differently. With their actions publicly observed, subjects gave significantly more to coethnics, expected their partners to reciprocate, and expected that they would be sanctioned for a failure to cooperate. This effect was most pronounced among individuals who were otherwise least likely to cooperate. These results suggest that what may look like ethnic favoritism is, in fact, a set of reciprocity norms—stronger among coethnics than among non-coethnics—that make it possible for members of more homogeneous communities to take risks, invest, and cooperate without the fear of getting cheated. Such norms may be more subject to change than deeply held ethnic antipathies—a powerful finding for policymakers seeking to design social institutions in diverse societies.
Research on ethnic diversity typically draws on either experimental research or field work. Coethnicity does both. By taking the crucial step from observation to experimentation, this study marks a major breakthrough in the study of ethnic diversity.
JAMES HABYARIMANA is assistant professor of public policy at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.
MACARTAN HUMPHREYS is associate professor of political science at Columbia University and research scholar at the Center for Globalization and Sustainable Development at the Earth Institute.
DANIEL N. POSNER is associate professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles.
JEREMY M. WEINSTEIN is assistant professor of political science at Stanford University and an affiliated faculty member at the Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and the Center for International Security and Cooperation.
评分
评分
评分
评分
这本书的叙事手法真是令人眼前一亮,作者仿佛是一位技艺精湛的织工,将不同时代的线索巧妙地交织在一起,构建出一个宏大而又细腻的社会图景。它不像那种平铺直叙的历史著作,而是充满了文学的张力。尤其在描绘那些边缘群体的挣扎与抗争时,笔触尤为细腻感人。我特别欣赏作者那种对人性的深刻洞察,即便是最微小的个体,其命运的转折点也都被赋予了史诗般的重量。阅读过程中,我时常会停下来,沉浸在那些描绘日常琐事却又蕴含深意的场景中,那种代入感极强,仿佛我不是在阅读文字,而是在亲身经历那个变迁的年代。书中的论证结构非常严谨,每一个观点都有坚实的史料作为支撑,但呈现方式却一点也不枯燥,反而充满了辩证的美感,让人在跟随作者的思辨之路上,不断反思自己对“群体”与“身份”的既有认知。这种既有深度又有温度的写作,是近年来罕见的上乘之作,推荐给所有对社会变迁史和人文关怀感兴趣的读者。
评分这本书的结构设计非常精巧,它不像传统传记那样线性推进,而更像是一部交响乐,不同的主题和时间线索在不同的乐章中交替出现、相互呼应,最终汇聚成一个和谐而震撼的整体。我常常感叹作者是如何在如此庞杂的信息量中保持叙事的清晰和逻辑的严密。书中对于社会心理层面的剖析尤其深刻,它不仅仅停留在宏观事件的描述,更深入探讨了在特定社会压力下,个体内心信念和集体认同是如何被塑造、被维护,乃至被颠覆的。这种对“内在景观”的关注,使得这本书的价值超越了一般的社会学或历史著作。那些关于记忆、遗忘与重构的探讨,极富哲学意味,让人在阅读过程中不断进行自我审视。说实话,这本书的篇幅不短,但阅读起来却丝毫不觉得拖沓,这完全归功于作者对节奏的精准把握,仿佛他知道何时该放慢速度去描绘情感,何时该加速来揭示关键的转折点。
评分坦白讲,我一开始是被这本书的封面设计吸引的,但真正翻开后,才发现内容才是真正的宝藏。这本书最打动我的地方在于其展现出的那种穿透力,它敢于直面社会结构中的那些敏感而难以启齿的议题,并且做到了有理有据,不偏不倚。作者的笔法充满了人文关怀,即便是描述冲突和对立,也始终保持着一份对个体尊严的尊重。我特别欣赏书中关于“边界”的讨论,它不仅仅探讨了地理或法律上的界限,更深入挖掘了心理和社会意义上的隔离墙是如何悄无声息地建立起来的。这本书的价值在于它提供了一种“去中心化”的观察视角,让那些长期处于权力结构边缘的声音得以被清晰地听见。阅读此书,与其说是在获取知识,不如说是在经历一次精神上的洗礼,它迫使读者跳出自己的舒适区,以更具同理心的方式去理解他者的生存境遇。这是一部需要反复阅读、每次都能读出新意的力作。
评分这本书的阅读体验,可以说是酣畅淋漓又引人深思的。它在探讨宏大议题时,从不落入空泛的理论窠臼,而是始终将焦点牢牢锁定在具体的历史现场和人物命运上。我最震撼的是作者对于时间维度的处理,那种跨越百年、将看似无关的事件串联起来的能力,展现了极高的学术素养和叙事掌控力。每一章的过渡都如同一次精心设计的转场,自然而然地将读者的注意力引向下一个需要剖析的层面。文风上,它既有学院派的扎实,又具备了优秀的非虚构文学的流畅性,读起来毫无晦涩感。那些历史文献的引用和人物访谈的片段穿插得恰到好处,既提供了事实依据,又为冰冷的历史增添了鲜活的血肉。读完合上书本时,我感觉脑海中建立起了一张复杂而清晰的社会网络图谱,对于理解现代社会中诸多冲突的根源,提供了一个全新的、富有启发性的视角。这绝不是一本可以快速翻阅的书,它需要读者投入时间去品味其中的层次感。
评分不得不说,这本书的行文风格极其独特,充满了对传统史学范式的挑战。作者似乎不太满足于简单的“是”或“否”的二元对立,而是热衷于挖掘那些灰色地带和模棱两可的复杂性。我个人尤其喜欢它在语言运用上的那种克制而有力的张力,没有过多煽情,但关键时刻的总结性陈述却掷地有声,直击人心。更值得称道的是,它成功地平衡了学术的严谨性与大众的可读性,即便是对相关历史背景不太了解的读者,也能被其引人入胜的叙事线索所吸引。它不是那种只堆砌史料的书,它是在用史料讲述一个关于“我们如何成为我们”的故事。在细节的打磨上,可以说是做到了极致,仿佛作者在每一个被提及的角落都投入了大量的田野调查和案头工作,那种对“真实”的执着追求,令人肃然起敬。这本书为我们理解身份认同的流动性,提供了一个极其重要的分析工具箱。
评分不知如何评价,方法不错,内容干巴巴
评分同一种族的公民更容易在集体行动中合作,除非有第三方强迫监督。尽管作者声称这一论证无意为种族隔离辩护,实质还是为民族主义政策提供了大量注脚。Ideas have consequences啊
评分抛开统计学的方法,读这本书的时候,我脑子里思考的是,为什么中国各个城市里面开兰州拉面的"新疆人"都会把用过的废水直接到街上的下水道里呢?这本书的作者-哈佛四公子,或许给了点提示。
评分同一种族的公民更容易在集体行动中合作,除非有第三方强迫监督。尽管作者声称这一论证无意为种族隔离辩护,实质还是为民族主义政策提供了大量注脚。Ideas have consequences啊
评分同一种族的公民更容易在集体行动中合作,除非有第三方强迫监督。尽管作者声称这一论证无意为种族隔离辩护,实质还是为民族主义政策提供了大量注脚。Ideas have consequences啊
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