Review
"This landmark contribution to the comparative study of political regimes will be widely read and cited. In an epic act of theoretical synthesis, Levitsky and Way weave careful empirical research on three-dozen countries across five world regions into a convincing account of patterns of regime change. In distinguishing democratic transitions from a range of authoritarian outcomes, they reach nuanced conclusions about the relative explanatory influence of international factors (linkage and leverage) and domestic power politics (rulers versus oppositions). Above all, they help us understand how autocrats learn to live with elections. Strongly recommended."
- Michael Bratton, University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and African Studies, Michigan State University
"This is a brilliant and truly pathbreaking book that should be closely studied by any serious student of democracy or comparative politics. Its precise conceptualization, striking theory, rigorous comparative methodology, and breathtaking range of case study evidence distinguish it as the most important study of political regimes and regime transitions in a generation."
- Larry Diamond, Stanford University
"Competitive Authoritarianism establishes Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way as the Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan of their generation. In the tradition of Linz and Stepan, Levitsky and Way offer an abundance of theoretical and conceptual innovation as well as a trove of empirical material drawn from broad swaths of the globe. The book is as elegantly written as it is theoretically creative. It is written by and for professional social scientists; yet undergraduates and the attentive public will be able to digest the book's central argument and findings with ease. This is what social science should look like."
- M. Steven Fish, University of California, Berkeley
"This is the most anticipated book in comparative politics in more than a decade. Written in a single authorial voice, Levitsky and Way's arguments about the distinct trajectories of competitive authoritarian regimes are theoretically grounded, conceptually nuanced, geographically wide ranging, and empirically well supported. I expect this book to have a major impact on the field for many years to come."
- Marc Morjé Howard, Georgetown University
"Levitsky and Way's book makes two major contributions to research on political regime change. First, by developing the notion of competitive authoritarianism, it engages in a sustained effort to provide a clear and theoretically fertile conception of a particular subset of political regimes belonging to the vague class of 'hybrid' regimes. Second, it offers the as yet most sophisticated and subtle effort to interweave domestic and international explanations of political regime change with provocative implications for run-of-the-mill theories, whether based on economic development, inequality, or institutions."
- Herbert Kitschelt, Duke University
"Regimes that blend meaningful elections and illicit incumbent advantage are not merely resting points on the road to democracy; Levitsky and Way guide us along the multiple paths these regimes can take and provide powerful reasoning to explain why nations follow these distinct paths. This deeply insightful analysis of an important subset of post-Cold War regimes is conceptually innovative and precise, empirically ambitious, and theoretical agile, moving fluidly between international and domestic causes of regime dynamics. Read it to understand the dynamics of contemporary hybrid regimes; then read it again to appreciate its many lessons for our general understanding of regime change."
- David Waldner, University of Virginia
Product Description
Competitive authoritarian regimes - in which autocrats submit to meaningful multiparty elections but engage in serious democratic abuse - proliferated in the post-Cold War era. Based on a detailed study of 35 cases in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and post-communist Eurasia, this book explores the fate of competitive authoritarian regimes between 1990 and 2008. It finds that where social, economic, and technocratic ties to the West were extensive, as in Eastern Europe and the Americas, the external cost of abuse led incumbents to cede power rather than crack down, which led to democratization. Where ties to the West were limited, external democratizing pressure was weaker and countries rarely democratized. In these cases, regime outcomes hinged on the character of state and ruling party organizations. Where incumbents possessed developed and cohesive coercive party structures, they could thwart opposition challenges, and competitive authoritarian regimes survived; where incumbents lacked such organizational tools, regimes were unstable but rarely democratized.
steven levitsky is Professor of Government at Harvard University. His research
interests include political parties, political regimes, and informal institutions, with
a focus on Latin America. Professor Levitsky is author of Transforming Labor-Based
Parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in Comparative Perspective (2003); is coeditor
of Argentine Democracy: The Politics of Institutional Weakness (2005) and Informal
Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America (2006); and is currently coediting
a volume on the rise of the Left in Latin America in the 2000s. He has published
articles in the Annual Review of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative
Politics, Journal of Democracy, Journal of Latin American Studies, Latin American
Politics and Society, Latin American Research Review, Party Politics, Perspectives on Politics,
Studies in Comparative International Development, and World Politics. He is on the
editorial board of the Journal of Democracy.
lucan a. way is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto.
His research interests include political regimes and weak states, with a focus on
post-communist Eurasia. Professor Way is currently completing a book, Pluralism
by Default: Sources of Political Competition in the Former Soviet Union, and has published
articles in Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Comparative Politics, East European
Politics and Societies, Journal of Democracy, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition
Politics, Politics & Society, Post-Soviet Affairs, Studies in Comparative and International
Development, and World Politics, as well as numerous book chapters. He is on the
editorial board of the Journal of Democracy.
评分
评分
评分
评分
我对于《Competitive Authoritarianism》这个书名有一种强烈的认同感。它似乎概括了一种我长期以来观察到的政治现象:一些国家表面上拥有民主制度的某些元素,比如定期的选举、多党制,甚至活跃的媒体,但实际上,权力的分配和行使仍然受到高度的限制和控制,真正意义上的竞争空间非常有限。我很好奇,作者是如何界定这种“竞争”的程度和性质的?它与真正的民主竞争有何本质区别?我又很好奇,在这种模式下,威权统治是如何得以延续的?是什么样的制度设计和策略,让这种看似矛盾的政治形态能够稳定存在?我期待这本书能够为我提供深入的分析,揭示这种“竞争性威权主义”的内在逻辑和运作机制,以及它可能对国家发展、社会稳定和民众权利产生的影响。我希望这本书能够帮助我理解,为什么有些国家难以实现真正的民主转型,以及这种特殊的政治模式是如何在现代世界中扮演角色的。
评分我被《Competitive Authoritarianism》这个书名深深吸引住了。它似乎暗示了一种政治形态,既有看似民主的竞争外衣,又有着威权主义的内核。这种“伪装”或者说“混合”的政治模式,总让人觉得其中隐藏着许多不为人知的秘密。我很好奇,作者是如何定义这种“竞争”的?是真实的政治角力,还是仅仅是一种政治表演?这种竞争的目的是什么?是为了维持统治的合法性,还是为了分散民众的注意力?我又很好奇,在这种模式下,权力是如何运作的?是什么机制让威权政府能够在表面上允许一定程度的竞争,同时又能够确保自己的权力不被挑战?是依靠对选举的操纵?还是对媒体的严格控制?亦或是对反对派的有限度的打压?我非常期待这本书能够提供一些深刻的洞察,让我能够理解这种复杂的政治现象是如何在全球各地出现的,以及它们对社会发展和民众生活会产生怎样的影响。我希望这本书不仅仅是理论上的分析,更能提供一些生动的案例,让我能够更直观地理解这种“竞争性威权主义”的真实面貌。
评分当我第一次看到《Competitive Authoritarianism》这个书名时,我的脑海中立刻浮现出一种既熟悉又陌生的政治形态。熟悉,是因为我能联想到一些国家的政治现实,它们似乎在努力模仿民主的表象,但其核心的权力结构却依然是威权的。陌生,是因为“竞争性威权主义”这个概念本身就充满了张力,如何将“竞争”与“威权”这两个看似对立的概念有机地结合起来,一直是我所好奇的。我迫切地想知道,作者是如何定义这种“竞争”的?它是否是一种真实的政治较量,还是一种被精心设计的表演?在这种“竞争”的背后,威权主义的根基又是如何被稳固和维护的?我猜想,这本书一定深入剖析了那些在表面上拥有民主元素,但实际上权力高度集中的政治体,揭示了它们维持统治的秘诀。我期待这本书能够为我提供一套严谨的理论框架,让我能够更深入地理解这种复杂的政治现象,以及它对全球政治格局可能产生的深远影响。
评分我对于“竞争性威权主义”这个概念本身就充满了浓厚的兴趣。它不像纯粹的威权主义那样赤裸裸地压制一切异见,也不像成熟的民主体制那样允许自由的政治较量。它似乎是一种更加狡猾,也更具迷惑性的存在。我一直在思考,这种模式的出现,是否是某些国家在民主化进程中遭遇瓶颈,或者是在面对外部压力时的一种策略性选择?它能够在多大程度上满足民众对于参与政治的期望,又能在多大程度上限制其真实的政治影响?我猜测,作者一定花费了大量时间和精力去收集和分析世界各地的案例,试图找出这种模式共有的特征和内在逻辑。我想知道,作者是如何界定这种“竞争”的边界的?是通过选举的公正性?还是媒体的开放性?亦或是公民社会的活跃度?更重要的是,这种模式的长期稳定性如何?它是否能够持续存在,还是终将走向崩溃或转型?我期待这本书能够给我提供一个清晰的理论框架,让我能够理解这种复杂政治现象的运作机制,以及它对全球政治格局可能带来的影响。我希望这本书不仅仅是学术性的论述,更能引发我的思考,让我对当下世界的政治现实有更深刻的认识。
评分这本书的标题,"Competitive Authoritarianism",让我产生了一种强烈的共鸣。它似乎精准地捕捉到了当下许多政治体所呈现出的某种模糊而又充满张力的状态。我一直在思考,在那些表面上似乎存在着竞争,但实质上权力却高度集中的社会里,究竟是如何运作的?这种“竞争”的边界在哪里?它又如何被用来巩固威权统治?我非常好奇,作者是如何界定这种“竞争性”的,是仅仅指象征性的选举,还是包括了更广泛的政治参与形式?同时,我又想知道,在这种模式下,威权政府是如何巧妙地平衡和利用这种竞争的,又是通过哪些手段来确保其权力的稳固不被挑战。我期待这本书能够提供深刻的见解,为我揭示这种复杂的政治现象的内在逻辑,以及它对国家治理、社会发展和民主前景可能产生的深远影响。我希望这本书不仅仅是理论的阐述,更能引发我对于当下世界政治现实的更深刻思考。
评分这本书的标题,"Competitive Authoritarianism",立刻就勾起了我强烈的好奇心。在我的认知中,威权主义似乎总是与压制和缺乏竞争划等号,而民主则强调开放的竞争和多元的声音。那么,“竞争性威权主义”究竟是一种怎样的混合体?它是否意味着在表面上存在着某种形式的竞争,但实际上权力仍然牢牢地掌握在少数人手中?我非常想知道,作者是如何定义和分析这种“竞争”的,它在政治实践中是如何体现的?是象征性的选举,还是有限度的政治辩论?又或者是一种对反对派的精妙压制,使其无法形成真正的挑战?我期待这本书能够为我揭示这种政治模式的运作机制,包括它是如何维持其稳定性的,又是如何获得并巩固其合法性的。我甚至在想,这种模式是否在某些特定历史时期或社会背景下更容易出现?它对社会发展和国家治理又会产生哪些长远的影响?我希望这本书能够提供给我一个清晰的理论视角,让我能够更深刻地理解当下复杂多变的全球政治格局。
评分我最近在书店无意间瞥见了这本《Competitive Authoritarianism》,它的名字瞬间吸引了我。一种“竞争性威权主义”?这听起来就像一个矛盾的集合体,又充满了诱惑力。我立刻联想到了一些在我印象中似乎符合这种描述的国家,它们表面上似乎有议会、有选举,甚至有媒体报道,但骨子里却透露着一股难以撼动的统治力量。我迫切地想知道,作者是如何定义这种“竞争”的?这种竞争是真实的,还是仅仅是一种表演?如果是表演,那么这种表演的目的是什么?是为了赢得国际社会的认可?还是为了在国内塑造某种合法性?更重要的是,这种制度是如何维持其稳定性的?毕竟,在很多人看来,威权主义的根基在于压制竞争,而民主主义的生命力则在于鼓励竞争。当这两者看似结合在一起时,它内部的张力如何化解?是依靠强大的国家机器,还是通过巧妙的意识形态宣传?我希望这本书能够提供一些深刻的洞察,帮助我理解这种看似自相矛盾的政治模式的内在逻辑。我甚至在思考,这种模式是否具有某种普适性,或者说是某种发展到一定阶段的政治演变路径?如果真的是这样,那么它对我们理解不同国家的发展模式,以及未来政治走向,都将具有重要的意义。我对于作者如何将理论与实践相结合,用严谨的学术分析来阐释这种复杂的政治现象,充满了好奇和期待。
评分这本书的封面设计就充满了某种难以言喻的张力,深邃的色彩基调搭配上粗犷的字体,仿佛预示着一场关于权力与对抗的史诗。拿到手里,沉甸甸的质感让我对接下来的阅读充满期待,尤其是在如今信息爆炸的时代,一本能够深入剖析复杂政治现象的书籍,无疑是知识的灯塔。我猜想,作者一定花了大量的时间和精力去研究,将那些看似零散的案例串联起来,形成一个严谨而具有说服力的理论框架。从书名“Competitive Authoritarianism”来看,它似乎揭示了一种介于民主与威权之间的模糊地带,一种表面上存在竞争,但实际上权力高度集中的治理模式。我很好奇,作者是如何界定这种“竞争”的,它体现在哪些具体的制度设计和政治实践中?又是如何在这种表面的竞争下,依然能够维持并巩固集权统治的?是利用信息不对称?还是通过操纵选举过程?抑或是通过精妙的法律手段来限制反对派的活动空间?这些疑问在我翻开第一页之前就已在脑海中盘旋。我希望这本书能够提供清晰的理论解释,并辅以生动的现实案例,让我能够理解这种复杂政治现象的运作逻辑,以及它对社会发展和民众生活可能带来的深远影响。我甚至在想,这样的政治模式是否在世界各地都普遍存在,又有哪些国家或地区是典型的代表,它们的成功或失败的经验又给了我们哪些启示?这不仅仅是一本政治学著作,更像是一把钥匙,能够帮助我们解锁那些隐藏在表象之下的权力密码,理解当下世界政治格局的复杂性。
评分当我看到《Competitive Authoritarianism》这本书时,我的脑海中立刻涌现出许多关于政治运作的疑问。这种“竞争性”的说法,让我不禁思考,它所指的是一种怎样的竞争?是自由公正的选举,还是被精心设计的政治秀?这种“威权主义”又是指什么?是压制性的统治,还是某种形式的精英操控?我迫切地想知道,作者是如何将这两个看似矛盾的概念结合起来,形成一种新的政治理论的。我猜测,这本书一定深入研究了那些表面上存在竞争,但实际上权力高度集中的国家,揭示了它们内部运作的逻辑。我很好奇,作者是如何界定这种“竞争”的界限的?是通过对政治参与的程度?还是对政治自由的保障?我期待这本书能够提供一套严谨的分析框架,让我能够理解这种复杂的政治现象是如何在全球范围内的存在的,以及它对民主的未来和国际政治格局可能产生的深远影响。我希望这本书能够让我对政治有更深刻的认识,不仅仅停留在表面的观察,更能理解其背后的运作机制。
评分这本书的标题《Competitive Authoritarianism》立刻在我的脑海中勾勒出了一幅幅生动的画面。我仿佛看到了一个舞台,上面演员们在卖力地表演着各自的角色,有时争吵,有时辩论,看似激烈,但最终的剧本和结局早已被幕后之人写定。这种“竞争”究竟有多大的真实性?是真正的民意表达,还是精心策划的“民主秀”?我猜想,作者一定是深入研究了那些表面上拥有民主元素,但实际上权力高度集中的政治体,试图揭示它们运作的深层机制。我非常好奇,作者是如何区分真正的政治竞争与被操纵的表演的?是依靠对选举制度的细致分析?还是对媒体控制的深入考察?亦或是对司法独立性的评估?而且,这种模式又是如何实现自身合法化的?是依靠民族主义的叙事?还是通过经济发展的承诺?又或者是通过历史的权威?我希望这本书能够为我提供一套清晰的分析工具,让我能够更准确地识别和理解这些“竞争性威权主义”的实例,并理解它们对国家发展、社会稳定乃至国际关系可能产生的复杂影响。我期待这本书能够让我摆脱对政治现象的浅层观察,深入到其本质的肌理之中,理解权力是如何在这种看似矛盾的体制下得以维系和巩固的。
评分准备买本。
评分盛名之下|西方中心主义|Do you feel comfortable with their measurements of linkage and leverage?
评分36 regimes in 5 regions. influenced by Huntington. Western link-cohesion of domestic regime organization. coin the new type "competitive authoritarianism": have competitive but unfair elections
评分2015
评分盛名之下|西方中心主义|Do you feel comfortable with their measurements of linkage and leverage?
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