Book Reviews

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q4 Arts and Humanities Labour History Review Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.3828/lhr.2019.14
P. Rushton, E. Royle, J. England, Jonathan Rose, I. Scott, Brian Shaev
{"title":"Book Reviews","authors":"P. Rushton, E. Royle, J. England, Jonathan Rose, I. Scott, Brian Shaev","doi":"10.3828/lhr.2019.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contemporary Latin America, the euphoria that accompanied initial democratization has now been transformed into concern about whether these democracies can truly be “consolidated.” This book is an important contribution to this discussion. Among the editors’ most notable accomplishments is their success in simultaneously encouraging intellectual creativity on the part of contributors and pulling these contributions together in an interesting way. Seeking alternately to explain the sustainability of Latin American democracies, their relative quality, or both, the articles included here explore both troubled and relatively more successful democratic regimes. Approaches and findings vary, but collectively, the book makes an excellent contribution to furthering the understanding of these issues. The book is organized into three main sections, categorizing countries according to the apparent success of their democracies. Three conceptual pieces frame these case studies: Mainwaring and Hagopian’s introduction, a more extensive theoretical chapter by Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, and Hagopian’s conclusion. Each of these essays goes well beyond a mere exercise in integration, which, in turn, implies some divergence among their arguments. The key differences between the conceptual pieces relate to two factors: first, whether the authors focus only on democratic survival or whether they also address quality; and second, how much impact they consider socioeconomic or institutional “structures” and government performance to have on democratic outcomes. Both the introduction and the conclusion look at democratic stability, with political attitudes as the major explanation. Thus, Mainwaring and Hagopian downplay factors such as socioeconomic structure and relative economic success, emphasizing instead the impact of “political factors” on democratic sustainability, especially the attitudes of domestic or international actors. These factors, they argue, can ultimately overcome low economic development, inequality, and poor governmental performance (p. 7). Hagopian’s conclusion similarly emphasizes the importance of political attitudes for explaining democratic stability, but here she portrays attitudes as contingent on effective representation. According to Hagopian,","PeriodicalId":43028,"journal":{"name":"Labour History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labour History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/lhr.2019.14","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In contemporary Latin America, the euphoria that accompanied initial democratization has now been transformed into concern about whether these democracies can truly be “consolidated.” This book is an important contribution to this discussion. Among the editors’ most notable accomplishments is their success in simultaneously encouraging intellectual creativity on the part of contributors and pulling these contributions together in an interesting way. Seeking alternately to explain the sustainability of Latin American democracies, their relative quality, or both, the articles included here explore both troubled and relatively more successful democratic regimes. Approaches and findings vary, but collectively, the book makes an excellent contribution to furthering the understanding of these issues. The book is organized into three main sections, categorizing countries according to the apparent success of their democracies. Three conceptual pieces frame these case studies: Mainwaring and Hagopian’s introduction, a more extensive theoretical chapter by Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, and Hagopian’s conclusion. Each of these essays goes well beyond a mere exercise in integration, which, in turn, implies some divergence among their arguments. The key differences between the conceptual pieces relate to two factors: first, whether the authors focus only on democratic survival or whether they also address quality; and second, how much impact they consider socioeconomic or institutional “structures” and government performance to have on democratic outcomes. Both the introduction and the conclusion look at democratic stability, with political attitudes as the major explanation. Thus, Mainwaring and Hagopian downplay factors such as socioeconomic structure and relative economic success, emphasizing instead the impact of “political factors” on democratic sustainability, especially the attitudes of domestic or international actors. These factors, they argue, can ultimately overcome low economic development, inequality, and poor governmental performance (p. 7). Hagopian’s conclusion similarly emphasizes the importance of political attitudes for explaining democratic stability, but here she portrays attitudes as contingent on effective representation. According to Hagopian,
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
书评
在当代拉丁美洲,伴随最初民主化而来的狂喜现在已经转变为对这些民主能否真正“巩固”的担忧。这本书是对这一讨论的重要贡献。编辑们最显著的成就之一是,他们成功地同时鼓励了贡献者的智力创造力,并以一种有趣的方式将这些贡献汇集在一起。为了交替解释拉丁美洲民主的可持续性,它们的相对质量,或者两者兼而有之,本文包括的文章既探讨了陷入困境的民主政权,也探讨了相对成功的民主政权。方法和发现各不相同,但总的来说,这本书对进一步理解这些问题做出了卓越的贡献。这本书分为三个主要部分,根据民主制度的明显成功对国家进行分类。三个概念性的部分构成了这些案例研究:Mainwaring和Hagopian的介绍,Mainwaring和Aníbal Pérez-Liñán更广泛的理论章节,以及Hagopian的结论。这些文章中的每一篇都远远超出了单纯的整合练习,这反过来又意味着他们的论点之间存在一些分歧。概念性作品之间的关键差异涉及两个因素:首先,作者是否只关注民主生存,还是也关注质量;其次,他们认为社会经济或制度“结构”和政府绩效对民主结果有多大影响。导言和结语都着眼于民主的稳定性,并以政治态度作为主要解释。因此,Mainwaring和Hagopian淡化了社会经济结构和相对经济成功等因素,而是强调“政治因素”对民主可持续性的影响,特别是国内或国际行动者的态度。他们认为,这些因素最终可以克服低经济发展、不平等和糟糕的政府表现(第7页)。Hagopian的结论同样强调了政治态度对解释民主稳定的重要性,但在这里,她将态度描述为取决于有效的代表。根据Hagopian的说法,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Boundary Review and the Organization and Identity of the Peterborough Divisional Labour Party Not an Industrial Matter: The British Trade Union Movement and Zionism, 1936–1967 ‘The Most Consistent of Them All’: William Sharman Crawford and the Politics of Suffrage In Defence of Steel: The Expulsion of Alfred Edwards MP and His Campaign against Steel Nationalization, 1948–1951 Patriotic Internationalists and Free Immigration: The British Labour Party’s Internationalism in Debates on Immigration Restriction, 1918–1931
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1