Pub Date : 2023-05-21DOI: 10.1177/00104140231169026
D. Dow, Gabrielle Levy, Diego Romero, J. F. Tellez
Across the world, citizens sidestep the state to punish offenses on their own. Such vigilantism can help communities provide order, yet it raises concerns about public accountability and the rights of the accused. While prior research has identified the structural correlates of vigilantism, an open question is in which cases citizens prefer vigilantism over conventional policing. To make sense of these preferences, we draw on two logics of punishment: state substitution and retribution. Using survey data from a conjoint experiment presented to over 9000 households across Guatemala, we find that preferences for vigilantism depend on how transgressive the crime is as well as how unlikely it is to be prosecuted by the state. Victim and perpetrator gender, as well as crime severity and profession of the perpetrator, affect whether people endorse vigilante punishment. These results ultimately raise concerns about the viability of "informal" forms of policing.
{"title":"State Absence, Vengeance, and the Logic of Vigilantism in Guatemala","authors":"D. Dow, Gabrielle Levy, Diego Romero, J. F. Tellez","doi":"10.1177/00104140231169026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169026","url":null,"abstract":"Across the world, citizens sidestep the state to punish offenses on their own. Such vigilantism can help communities provide order, yet it raises concerns about public accountability and the rights of the accused. While prior research has identified the structural correlates of vigilantism, an open question is in which cases citizens prefer vigilantism over conventional policing. To make sense of these preferences, we draw on two logics of punishment: state substitution and retribution. Using survey data from a conjoint experiment presented to over 9000 households across Guatemala, we find that preferences for vigilantism depend on how transgressive the crime is as well as how unlikely it is to be prosecuted by the state. Victim and perpetrator gender, as well as crime severity and profession of the perpetrator, affect whether people endorse vigilante punishment. These results ultimately raise concerns about the viability of \"informal\" forms of policing.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42941019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-20DOI: 10.1177/00104140231169030
Yair Amitai
What explains party polarization in multiparty systems? This study turns the spotlight to intraparty mechanisms, namely, the authorities and influence of party activists over the candidate selection process, as a potential source of party-system polarization. I hypothesize that parties in which activists possess more comprehensive selection authorities, the party elite will hold more extreme ideological positions, catering to activists' representation demands. Additionally, in such cases, the ideological gap between party elites and voters will be larger since more extreme actors overshadow the preferences of moderate party voters. Aggregating the intraparty effect of activists to the party-system level, I expect to find higher level of party polarization in countries where more parties allocate selection authorities to activists. Utilizing party-level data regarding candidate selection procedures as well as public opinion and elite position data from 19 countries and 93 parties between 2011 and 2017, I find support for my hypotheses.
{"title":"The Activists Who Divide Us: A Cross-Country Analysis of Party Activists’ Influence on Polarization and Representation","authors":"Yair Amitai","doi":"10.1177/00104140231169030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169030","url":null,"abstract":"What explains party polarization in multiparty systems? This study turns the spotlight to intraparty mechanisms, namely, the authorities and influence of party activists over the candidate selection process, as a potential source of party-system polarization. I hypothesize that parties in which activists possess more comprehensive selection authorities, the party elite will hold more extreme ideological positions, catering to activists' representation demands. Additionally, in such cases, the ideological gap between party elites and voters will be larger since more extreme actors overshadow the preferences of moderate party voters. Aggregating the intraparty effect of activists to the party-system level, I expect to find higher level of party polarization in countries where more parties allocate selection authorities to activists. Utilizing party-level data regarding candidate selection procedures as well as public opinion and elite position data from 19 countries and 93 parties between 2011 and 2017, I find support for my hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42292447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-17DOI: 10.1177/00104140231178732
Robert G. Blanton, S. Blanton, Dursun Peksen
Though a great deal of research has examined the economic and political consequences of natural resource wealth, its implications for labor remain empirically under-examined. In this article, we contend that resource abundance undermines labor rights due to the inelastic demand for resource-intensive products, which serves to insulate these states from internal and external pressures to protect these rights. In addition to this direct linkage, we posit that resource wealth indirectly undercuts labor rights through its adverse impact on civil society and bureaucratic capacity. Examining these linkages across 148 countries for the years 1994–2010, we find that resource wealth has a negative and significant impact on labor rights practices, though not on labor rights laws. Results from a causal mediation analysis show that resource wealth also undermines labor rights through its negative impact on labor organizations and bureaucratic capacity
{"title":"Resource Wealth: A “Curse” for Labor Rights?","authors":"Robert G. Blanton, S. Blanton, Dursun Peksen","doi":"10.1177/00104140231178732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231178732","url":null,"abstract":"Though a great deal of research has examined the economic and political consequences of natural resource wealth, its implications for labor remain empirically under-examined. In this article, we contend that resource abundance undermines labor rights due to the inelastic demand for resource-intensive products, which serves to insulate these states from internal and external pressures to protect these rights. In addition to this direct linkage, we posit that resource wealth indirectly undercuts labor rights through its adverse impact on civil society and bureaucratic capacity. Examining these linkages across 148 countries for the years 1994–2010, we find that resource wealth has a negative and significant impact on labor rights practices, though not on labor rights laws. Results from a causal mediation analysis show that resource wealth also undermines labor rights through its negative impact on labor organizations and bureaucratic capacity","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42314774","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-14DOI: 10.1177/00104140231168364
Amalie Sofie Jensen, Andreas Wiedemann
Wealth is often more unequally distributed than income, and there are considerable differences across countries. In this paper, we argue that wealth inequality helps explain cross-national variation in support for (and the size of) the welfare state because assets serve as private insurance. When wealth, particularly liquid assets, is unequally distributed across the income spectrum and high-income groups hold most assets, strong reinforcing preferences in favor of or against social policies result in antagonistic welfare politics and less government spending. When assets are more equitably distributed across the income spectrum, cross-cutting preferences emerge as more people support either insurance or redistribution. Welfare politics is consensual and facilitates a broader welfare coalition and more government spending. We analyze original cross-national survey data from nine OECD countries and provide evidence in support of our argument. Our findings suggest that wealth inequality reshapes the role of income in structuring welfare politics.
{"title":"Cross-National Support for the Welfare State Under Wealth Inequality","authors":"Amalie Sofie Jensen, Andreas Wiedemann","doi":"10.1177/00104140231168364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231168364","url":null,"abstract":"Wealth is often more unequally distributed than income, and there are considerable differences across countries. In this paper, we argue that wealth inequality helps explain cross-national variation in support for (and the size of) the welfare state because assets serve as private insurance. When wealth, particularly liquid assets, is unequally distributed across the income spectrum and high-income groups hold most assets, strong reinforcing preferences in favor of or against social policies result in antagonistic welfare politics and less government spending. When assets are more equitably distributed across the income spectrum, cross-cutting preferences emerge as more people support either insurance or redistribution. Welfare politics is consensual and facilitates a broader welfare coalition and more government spending. We analyze original cross-national survey data from nine OECD countries and provide evidence in support of our argument. Our findings suggest that wealth inequality reshapes the role of income in structuring welfare politics.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":"103 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135035290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-07DOI: 10.1177/00104140231169029
Pietro Castelli Gattinara, Caterina Froio
When do the media cover far-right protests? News coverage matters for the entrenchment of the far right in contemporary democracies, but little comparative research has looked at what drives news attention to far-right mobilization. We apply a classic input–output process model of news selection bias to test the hypothesis that the visibility of far-right protests events depends on the characteristics of protest initiators, type of action, and reactions. We appraise this via logistic regressions on an original dataset of 5972 protest events retrieved from online press releases by far-right groups (input) and national quality newspapers (output) in 11 European countries (2008–2018). The analysis confirms that news media are particularly responsive to contentious action, protest around migration issues, and action–reaction chains between political opponents. Our findings shed light on the role of news organizations in the success of the far-right and on the pathways by which these movements shape public agendas.
{"title":"When the Far Right Makes the News: Protest Characteristics and Media Coverage of Far-Right Mobilization in Europe","authors":"Pietro Castelli Gattinara, Caterina Froio","doi":"10.1177/00104140231169029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169029","url":null,"abstract":"When do the media cover far-right protests? News coverage matters for the entrenchment of the far right in contemporary democracies, but little comparative research has looked at what drives news attention to far-right mobilization. We apply a classic input–output process model of news selection bias to test the hypothesis that the visibility of far-right protests events depends on the characteristics of protest initiators, type of action, and reactions. We appraise this via logistic regressions on an original dataset of 5972 protest events retrieved from online press releases by far-right groups (input) and national quality newspapers (output) in 11 European countries (2008–2018). The analysis confirms that news media are particularly responsive to contentious action, protest around migration issues, and action–reaction chains between political opponents. Our findings shed light on the role of news organizations in the success of the far-right and on the pathways by which these movements shape public agendas.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49409472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-06DOI: 10.1177/00104140231168361
Daniel Arnon, Pearce Edwards, Handi Li
Authoritarian regimes in the 21st century have increasingly turned to using information control rather than kinetic force to respond to threats to their rule. This paper studies an often overlooked type of information control: strategic labeling and public statements by regime sources in response to protests. Labeling protesters as violent criminals may increase support for repression by signaling that protests are illegitimate and deviant. Regime sources, compared to more independent sources, could increase support for repression even more when paired with such an accusatory label. Accommodative labels should have opposing effects—decreasing support for repression. The argument is tested with a survey experiment in China which labels environmental protests. Accusatory labels increase support for repression of protests. Regime sources, meanwhile, have no advantage over non-governmental sources in shifting opinion. The findings suggest that negative labels de-legitimize protesters and legitimize repression while the sources matter less in this contentious authoritarian context.
{"title":"Message or Messenger? Source and Labeling Effects in Authoritarian Response to Protest","authors":"Daniel Arnon, Pearce Edwards, Handi Li","doi":"10.1177/00104140231168361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231168361","url":null,"abstract":"Authoritarian regimes in the 21st century have increasingly turned to using information control rather than kinetic force to respond to threats to their rule. This paper studies an often overlooked type of information control: strategic labeling and public statements by regime sources in response to protests. Labeling protesters as violent criminals may increase support for repression by signaling that protests are illegitimate and deviant. Regime sources, compared to more independent sources, could increase support for repression even more when paired with such an accusatory label. Accommodative labels should have opposing effects—decreasing support for repression. The argument is tested with a survey experiment in China which labels environmental protests. Accusatory labels increase support for repression of protests. Regime sources, meanwhile, have no advantage over non-governmental sources in shifting opinion. The findings suggest that negative labels de-legitimize protesters and legitimize repression while the sources matter less in this contentious authoritarian context.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":"56 1","pages":"1891 - 1923"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44814672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-06DOI: 10.1177/00104140231169015
John K. Yasuda
Despite the marked transformation in E. Asia’s financial systems, regulators continue to employ hard paternalistic approaches to their stock markets that are viewed as counterproductive to their development. This article argues that the persistence of hard paternalistic regulatory practices can be explained by a regulatory vision—a common analytical framework to order complex uncertain environments that serve as regulatory first principles—centered on an irrational investor. A regulatory vision works alongside pressures emanating from foreign investment, state capitalism, and state-business relations. This understanding of investor rationality is in marked contrast to a liberal market variant, which emphasizes a rational investor, and thus provides a distinctive comparative lens to understand regulatory behavior in a moment of global financial hybridization. The study draws on over 90 elite interviews of senior regulators, stock exchange officers, and market practitioners conducted in China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, from 2015 to 2019.
{"title":"Regulatory Visions and the State in E. Asia: The Irrational Investor Problem in the Comparative Politics of Finance","authors":"John K. Yasuda","doi":"10.1177/00104140231169015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169015","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the marked transformation in E. Asia’s financial systems, regulators continue to employ hard paternalistic approaches to their stock markets that are viewed as counterproductive to their development. This article argues that the persistence of hard paternalistic regulatory practices can be explained by a regulatory vision—a common analytical framework to order complex uncertain environments that serve as regulatory first principles—centered on an irrational investor. A regulatory vision works alongside pressures emanating from foreign investment, state capitalism, and state-business relations. This understanding of investor rationality is in marked contrast to a liberal market variant, which emphasizes a rational investor, and thus provides a distinctive comparative lens to understand regulatory behavior in a moment of global financial hybridization. The study draws on over 90 elite interviews of senior regulators, stock exchange officers, and market practitioners conducted in China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, from 2015 to 2019.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49003056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-05DOI: 10.1177/00104140231168363
D. Treisman
Influential voices contend that democracy is in decline worldwide and threatened in the US. Using a variety of measures, I show that—while there has been some recent backsliding—the global proportion of democracies remains close to an all-time high. The current rate of deterioration is not historically unusual and is well explained by the lower income and unseasoned institutions of many new democracies swept upwards in the Third Wave. Historical data suggest the probability of democratic breakdown in the US is extremely low. Western governments are seen as threatened by weakening popular support for democracy and an erosion of elite norms. But systematic evidence for these claims is very limited. While eroding democratic quality in some countries is indeed a cause for concern, the fear of a global slide into autocracy appears premature.
{"title":"How Great is the Current Danger to Democracy? Assessing the Risk With Historical Data","authors":"D. Treisman","doi":"10.1177/00104140231168363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231168363","url":null,"abstract":"Influential voices contend that democracy is in decline worldwide and threatened in the US. Using a variety of measures, I show that—while there has been some recent backsliding—the global proportion of democracies remains close to an all-time high. The current rate of deterioration is not historically unusual and is well explained by the lower income and unseasoned institutions of many new democracies swept upwards in the Third Wave. Historical data suggest the probability of democratic breakdown in the US is extremely low. Western governments are seen as threatened by weakening popular support for democracy and an erosion of elite norms. But systematic evidence for these claims is very limited. While eroding democratic quality in some countries is indeed a cause for concern, the fear of a global slide into autocracy appears premature.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":"56 1","pages":"1924 - 1952"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45366778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-04DOI: 10.1177/00104140231168362
Gustavo Flores-Macías, Jessica Zarkin
What are the consequences of the militarization of public safety? Governments increasingly rely on militaries for policing, but the systematic study of this phenomenon’s consequences for human rights has been neglected. NGO and journalistic accounts point to widespread violations by the military, but these snapshots do not necessarily present evidence of systematic abuse. Based on unique data on military deployments and human rights complaints in Mexico, we conduct a systematic, country-wide study of the consequences of constabularization for human rights. Following matching and difference-in-difference strategies, we find that it leads to a 150% increase in complaints against federal security forces. We also leverage deployments for disaster-relief operations and complaints against non-security institutions to show that the increase is not due to underlying conditions or higher reporting in the military’s presence. The findings have important implications for our understanding of quality of democracy and the democratic ideals of civilian policing.
{"title":"The Consequences of Militarized Policing for Human Rights: Evidence from Mexico","authors":"Gustavo Flores-Macías, Jessica Zarkin","doi":"10.1177/00104140231168362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231168362","url":null,"abstract":"What are the consequences of the militarization of public safety? Governments increasingly rely on militaries for policing, but the systematic study of this phenomenon’s consequences for human rights has been neglected. NGO and journalistic accounts point to widespread violations by the military, but these snapshots do not necessarily present evidence of systematic abuse. Based on unique data on military deployments and human rights complaints in Mexico, we conduct a systematic, country-wide study of the consequences of constabularization for human rights. Following matching and difference-in-difference strategies, we find that it leads to a 150% increase in complaints against federal security forces. We also leverage deployments for disaster-relief operations and complaints against non-security institutions to show that the increase is not due to underlying conditions or higher reporting in the military’s presence. The findings have important implications for our understanding of quality of democracy and the democratic ideals of civilian policing.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46033248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-02DOI: 10.1177/00104140231169016
Virginia Oliveros, Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro, Matthew S. Winters
We examine a phenomenon we call “credit claiming by labeling” in which a sitting politician places her name on a project, program, or policy with the goal of claiming credit for it. While the prevalence of this practice suggests that many politicians believe that credit claiming by labeling will aid their careers, there is little existing evidence on this question. We examine the effects of credit claiming by labeling with a survey experiment in Argentina. We find that it has a negative, though small, effect on respondents’ attitudes. Descriptive data suggests that these results stem from the perceived pervasiveness of the practice. We then use evidence from an additional treatment on the (un)biased selection of program beneficiaries to show that respondents actually reward politicians who neither label nor manipulate programs. These results suggest substantial obstacles to overturning citizens’ negative baseline beliefs about the politicized implementation of government programs.
{"title":"Credit Claiming by Labeling","authors":"Virginia Oliveros, Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro, Matthew S. Winters","doi":"10.1177/00104140231169016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169016","url":null,"abstract":"We examine a phenomenon we call “credit claiming by labeling” in which a sitting politician places her name on a project, program, or policy with the goal of claiming credit for it. While the prevalence of this practice suggests that many politicians believe that credit claiming by labeling will aid their careers, there is little existing evidence on this question. We examine the effects of credit claiming by labeling with a survey experiment in Argentina. We find that it has a negative, though small, effect on respondents’ attitudes. Descriptive data suggests that these results stem from the perceived pervasiveness of the practice. We then use evidence from an additional treatment on the (un)biased selection of program beneficiaries to show that respondents actually reward politicians who neither label nor manipulate programs. These results suggest substantial obstacles to overturning citizens’ negative baseline beliefs about the politicized implementation of government programs.","PeriodicalId":10600,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Political Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48690588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：