One underplayed aspect of the current populist zeitgeist is the politicization of the military, adding to the growing list of dangers that democracies face today. Israel, which has experienced its own nationalistic populism since 2010, represents a deviant case with regard to the civil–military dimension. In contrast to the typical pattern of populist leaders enhancing the military's influence to bolster their own power, in Israel, populist politicians have sought to restrain the military top brass from the decision-making process, going as far as delegitimizing them by portraying them as part of the “leftist” out-of-touch elite. In a country in which the lines between the military and civilian spheres have traditionally been blurred and where security officials have played a significant role in decision-making, this has been a noteworthy development in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu. This article advances two causal claims pertaining to the Israeli case. First, perceived military setbacks and political-diplomatic moves associated with the military have diminished the once-hallowed reputation of the Israel Defense Forces. Second, right-wing politicians often view the military top brass as potential political rivals, given the standard practice in Israel of high-ranking generals entering politics upon retirement. The generals’ declining status in Israeli society has opened up the political space for populist nationalists to assault both active and retired security officials whose assessments often clash with the worldview of right-wing politicians.
{"title":"Civil-Military Relations in the Age of Populist Nationalism: The Case of Israel","authors":"Guy Ziv","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad121","url":null,"abstract":"One underplayed aspect of the current populist zeitgeist is the politicization of the military, adding to the growing list of dangers that democracies face today. Israel, which has experienced its own nationalistic populism since 2010, represents a deviant case with regard to the civil–military dimension. In contrast to the typical pattern of populist leaders enhancing the military's influence to bolster their own power, in Israel, populist politicians have sought to restrain the military top brass from the decision-making process, going as far as delegitimizing them by portraying them as part of the “leftist” out-of-touch elite. In a country in which the lines between the military and civilian spheres have traditionally been blurred and where security officials have played a significant role in decision-making, this has been a noteworthy development in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu. This article advances two causal claims pertaining to the Israeli case. First, perceived military setbacks and political-diplomatic moves associated with the military have diminished the once-hallowed reputation of the Israel Defense Forces. Second, right-wing politicians often view the military top brass as potential political rivals, given the standard practice in Israel of high-ranking generals entering politics upon retirement. The generals’ declining status in Israeli society has opened up the political space for populist nationalists to assault both active and retired security officials whose assessments often clash with the worldview of right-wing politicians.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139257644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In the wake of the Supreme Court's dismantling of affirmative action policies in higher education in its SFFA v. Harvard ruling, this review essay offers a detailed explication of the relevant themes Camille Z. Charles, Rory Kramer, Douglas Massey, and Kimberly C. Torres analyze in “Young, Gifted, and Diverse: Origins of the New Black Elite.” Taking DuBois's conceptualization of the “Talented Tenth” as their starting point, the authors present a combination of quantitative and qualitative research to examine the experiences and aspirations of Black students who matriculated to elite colleges over a decades-long period. This analysis expands Charles et al.'s intersecting themes of social mobility, colorism, and model minority discourses, situating them within a broader discursive field that includes the relevant historical and contemporary sociopolitical contexts as reflected in the Court's majority and dissenting opinions.
在最高法院在SFFA诉哈佛案中废除高等教育中的平权行动政策之后，这篇评论文章详细解释了Camille Z. Charles、Rory Kramer、Douglas Massey和Kimberly C. Torres在《年轻、有天赋和多样化:新黑人精英的起源》中分析的相关主题。以杜波依斯的“天才十分之一”的概念为出发点，作者提出了定量和定性研究的结合，以考察几十年来被精英大学录取的黑人学生的经历和愿望。这一分析扩展了Charles等人关于社会流动性、肤色主义和模范少数民族话语的交叉主题，将它们置于一个更广泛的话语领域，包括法院多数意见和反对意见中反映的相关历史和当代社会政治背景。
{"title":"The Talented Tenth Meets the Twenty-First Century: Young, Gifted and Diverse in the Post-Affirmative Action Era","authors":"Patricia G Davis","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad114","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the wake of the Supreme Court's dismantling of affirmative action policies in higher education in its SFFA v. Harvard ruling, this review essay offers a detailed explication of the relevant themes Camille Z. Charles, Rory Kramer, Douglas Massey, and Kimberly C. Torres analyze in “Young, Gifted, and Diverse: Origins of the New Black Elite.” Taking DuBois's conceptualization of the “Talented Tenth” as their starting point, the authors present a combination of quantitative and qualitative research to examine the experiences and aspirations of Black students who matriculated to elite colleges over a decades-long period. This analysis expands Charles et al.'s intersecting themes of social mobility, colorism, and model minority discourses, situating them within a broader discursive field that includes the relevant historical and contemporary sociopolitical contexts as reflected in the Court's majority and dissenting opinions.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135540771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Many people assume that Franco-American relations since 1776 have been far more harmonious than those of the United States’ relationship with Great Britain. After all, France fought on the side of the new aspiring republic in the American War of Independence against a colonial power. Although still a country ruled by a king, France itself became a republic shortly after the American Declaration of Independence was ratified. But in fact, France and the United States (and the colonies that preceded them) have often had poor relations. In his book Sister Republics: Security Relations between America and France, David Haglund asks why security relations between France and the United States been so fractious since the beginning of the American republic, and even well before it. He debunks the generally accepted mythology and its attendant symbology of two sister republics. The French-built and donated Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and the statue of General Lafayette on the Seine opposite the Quai d’Orsay in Paris are misleading. In truth any special relationship between France and the United States has been special on the whole in its lack of mutual liking, even respect. Haglund traces this difficult, even suboptimal, relationship over three centuries and shows how the weight of history still continues to upset Franco-American relations regularly.
许多人认为，自1776年以来，法美关系远比美英关系和谐。毕竟，在美国独立战争(American War of Independence)中，法国站在新成立的雄心勃勃的共和国一边，反对殖民主义列强。虽然法国仍然是一个由国王统治的国家，但在美国独立宣言被批准后不久，法国本身就成为了一个共和国。但事实上，法国和美国(以及他们之前的殖民地)的关系经常很差。在他的著作《姐妹共和国:美国和法国之间的安全关系》中，大卫·哈格伦德提出了一个问题:为什么自从美利坚共和国成立以来，甚至更早之前，法国和美国之间的安全关系就一直如此不稳定。他揭穿了普遍接受的神话及其伴随的两个姐妹共和国的象征。法国人建造并捐赠的纽约港自由女神像和巴黎奥赛码头对面塞纳河上的拉斐特将军雕像都是误导。事实上，法国和美国之间的任何特殊关系总体上都是特殊的，因为它缺乏相互喜欢，甚至是尊重。哈格伦德追溯了三个世纪以来这段艰难、甚至不理想的关系，并展示了历史的影响如何仍在定期扰乱法美关系。
{"title":"Why Has the Franco-American Security Relationship Been so Semi—Hostile for so Long?","authors":"Andrew J Williams","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad119","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many people assume that Franco-American relations since 1776 have been far more harmonious than those of the United States’ relationship with Great Britain. After all, France fought on the side of the new aspiring republic in the American War of Independence against a colonial power. Although still a country ruled by a king, France itself became a republic shortly after the American Declaration of Independence was ratified. But in fact, France and the United States (and the colonies that preceded them) have often had poor relations. In his book Sister Republics: Security Relations between America and France, David Haglund asks why security relations between France and the United States been so fractious since the beginning of the American republic, and even well before it. He debunks the generally accepted mythology and its attendant symbology of two sister republics. The French-built and donated Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and the statue of General Lafayette on the Seine opposite the Quai d’Orsay in Paris are misleading. In truth any special relationship between France and the United States has been special on the whole in its lack of mutual liking, even respect. Haglund traces this difficult, even suboptimal, relationship over three centuries and shows how the weight of history still continues to upset Franco-American relations regularly.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135723747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract How can historical perspective be brought to the quantitative social sciences? The question has proven immensely popular, but answers that deal squarely with historical context and narrative remain elusive. An important recent book by Gregory Wawro and Ira Katznelson—Time Counts—provides an important new direction and a kit of useable tools. Using Wawro and Katznelson's approach and methods puts social scientists in a better position to appreciate the historicity of their data and to avoid common errors in statistical execution and inference. Time Counts also raises questions every bit as vital as those it answers, especially when it comes to the boundaries between narrative and quantitative work. An important concern is that inference from a particular historical setting (or what I call a “regime”) cannot be reduced to a special case of inference from large-sample statistics. Historical judgment is at least partially incommensurable with the idea of probability, cases are often important precisely because they are not countable, and scientific rigor may demand avoiding quantification for part of the social scientist's approach.
{"title":"Just How Much of History Is Countable?","authors":"Daniel Carpenter","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad117","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How can historical perspective be brought to the quantitative social sciences? The question has proven immensely popular, but answers that deal squarely with historical context and narrative remain elusive. An important recent book by Gregory Wawro and Ira Katznelson—Time Counts—provides an important new direction and a kit of useable tools. Using Wawro and Katznelson's approach and methods puts social scientists in a better position to appreciate the historicity of their data and to avoid common errors in statistical execution and inference. Time Counts also raises questions every bit as vital as those it answers, especially when it comes to the boundaries between narrative and quantitative work. An important concern is that inference from a particular historical setting (or what I call a “regime”) cannot be reduced to a special case of inference from large-sample statistics. Historical judgment is at least partially incommensurable with the idea of probability, cases are often important precisely because they are not countable, and scientific rigor may demand avoiding quantification for part of the social scientist's approach.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135723746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Popular Politics and the Path to Durable Democracy makes a compelling case for the importance of well-organized and lengthy popular mobilization movements in contributing to lasting democracy. Through a mixed-methods approach, Mohammad Ali Kadivar draws a correlation between length of a mobilization and electoral democracy. However, his analysis is incomplete, and he fails to account for several important factors, most particularly the role of external actors in supporting (or harming) a democratic transition. And he fails to explain the large variance in his findings—why some of the most well-consolidated democracies lasting a half a century also have some of the shortest periods of mobilization, while some of the most repressive countries had lengthy mobilization periods leading up to their failed transitions.
{"title":"The Best Chance for Democratic Success: The Role of Well-Organized Actors and External Support","authors":"Sarah E Yerkes","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad111","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Popular Politics and the Path to Durable Democracy makes a compelling case for the importance of well-organized and lengthy popular mobilization movements in contributing to lasting democracy. Through a mixed-methods approach, Mohammad Ali Kadivar draws a correlation between length of a mobilization and electoral democracy. However, his analysis is incomplete, and he fails to account for several important factors, most particularly the role of external actors in supporting (or harming) a democratic transition. And he fails to explain the large variance in his findings—why some of the most well-consolidated democracies lasting a half a century also have some of the shortest periods of mobilization, while some of the most repressive countries had lengthy mobilization periods leading up to their failed transitions.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135874679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract How has the work of human rights organizations affected global politics? Do these practices achieve justice for those affected by human rights violations? Demands of Justice by Ann Marie Clark explores these questions using novel data from two prominent international nongovernmental organizations: Amnesty International and Oxfam. Her work expounds three effects of these organizations' work in infusing justice into the international system. First, this practice has expanded care and concern from a local level issue into a global neighborhood. Second, increasingly, human rights organizations appeal to growing international law and legal norms in their appeals, which aims to remedy injustice within the confines of practical limitations. Finally, those suffering from human rights violations place demands on nongovernmental organizations, which has changed the conceptualization of human rights beyond civil and political rights and toward broader questions of social justice. My review explores the impact of Clark's work on the field of human rights and recent concerns that human rights are under attack.
{"title":"Demands for Justice and Demands on Justice: Can Human Rights Practice Survive?","authors":"Marc S Polizzi","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad112","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How has the work of human rights organizations affected global politics? Do these practices achieve justice for those affected by human rights violations? Demands of Justice by Ann Marie Clark explores these questions using novel data from two prominent international nongovernmental organizations: Amnesty International and Oxfam. Her work expounds three effects of these organizations' work in infusing justice into the international system. First, this practice has expanded care and concern from a local level issue into a global neighborhood. Second, increasingly, human rights organizations appeal to growing international law and legal norms in their appeals, which aims to remedy injustice within the confines of practical limitations. Finally, those suffering from human rights violations place demands on nongovernmental organizations, which has changed the conceptualization of human rights beyond civil and political rights and toward broader questions of social justice. My review explores the impact of Clark's work on the field of human rights and recent concerns that human rights are under attack.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135455118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The relationship between capitalism and democracy has been a preoccupation of political science for at least half a century. It has appeared in different forms, but the basic question remains the same: can capitalism and democracy coexist? Through an analysis of post–World War I austerity policy, Clara Mattei's Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism puts the incompatibilities between the two on stark display. Mattei demonstrates that austerity is a not a neutral policy tool for economic management, as its supporters and critics assume. Rather, it is a mechanism of class control. This interpretation helps to make sense of austerity's apparent “failures.” By calling attention to the class character of economic policy in general, Capital Order suggests that political scientists revisit the notions of the structural dependence of the state on capital and class compromise. It also asks readers to take seriously the politically constructed nature of economics as a realm of action and thinking separate from politics. Through its implication of professional economists in an antidemocratic policy initiative, it also has uncomfortable implications for political science.
{"title":"Political Science and <i>The Capital Order</i>: A Review Essay","authors":"Nicholas Toloudis","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad113","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The relationship between capitalism and democracy has been a preoccupation of political science for at least half a century. It has appeared in different forms, but the basic question remains the same: can capitalism and democracy coexist? Through an analysis of post–World War I austerity policy, Clara Mattei's Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism puts the incompatibilities between the two on stark display. Mattei demonstrates that austerity is a not a neutral policy tool for economic management, as its supporters and critics assume. Rather, it is a mechanism of class control. This interpretation helps to make sense of austerity's apparent “failures.” By calling attention to the class character of economic policy in general, Capital Order suggests that political scientists revisit the notions of the structural dependence of the state on capital and class compromise. It also asks readers to take seriously the politically constructed nature of economics as a realm of action and thinking separate from politics. Through its implication of professional economists in an antidemocratic policy initiative, it also has uncomfortable implications for political science.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135455113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Conventional wisdom holds that local democracy is more responsive because it is closer to the people. Political science research suggests we should not be so optimistic. Scholars have long been studying American local governments, but, for a generation the field was relegated to the sidelines of political science. A new generation of scholars is bringing it back to the center, using an increasingly sophisticated set of research methods. Sarah Anzia has been a leader in this field rebirth, and her new book, Local Interests: Politics, Policy, and Interest Groups in U.S. City Governments, examines how local interests groups engage in local political decision-making, shaping electoral outcomes and policy. Her sharp, highly quantitative analysis identifies what factors make engagement and influence by local interest groups more likely. When read alongside classics in the literature as well as the new generation's emerging work, scholars and engaged practitioners alike can understand why the most optimistic views of local democratic action are unrealistic. Some of the same democratic shortcomings in representation and responsiveness that occur at the national level are also present in local politics. But the renewed interest in local analysis presents opportunities for scholars to learn from other fields and for local actors to build new organizations and institutions to increase the quality of local democracy in the United States. This essay assesses what is gained and lost in the quantitative rebirth of local politics analysis and how the field as a whole can continue to focus on the core issues of democracy, inequality, and public policy that will keep the field fresh and relevant.
{"title":"Who Governs Now?","authors":"Thomas Ogorzalek","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad120","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Conventional wisdom holds that local democracy is more responsive because it is closer to the people. Political science research suggests we should not be so optimistic. Scholars have long been studying American local governments, but, for a generation the field was relegated to the sidelines of political science. A new generation of scholars is bringing it back to the center, using an increasingly sophisticated set of research methods. Sarah Anzia has been a leader in this field rebirth, and her new book, Local Interests: Politics, Policy, and Interest Groups in U.S. City Governments, examines how local interests groups engage in local political decision-making, shaping electoral outcomes and policy. Her sharp, highly quantitative analysis identifies what factors make engagement and influence by local interest groups more likely. When read alongside classics in the literature as well as the new generation's emerging work, scholars and engaged practitioners alike can understand why the most optimistic views of local democratic action are unrealistic. Some of the same democratic shortcomings in representation and responsiveness that occur at the national level are also present in local politics. But the renewed interest in local analysis presents opportunities for scholars to learn from other fields and for local actors to build new organizations and institutions to increase the quality of local democracy in the United States. This essay assesses what is gained and lost in the quantitative rebirth of local politics analysis and how the field as a whole can continue to focus on the core issues of democracy, inequality, and public policy that will keep the field fresh and relevant.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135455872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract America before 1787: The Unraveling of a Colonial Regime, is the second volume in Jon Elster's trilogy analyzing the processes leading up to the American (1787) and French constitutions (1791). This article explores the toolbox the book provides for social scientists. Based on a study of the American case, the book examines the mental tendencies, mechanisms, and strategies useful for investigating other cases, such as interstate relations within federations or collective mobilization. Among the book's many themes, this article focuses on the tension between freedom of choice, fear, and constraint and the mechanisms by which such tension can be analyzed. Generally speaking, the book reflects a desire to unite history and psychology and is characterized by an original epistemology in the field of contemporary social sciences that cautions social scientists against the temptation to see intentions and strategies where there are none and to formulate predictions despite the indeterminate nature of social behavior. Additionally, in line with Elster's earlier work, the book emphasizes the role of emotions in beliefs and choices and offers tools for examining emotions.
{"title":"<i>America before 1787</i>: A Review Article","authors":"Stéphanie Novak","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad118","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract America before 1787: The Unraveling of a Colonial Regime, is the second volume in Jon Elster's trilogy analyzing the processes leading up to the American (1787) and French constitutions (1791). This article explores the toolbox the book provides for social scientists. Based on a study of the American case, the book examines the mental tendencies, mechanisms, and strategies useful for investigating other cases, such as interstate relations within federations or collective mobilization. Among the book's many themes, this article focuses on the tension between freedom of choice, fear, and constraint and the mechanisms by which such tension can be analyzed. Generally speaking, the book reflects a desire to unite history and psychology and is characterized by an original epistemology in the field of contemporary social sciences that cautions social scientists against the temptation to see intentions and strategies where there are none and to formulate predictions despite the indeterminate nature of social behavior. Additionally, in line with Elster's earlier work, the book emphasizes the role of emotions in beliefs and choices and offers tools for examining emotions.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135977246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Junyan Jiang's review essay of Dan Slater and Joseph Wong's From Development to Democracy: The Transformations of Modern Asia highlights the innovative and compelling aspects of the book but also raises some questions about the authors’ interpretations of the conditions, content, and consequences of elite-led democratization in East and Southeast Asia.
{"title":"Democracy Through Strength in Modern Asia: A Review Essay of Dan Slater and Joseph Wong's <i>From Development to Democracy</i>","authors":"Junyan Jiang","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad115","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Junyan Jiang's review essay of Dan Slater and Joseph Wong's From Development to Democracy: The Transformations of Modern Asia highlights the innovative and compelling aspects of the book but also raises some questions about the authors’ interpretations of the conditions, content, and consequences of elite-led democratization in East and Southeast Asia.","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135977251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"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：