Suchergebnisse

An introductory chapter notes that the volume grew out of a 2001 meeting of political scientists & sociologists held at the U of Maryland to assess the status & future potential of knowledge about mobilization & repression. Although there is a large body of literature dealing with these topics, attention has been imbalanced, & empirical results are extremely variable. A review of the literature on the impact of repressive behavior on protest highlights data sources & varied methodologies used for analyses. The complexity of the repression-mobilization nexus is pointed out & a model for effectively conceptualizing the relationship between dissidents & state authorities is presented. Attention is called to how the Maryland conference challenged & changed the understandings of participants & the fundamentally different model of state-dissident interactions that emerged from the research presented at the conference. The contributors to this volume analyze existing research & offer new insights. A synopsis of each chapter is included. 2 Figures, 83 References. J. Lindroth

An introductory chapter notes that the volume grew out of a 2001 meeting of political scientists & sociologists held at the U of Maryland to assess the status & future potential of knowledge about mobilization & repression. Although there is a large body of literature dealing with these topics, attention has been imbalanced, & empirical results are extremely variable. A review of the literature on the impact of repressive behavior on protest highlights data sources & varied methodologies used for analyses. The complexity of the repression-mobilization nexus is pointed out & a model for effectively conceptualizing the relationship between dissidents & state authorities is presented. Attention is called to how the Maryland conference challenged & changed the understandings of participants & the fundamentally different model of state-dissident interactions that emerged from the research presented at the conference. The contributors to this volume analyze existing research & offer new insights. A synopsis of each chapter is included. 2 Figures, 83 References. J. Lindroth

Autocratization is expected to worsen human rights conditions; democratization is frequently heralded as a means for improving them. Unfortunately, neither relationship has been subjected to empirical investigation. The causal linkage between regime change and state repression is examined in the current study with a pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis of 137 countries from 1950 to 1982 ( N=4,521). Four aspects of change are considered: (1) direction, (2) magnitude, (3) "smoothness" of the transition, and (4) duration of time at particular regime types. The results support the anticipated escalatory effect of autocratization for the magnitude variable, revealing influences that persist for 4 years. Additionally, there is support for the pacifying effect of democratization with regard to magnitude for the same 4-year time period. Direction, smoothness, and duration are found to be unimportant, but regime change does matter.

Some authors have suggested that national elections increase respect for citizens' political & civil rights, while others contend that they decrease rights, & still others argue that they have no effect at all. Here, pooled cross-sectional time-series data on 49 countries, 1948-1982 (total N = 1,715 elections) show that national elections diminish restrictions placed on the mass media, individuals, & groups. Results hold while controlling for system type, conflict, economic development, dependency, & lagged repression. It is concluded that while national elections decrease repression, & thus should be actively pursued by those who wish to increase the respect for political & civil rights, additional research is still necessary. 3 Tables, 114 References. Adapted from the source document.