Suchergebnisse

Recent research concludes fighting or losing an interstate war is not costlier for democratic leaders than dictators, which implies most of our institutional explanations for differences in conflict behavior across regime type rest on empirically tenuous assumptions. I argue military mobilization, a fundamental but often overlooked aspect of war, should be costlier for democrats than dictators. Waging interstate war is associated with higher military spending and, often, lower social spending. Variation across regime type in the representation of the general public, civilian elite, and military in leaders' winning coalitions should make democrats more likely than dictators to lose power given wartime patterns of government spending. This argument finds support during the period from 1950 to 2001. My findings provide microfoundations for a number of existing empirical results and suggest that differences in the conflict behavior of democracies and dictatorships should be largest when waging war requires a significant mobilization effort.

The last decade has seen the growth of extreme right movements throughout the western world, yet how should democracies react to the challenge that they pose?

Der Beitrag versucht die fiskalische Nachhaltigkeitsbilanz demokratisch sowie autokratisch verfasster Staaten anhand unterschiedlicher Performanzindikatoren (Kreditwürdigkeit, Zahlungsausfälle, Staatsverschuldung, Auslandsvermögen) zu erfassen und darüber hinaus zu klären, inwieweit die Regimetypausprägung einen Einfluss auf die Konsolidierungsanstrengungen in einem Land hat. Die Untersuchung fördert dabei zwei Kernerkenntnisse zu Tage. Während es den Demokratien in der Vergangenheit deutlich besser als ihren autokratischen Pendants gelungen ist, ihre Kredit- und Zahlungsfähigkeit aufrecht zu erhalten und Staatsinsolvenzen zu vermeiden, lässt sich ein ähnlicher Demokratievorteil im Hinblick auf die Verringerung der Staats- und Auslandsverschuldung nicht feststellen. Warum sich Demokratien, trotz vorhandener gemeinwohlsensitiver institutioneller und prozessualer Arrangements, schwer damit tun, eine Lastenverschiebung auf zukünftige Generationen zu vermeiden, Sparanstrengungen zu unternehmen und in ausreichendem Maße finanziell vorzusorgen, kann dabei im Kern als Kehrseite einer stark gegenwartslastigen Interessenorientierung interpretiert werden, welche durch einen kurzen "demokratiespezifischen Zeittakt" noch zusätzlich befördert wird.

"Global business leader Mathias Döpfner offers a revolutionary roadmap to reshape global trade, strengthen our democracy, and safeguard our freedoms. Freedom is on the decline around the world. Autocrats in Europe, Asia, and the Mideast are undermining our open societies, human rights, and the rule of law. The Russian invasion in Ukraine was a wake-up call for the West, but the biggest threat remains China. For two generations, Americans and Europeans have believed that change will come through trade, but instead of dictatorships becoming more like Western democracies, unfettered free trade has strengthened our enemies and undermined our countries. We are caught in a trade trap, faced with the decision to choose either opportunism and submission or opposition and emancipation. In The Trade Trap, one of the world's most powerful business leaders traces the rise and costs of Western dependency on China and Russia. And he suggests a radical new approach to free trade: The establishment of a new values-based alliance of democracies. Membership is based on the adherence of three very simple criteria: the rule of law, human rights, and sustainability targets. Countries that comply with these criteria can engage in tariff-free trade with others. Those who don't will pay prohibitive tariffs. Sharing the author's encounters with major global figures including Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, George W. Bush, Angela Merkel, Jack Ma, and more, The Trade Trap offers personal insight into the dangerous consequences of doing business with autocrats along with a bold proposal for a values-based trade policy."

AbstractOver the past couple of years, our knowledge about diffusion processes has increased greatly. So far, the focus has been on public policies, political institutions, and civil society repertories. Our paper breaks new ground by exploring value diffusion at the societal level. Using the World Values Survey data, we are interested in the diffusion of emancipative values in different regime types, building a bridge between research on the micro foundations and macro political expressions of democratization and political regimes. In particular, we wish to understand whether the psychological bedrock of a pro‐democratic mass culture – emancipative values – is diffusing between countries and, if yes, to what extent this diffusion is limited to democracies or also makes inroads into autocratically governed societies.

This study enriches and updates the theoretical debate on party change with detailed empirical research on Portuguese political parties. By examining the evolution of political parties in this recent democracy, this work raises new points about party transformations and provides insights relevant to all scholars of the political process.

Democracy is conceptualized and practiced differently in different times and places; and may exist in various forms and levels with various degrees and dimensions. Therefore the use of the word "democracy" occurs neither alone, nor steadily, nor completely; it is, "historically" and "ethnographically emergent". Following an extensive review, the paper concludes that democracy (ideals, institutions and practices) is depended upon effective state vis-à-vis strong civil society. Effectiveness of the state and the strength of the civil society, both depend on a common denominator, that is, participation. This paper, excavates some of the traces of, what we may like to refer today as democracy, in our own historical context; and, portrays how the meaning of democracy shifting along with the shifting of the local terms for democracy. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v7i0.10440 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 7, 2013; 133-156

This book presents a new theory for why political regimes emerge, and why they subsequently survive or break down. It then analyzes the emergence, survival and fall of democracies and dictatorships in Latin America since 1900. Scott Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán argue for a theoretical approach situated between long-term structural and cultural explanations and short-term explanations that look at the decisions of specific leaders. They focus on the political preferences of powerful actors - the degree to which they embrace democracy as an intrinsically desirable end and their policy radicalism - to explain regime outcomes. They also demonstrate that transnational forces and influences are crucial to understand regional waves of democratization. Based on extensive research into the political histories of all twenty Latin American countries, this book offers the first extended analysis of regime emergence, survival and failure for all of Latin America over a long period of time

The paper examines the compatibility problems between democracy and religion. Problems of special importance when a strict idea of religion arises, with a strong sense of good and a strategy of particular foundation, when democracy is understood as deliberative democracy associated to an ideal of standard correction, an idea sometimes called republican democracy. If religion is understood as a private club its problems are diminished, away from an idea of good claiming its validity, or when democracy is strictly meant in a liberal sense, as a selection system of political elites. ; En este trabajo se examinan los problemas de compatibilidad entre democracia y religión. Los problemas son especialmente importantes cuando la idea de religión es exigente, esto es, cuando contempla una idea fuerte de bien y una estrategia de fundamentación particular, y cuando la democracia se entiende como democracia deliberativa, asociada a un ideal de corrección normativa, una idea de democracia que algunos califican como democracia republicana. Los problemas disminuyen cuando la religión se entiende como un club privado, alejada de una idea de bien con pretensiones de validez, o cuando la democracia se entiende en sentido austeramente liberal, como un sistema de selección de élites políticas.

En este trabajo se examinan los problemas de compatibilidad entre democracia y religión. Los problemas son especialmente importantes cuando la idea de religión es exigente, esto es, cuando contempla una idea fuerte de bien y una estrategia de fundamentación particular, y cuando la democracia se entiende como democracia deliberativa, asociada a un ideal de corrección normativa, una idea de democracia que algunos califican como democracia republicana. Los problemas disminuyen cuando la religión se entiende como un club privado, alejada de una idea de bien con pretensiones de validez, o cuando la democracia se entiende en sentido austeramente liberal, como un sistema de selección de élites políticas. ; The paper examines the compatibility problems between democracy and religion. Problems of special importance when a strict idea of religion arises, with a strong sense of good and a strategy of particular foundation, when democracy is understood as deliberative democracy associated to an ideal of standard correction, an idea sometimes called republican democracy. If religion is understood as a private club its problems are diminished, away from an idea of good claiming its validity, or when democracy is strictly meant in a liberal sense, as a selection system of political elites. ; La investigación para este trabajo se ha beneficiado de una ayuda del Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad al Proyecto de investigación: «La calidad de la democracia: una perspectiva normativa» (SO2008-06525-C02-02).