Suchergebnisse

The origins of fascism remain a major concern to social scientists. Because fascism emerged in societies seeking transitions to democracy, a better understanding of these failed attempts at democratic transitions improves our understanding of both democracy's possibilities and the strengths and weakness of democratic theory. Indeed, theoretical arguments employed to explain fascism have their analogues in theories of democracy. Three arguments have been advanced to explain both democracy and fascism: class, civil society, and rational choice. This research examines the rise of fascism in Italy, 1919-21. The evidence contradicts the class theory of fascism and offers mixed evidence for the civil society theory, while supporting the rational choice theory. (American Political Science Review / FUB)

Between 1987 and 1996, the Italian party system experienced a major realignment. The political alternatives that dominated the postwar period dissolved, and new party and voter alignments emerged. This analysis employs a recently compiled data archive and a new ecological inference technique to examine voter transitions during the period. The disintegration of the ruling party coalition and the appearance of new party alternatives from the center of the analysis. The research highlights the importance of nonvoters, a relatively recent phenomenon in Italian elections, as a precursor of pending party change as well as holding the key to a resolution of the current flux. The new ecological analysis technique generates more robust results than previous techniques and also avoids the pitfalls of survey research.

Abstract. Four sources of variance are examined in the construction of ecological models of electoral behaviour: aggregation bias, contextual effects, temporal and spatial diffusion. The proper specification of both micro‐ and macro‐models of political behaviour requires these four sources of variance to be taken into account. Ecological analysis may make valid inferences to individual behaviour once the models are properly specified. Electoral data for Britain between 1955 and October 1974 are used to test a series of structural equation models specifying developmental relationships between class and electoral behaviour and taking into account the four potential sources of bias.

Electoral data for GB 1955-1974 are drawn on to explore the limitations of aggregate data & to test structural equation models that specify developmental relationships between class & electoral behavior. Particular focus is on four sources of variance in the construction of both micro- & macrolevel ecological models: aggregation bias, contextual effects, & temporal & spatial diffusion. It is argued that several perceived limitations with regard to aggregate data have been overcome, & that the remaining limitations are largely related to data collection, rather than being inherent. Macrolevel analysis can use aggregate data to examine contextual effects; it may generate "aggregation gain" when a properly specified macromodel mitigates the effects of an improperly specified micromodel; & it proves indispensable for historical research prior to survey analysis. It is contended that even the best aggregate data cannot generate the subtleties of survey analysis in the absence of appropriate variables. 1 Table, 60 References. S. Millett

Abstract:Market models of politics are derived from economic theory where they were advanced in an age of political corruption to achieve four objectives: discipline, universality, liberty and unity in society; only later were such models imported into political discourse. The most pure form of the market model of politics is found in the vote maximization model; yet as a model for political parties and elections, the realism of its assumptions often is held inadequate. While more realistic assumptions generate the vote production model of party strategy, this model rapidly degenerates into the lazy monopolist model which contradicts the role of parties in democracy. The origins of these problems lie in the contradictions within the market ordering principle. Despite these underlying contradictions, market models of politics and parties have gained increasing acceptance both among intellectuals and the general public with numerous implications for the politics of liberal democracies.

The research examines the relationship between class behavior and agrarian capitalism. Agrarian capitalism is a mode of production in which the forms of production vary according to the internal distribution of property rights and market involvement. Property rights are defined as appropriated advantages to dispose of valued goods for gain: land, labor, capital goods, the technology of husbandry and the enterprise produce. Bundles of these rights define enterprise types. Two general hypotheses are tested: the greater the engagement of the enterprise in the market, the greater the potential for political activity: the greater the alienation of property rights from the cultivator/worker, the more likely the commitment to redistributive politics. Additional hypotheses are tested by Latent Variable Path Analysis with data from Argentina between 1908 and 1946.

The research investigates substantive and methodological concerns in comparative research, particularly the confounding influences of within-system developmental or causal dynamics, across-time or within-system diffusion, and across-system or spatial diffusion. The article argues that extra-system influences represent a special case of the unmeasured relevant variable problem resulting in model specification error and that proper model specification can mitigate the problem. Structural equation modeling is advocated as a significant advance in such specifications. The argument is elaborated with time-series data on Argentina from 1908 to 1946 to test the developmental relationship between industrialization and political behavior.

The essay reviews developments of the Core-Periphery paradigm. Two variants of the paradigm are isolated: the neoclassical model and neo-Marxian model. Both variants define core-periphery relations by three features: characteristics distinguishing core from periphery, the goods exchanged, and the pattern of core-periphery relations. The models differ in their analyses and assumptions derived from neoclassical and neo-Marxian economic theories. An examination of these assumptions reveals some strengths and weaknesses of each. Recent contributions to both variants seek to overcome previous criticisms, but largely fail.