Article
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

This research note introduces the new Democratization Articles Dataset, a survey of peer-reviewed articles on democratization published over the past 25 years from five of the leading comparative politics journals. The data highlight significant gender and location authorship imbalances, while also noting a steady increase in the proportion of female authors as well as team collaboration over the past 25 years. Democratization studies also appear to be largely event driven, with more attention paid to the Post-Soviet countries and democratic transitions in the 1990s, and increased attention to MENA countries and the study of authoritarianism since 2000. The field is also evolving methodologically, with a greater proportion of articles investigating a causal claim, relying on statistical and experimental techniques, and detailing sample selection criteria. Yet, single and comparative cases studies still compose the overwhelming majority of published research articles.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Other journals with a focus on issues relating to democratic and non-democratic political regimes show a similar development. 5 This special issue of Democratization focuses on democratic regressions and democratic resilience in Asia-Pacificbroadly defined as substantial decline in the democratic quality of political institutions processes in a given democracy and the capacity of a democratic system to prevent or recover from such a downward trend. 6 It seeks to improve our understanding of the sources and consequences of democratic regression and democratic resilience in a region that has received disproportionally little attention in recent scholarly debates, despite its crucial importance both for the future of democracy and its global contestation with autocracy in the twenty-first century. ...
... Why do democratic recessions in Asia-Pacific stop before democracy breaks down, whereas similar development elsewhere have led to collapse of democratic political systems? (5) What are the consequences of democratic backsliding for cooperation, security and stability in Asia-Pacific? In particular, what is the role of regional great powers such as China and Indonesia in promoting autocratization or defending democracy regionally? ...
Article
Full-text available
Given Asia-Pacific’s diversity and the large variance of potentially relevant causal factors, the region presents social scientists with a natural laboratory to test competing theories of democratic erosion, decay and revival and to identify new patterns and relationships. This introductory article offers a brief review of the relevant literature and introduces the different categories of analysis that build the analytical framework considered in various forms in the special issue. The article discusses the reasons for the renewed pessimism in democratization and democracy studies and provides a survey of different conceptualizations intended to capture forms of democratic regression and the autocratization concept to which the contributors to this special issue adhere. We discuss how Asia-Pacific experiences fit into the debate about democracy’s deepening global recession and examine assumptions about the causes, catalysts and consequences of democratic regression and resilience in the comparative politics literature. Finally, the remaining twelve articles of this special issue will be introduced.
... Bibliometric analyses have been conducted to analyze the influence of scholars and their publications, to explore publication trends, or to study collaboration patterns and citation networks in political science in general and its various sub-fields (Fisher et al. 1998;Pehl 2012;Metz and Jäckle 2017;Goyal and Howlett 2018;Pelke and Friesen 2019). The statistical analysis of publication data enables researchers to systematically examine a large number of publications and to identify strategic and thematic changes in a research field over time. ...
... Only 8 percent of the articles in TALD2 are written by three or more authors. This is not untypical in political science literature, with similar numbers being observable in various sub-fields and countries (Arzheimer and Schoen 2009;Cancela, Coelho, and Ruivo 2014;Leifeld and Ingold 2016;Pelke and Friesen 2019). The analysis of the author's gender clearly shows that autonomy research is a maledominated research field, with 68 percent of first authors and 75 percent of second authors being male. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research on territorial autonomy has gained new impetus in recent years. This research note presents a first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of autonomy studies. It introduces the Territorial Autonomy Literature Datasets (TALD), surveys of over 800 peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed articles published between 1945 and 2018. The study reveals significant imbalances in gender and origin of authors, methodological approaches and studied cases. While the data shows some trend towards greater diversity and team collaboration, we observe that autonomy research is still dominated by male and Western-based scholars, and by single-authored small-n studies on sub-national regions in Europe and post-Soviet Eurasia. Thematically, the analysis shows that researchers almost exclusively study autonomous regions in the context of conflict regulation and minority accommodation.
... Second, edited volumes are challenging when it comes to data extraction, given that each chapter has different methods (quantitative versus qualitative) and sometimes reaches contradictory findings. This is also in line with recent reviews such as Pelke and Friesen's (2019) review that only focuses on articles. 7 Whether the European Union is actually a consociational system is disputed (Bogaards and Crepaz 2002). ...
Article
Full-text available
The power-sharing literature lacks a review that synthesizes its findings, despite spanning over 50 years since Arend Lijphart published his seminal 1969 article ‘Consociational Democracy’. This review article contributes to the literature by introducing and analysing an original dataset, the Power Sharing Articles Dataset, which extracts data on 23 variables from 373 academic articles published between 1969 and 2018. The power-sharing literature, our analysis shows, has witnessed a boom in publications in the last two decades, more than the average publication rate in the social sciences. This review offers a synthesis of how power sharing is theorized, operationalized and studied. We demonstrate that power sharing has generally positive effects, regardless of institutional set-up, post-conflict transitional character and world region. Furthermore, we highlight structural factors that are mostly associated with the success of power sharing. Finally, the review develops a research agenda to guide future scholarly work on power sharing.
Article
We examine publications on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in nine leading political science journals across three decades (1990–2019) to evaluate the scope of political science engagement with the region since the 1990s and analyze trends in research interests, developments in the use of empirical methods, and authorship patterns. Our data highlight significant gaps in the geographic and substantive scope of extant scholarship. Specifically, the disproportionate focus on non-Arab countries and limited engagement with certain topics, including identity, nationalism, and state formation, raise concerns about selection bias and causal misidentification. Nevertheless, we find encouraging trends with respect to methodological developments; however, the methods and data sources employed appear to be determined by case selection to some extent. We also note that few MENA-based scholars currently publish in these journals. These findings have important implications for the integration of MENA studies with and knowledge production in political science.
Article
We describe and analyze patterns in the geographical focus of political science research across more than a century. Using a new database of titles and abstracts from 27,690 publications in eight major political science journals from their inception, we demonstrate that, historically, political scientists concentrated their studies on a limited number of countries situated in North America and Western Europe. While a strong focus on Western countries remains today, we detail how this picture has changed somewhat over recent decades, with political science research becoming increasingly “globalized.” Still, several countries have received almost no attention, and geographical citation patterns differ by subfield. For example, we find indications of a greater focus on the United States and large Western European countries in international relations than in comparative politics publications. We also analyze several correlates of a country being the focus of political science research, including the country’s predominant languages, income, population size, democracy level, and conflict experience, and show systematic variation in the geographical focus of research. This unequal focus, we argue, has important implications regarding the applicability of extant descriptive and causal claims, as well as the development of theories in political science.
Article
Full-text available
Empirical research on democratization is dominated by case studies and small-N comparisons. This article is a first attempt to take stock of qualitative case-based research on democratization. It finds that most articles use methods implicitly rather than explicitly and are disconnected from the burgeoning literature on case-based methodology. This makes it difficult to summarize the substantive findings or to evaluate the contributions of the various approaches to our knowledge of democratic transition and consolidation. There is much to gain from a closer collaboration between methods experts and empirical researchers of democratization.
Article
Full-text available
This research note introduces the new Democratization Articles Dataset, a survey of peer-reviewed articles on democratization published over the past 25 years from five of the leading comparative politics journals. The data highlight significant gender and location authorship imbalances, while also noting a steady increase in the proportion of female authors as well as team collaboration over the past 25 years. Democratization studies also appear to be largely event driven, with more attention paid to the Post-Soviet countries and democratic transitions in the 1990s, and increased attention to MENA countries and the study of authoritarianism since 2000. The field is also evolving methodologically, with a greater proportion of articles investigating a causal claim, relying on statistical and experimental techniques, and detailing sample selection criteria. Yet, single and comparative cases studies still compose the overwhelming majority of published research articles.
Article
Full-text available
This article explores publication patterns across 10 prominent political science journals, documenting a significant gender gap in publication rates for men and women. We present three broad findings. First , we find no evidence that the low percentage of female authors simply mirrors an overall low share of women in the profession. Instead, we find continued underrepresentation of women in many of the discipline’s top journals. Second , we find that women are not benefiting equally in a broad trend across the discipline toward coauthorship. Most published collaborative research in these journals emerges from all-male teams. Third , it appears that the methodological proclivities of the top journals do not fully reflect the kind of work that female scholars are more likely than men to publish in these journals. The underrepresentation of qualitative work in many journals is associated as well with an underrepresentation of female authors.
Article
Full-text available
From Aristotle to Acemoglu and Robinson, scholars have argued that democracy possesses powerful redistributive impulses, and imperils itself accordingly. We challenge the validity of the redistributive model of democratic breakdown in the postcolonial world—the only cases where democracies have collapsed since World War II—because its assumptions regarding state power are questionable or even inapplicable in postcolonial settings. Our correlative analysis of cross-sectional time series data from 139 countries between 1972 and 2007 indicates that, contrary to the expectations of the redistributive model, redistributive taxation is negatively associated with the incidence of military coups and the likelihood of democratic breakdown. Furthermore, authoritarian takeovers do not appear systematically to result in reduced redistribution from the rich. More fine-grained historical evidence from Southeast Asia—a region where the redistributive model should be especially likely to hold true—further affirms that authoritarian seizures of power are neither inspired by successful redistributive policies nor followed by their reversal. Taken together, these quantitative and qualitative data offer significant support for our central theoretical claim: contemporary democratic breakdowns have political origins in weak states, not economic origins in class conflict.
Article
Full-text available
This article contributes to ongoing debates about the direction of comparative politics through an analysis of new data on the scope, objectives, and methods of research in the field. The results of the analysis are as follows. Comparative politics is a rich and diverse field that cannot be accurately characterized on the basis of just one dimension or even summarized in simple terms. In turn, the tendency to frame choices about the direction of the field in terms of a stark alternative between an old area studies approach and a new economic approach relies on largely unsupported assumptions. It is therefore advisable to focus on problematic methodological practices that, as this study shows, are widespread in comparative research and thus pose serious impediments to the production of knowledge.
Article
Full-text available
Who publishes in the discipline's leading journals is a matter of intrinsic interest to political scientists. Indeed, any discipline is first and foremost about the people who practice it. A focus on who publishes also raises important questions concerning the relationship between the characteristics of authors, such as their gender, seniority, institutional affiliation, and nationality, and the knowledge they produce. Is who publishes associated with what is published? Moreover, publications in leading journals are an important marker of professional status and a key conduit for the diffusion of ideas. This points to a further question: Do the top journals differ in terms of the authors and research they publish?
Article
Full-text available
The quantitative study of comparative politics is often described as a data driven enterprise. Employing an original dataset of comparative politics articles published in leading academic journals between 1989 and 2007, this article offers the first empirical analysis of data usage in comparative research. Tracing potential biases induced by data dependence, it assesses the structure of quantitative comparative research (by year, research design, geographic focus, and subject area), the use of country-specific and region-specific datasets, the introduction of original data, and the degree of concentration in data usage. Its empirical findings question cherished assumptions about the structure of the discipline.
Article
Full-text available
The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive “cross-cultural” communication in political science.
Article
Introduction to Gender in the Journals, Continued: Evidence from Five Political Science Journals - Nadia E. Brown, David Samuels
Article
In their 2012 publication A Tale of Two Cultures, Gary Goertz and James Mahoney argue that empirical research in the social sciences aiming at causal inference can be differentiated into a qualitative and a quantitative methodological culture. The two cultures differ fundamentally in how researchers approach and implement empirical studies. The argument is well laid out and comprehensively illustrated, but the empirical validity of the two cultures hypothesis has not yet been evaluated systematically. This note introduces a research project that aims to test the two cultures hypothesis via an empirical analysis of how qualitative and quantitative methods are applied. To determine whether there is a qualitative and quantitative method culture, the researchers initially sampled 30 articles from three journals (Comparative Political Studies, European Journal of Political Research, World Politics) in the 2008–2012 period. Based on this dataset, no evidence was found for the existence of coherent systems of methods practices in political science.
Article
Far from sweeping the globe uniformly, the “third wave of democratization” left burgeoning republics and resilient dictatorships in its wake. Applying more than a year of original fieldwork in Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, and the Philippines, Jason Brownlee shows that the mixed record of recent democratization is best deciphered through a historical and institutional approach to authoritarian rule. Exposing the internal organizations that structure elite conflict, Brownlee demonstrates why the critical soft-liners needed for democratic transitions have been dormant in Egypt and Malaysia but outspoken in Iran and the Philippines. By establishing how ruling parties originated and why they impede change, Brownlee illuminates the problem of contemporary authoritarianism and informs the promotion of durable democracy.
Article
Democratic backsliding (meaning the state-led debilitation or elimination of the political institutions sustaining an existing democracy) has changed dramatically since the Cold War. Open-ended coups d’état, executive coups, and blatant election-day vote fraud are declining while promissory coups, executive aggrandizement and strategic electoral manipulation and harassment are increasing. Contemporary forms of backsliding are especially vexing because they are legitimated by the very institutions democracy promoters prioritize but, overall, backsliding today reflects democracy’s advance and not its retreat. The current mix of backsliding is more easily reversible than the past mix and successor dictatorships are shorter-lived and less authoritarian.
Article
Often dismissed as window-dressing, nominally democratic institutions, such as legislatures and political parties, play an important role in non-democratic regimes. In a comprehensive cross-national study of all non-democratic states from 1946 to 2002 that examines the political uses of these institutions by dictators, Gandhi finds that legislative and partisan institutions are an important component in the operation and survival of authoritarian regimes. She examines how and why these institutions are useful to dictatorships in maintaining power, analyzing the way dictators utilize institutions as a forum in which to organize political concessions to potential opposition in an effort to neutralize threats to their power and to solicit cooperation from groups outside of the ruling elite. The use of legislatures and parties to co-opt opposition results in significant institutional effects on policies and outcomes under dictatorship.
Article
Some in the social sciences argue that the same logic applies to both qualitative and quantitative methods. In A Tale of Two Cultures, Gary Goertz and James Mahoney demonstrate that these two paradigms constitute different cultures, each internally coherent yet marked by contrasting norms, practices, and toolkits. They identify and discuss major differences between these two traditions that touch nearly every aspect of social science research, including design, goals, causal effects and models, concepts and measurement, data analysis, and case selection. Although focused on the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, Goertz and Mahoney also seek to promote toleration, exchange, and learning by enabling scholars to think beyond their own culture and see an alternative scientific worldview. This book is written in an easily accessible style and features a host of real-world examples to illustrate methodological points.
Book
Employing analytical tools borrowed from game theory, Carles Boix offers a complete theory of political transitions. It is one in which political regimes ultimately depend on the nature of economic assets, their distribution among individuals, and the balance of power among different social groups. Backed by detailed historical research and extensive statistical analysis from the mid-nineteenth century, the study reveals why democracy emerged in classical Athens. It also covers the early triumph of democracy in nineteenth-century agrarian Norway, Switzerland and northeastern America as well as its failure in countries with a powerful landowning class.
Article
The study of authoritarian regimes has become one of the hottest subfields in comparative politics over the last decade. The books covered in this review take up the critical questions of how authoritarian regimes are created and maintained. While this research program has profitably opened up the black box of authoritarian polities and taken their institutions seriously, there has been an asymmetric attention to the quasi-democratic features of these regimes—such as political parties and legislatures—at the expense of their coercive ones. Future work in this area would do well to address this imbalance, as well as to provide richer explanations of how institutions matter and better evidence of their effects.
Article
From Aristotle to Acemoglu and Robinson, scholars have argued that democracypossesses powerful redistributive impulses, and imperils itself accordingly. But is it truethat “the main threat against democracy comes from its redistributive nature,” because itinduces wealthy elites to enlist the support of the military in overturning redistributivepolicies? This article challenges the applicability of the redistributive model to thepostcolonial world – i.e. the only cases where democracies have collapsed since WorldWar II – because it rests upon faulty assumptions regarding the character of postcolonialstate power. We amass significant quantitative and qualitative evidence that defies theleading economic explanation for democratic breakdown, while affirming the strongsignificance of capable states for democratic survival.
Article
Journal of Democracy 13.1 (2002) 5-21 In the last quarter of the twentieth century, trends in seven different regions converged to change the political landscape of the world: 1) the fall of right-wing authoritarian regimes in Southern Europe in the mid-1970s; 2) the replacement of military dictatorships by elected civilian governments across Latin America from the late 1970s through the late 1980s; 3) the decline of authoritarian rule in parts of East and South Asia starting in the mid-1980s; 4) the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s; 5) the breakup of the Soviet Union and the establishment of 15 post-Soviet republics in 1991; 6) the decline of one-party regimes in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa in the first half of the 1990s; and 7) a weak but recognizable liberalizing trend in some Middle Eastern countries in the 1990s. The causes, shape, and pace of these different trends varied con-siderably. But they shared a dominant characteristic -- simultaneous movement in at least several countries in each region away from dic-tatorial rule toward more liberal and often more democratic governance. And though differing in many ways, these trends influenced and to some extent built on one another. As a result, they were considered by many observers, especially in the West, as component parts of a larger whole, a global democratic trend that thanks to Samuel Huntington has widely come to be known as the "third wave" of democracy. This striking tide of political change was seized upon with enthusiasm by the U.S. government and the broader U.S. foreign policy community. As early as the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of State George Shultz, and other high-level U.S. officials were referring regularly to "the worldwide democratic revolution." During the 1980s, an active array of governmental, quasi-governmental, and nongovernmental organizations devoted to promoting democracy abroad sprang into being. This new democracy-promotion community had a pressing need for an analytic framework to conceptualize and respond to the ongoing political events. Confronted with the initial parts of the third wave -- democ-ratization in Southern Europe, Latin America, and a few countries in Asia (especially the Philippines)--the U.S. democracy community rapid-ly embraced an analytic model of democratic transition. It was derived principally from their own interpretation of the patterns of democratic change taking place, but also to a lesser extent from the early works of the emergent academic field of "transitology," above all the seminal work of Guillermo O'Donnell and Philippe Schmitter. As the third wave spread to Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere in the 1990s, democracy promoters extended this model as a universal paradigm for understanding democ-ratization. It became ubiquitous in U.S. policy circles as a way of talking about, thinking about, and designing interventions in processes of political change around the world. And it stayed remarkably constant despite many variations in those patterns of political change and a stream of increasingly diverse scholarly views about the course and nature of democratic transitions. The transition paradigm has been somewhat useful during a time of momentous and often surprising political upheaval in the world. But it is increasingly clear that reality is no longer conforming to the model. Many countries that policy makers and aid practitioners persist in calling "transitional" are not in transition to democracy, and of the democratic transitions that are under way, more than a few are not following the model. Sticking with the paradigm beyond its useful life is retarding evolution in the field of democratic assistance and is leading policy makers astray in other ways. It is time to recognize that the transition paradigm has outlived its usefulness and to look for a better lens. Five core assumptions define the transition paradigm. The first, which is an umbrella for all the others, is that any country moving away from dictatorial rule can be considered a country in transition toward democracy. Especially in the first half of the 1990s, when political change accelerated in many regions, numerous policy makers and aid prac-titioners reflexively labeled any formerly...
Article
Journal of Democracy 9.2 (1998) 91-107 During the past quarter-century, the "third wave" of global demo-cratization has brought more than 60 countries around the world from authoritarian rule toward some kind of democratic regime. This is no small achievement, of course, but it has also become apparent that sustaining democracy is often a task as difficult as establishing it. In the immediate aftermath of all these democratic transitions, pressing concerns have quickly arisen about how to strengthen and stabilize these new regimes. With the extension of democracy to additional countries now having slowed, political scientists -- and political actors in new democracies -- have been increasingly focusing on what has come to be called "democratic consolidation." Originally, the term "democratic consolidation" was meant to describe the challenge of making new democracies secure, of extending their life expectancy beyond the short term, of making them immune against the threat of authoritarian regression, of building dams against eventual "reverse waves." To this original mission of rendering democracy "the only game in town," countless other tasks have been added. As a result, the list of "problems of democratic consolidation" (as well as the corresponding list of "conditions of democratic consolidation") has expanded beyond all recognition. It has come to include such divergent items as popular legitimation, the diffusion of democratic values, the neutralization of antisystem actors, civilian supremacy over the military, the elimination of authoritarian enclaves, party building, the organization of functional interests, the stabilization of electoral rules, the routinization of politics, the decentralization of state power, the introduction of mechanisms of direct democracy, judicial reform, the alleviation of poverty, and economic stabilization. At this point, with people using the concept any way they like, nobody can be sure what it means to others, but all maintain the illusion of speaking to one another in some comprehensible way. While "democratic consolidation" may have been a nebulous concept since its very inception, the conceptual fog that veils the term has only become thicker and thicker the more it has spread through the academic as well as the political world. If it is true that "[n]o scientific field can advance far if the participants do not share a common understanding of key terms in the field," then the study of democratic consolidation, at its current state of conceptual confusion, is condemned to stagnation. The aspiring subdiscipline of "consolidology" is anchored in an unclear, inconsistent, and unbounded concept, and thus is not anchored at all, but drifting in murky waters. The use of one and the same term for vastly different things only simulates a shared common language; in fact, the reigning conceptual disorder is acting as a powerful barrier to scholarly communication, theory building, and the accumulation of knowledge. I believe that we can order and comprehend the multiple usages and meanings of "democratic consolidation" by looking at the concrete realities as well as the practical tasks the term is meant to address. The meaning that we ascribe to the notion of democratic consolidation depends on where we stand (our empirical viewpoints) and where we aim to reach (our normative horizons). It varies according to the contexts and the goals we have in mind. When students of democratization seek to classify regimes, the key distinction, of course, runs between those that are democratic and those that are not (the latter often generically labeled as "authoritarian"). The most widely accepted criteria for identi-fying a country as democratic have been put forward by Robert Dahl -- civil and political rights plus fair, competitive, and inclusive elections. Dahl calls countries that meet these criteria "polyarchies," but they are more commonly referred to as "liberal democracies." Two other subtypes of democracy have gained wide recognition in the scholarly literature on new democracies. On the one hand, there are all those borderline cases that possess some but not all of liberal democracy's essential features, and therefore fall somewhere in between democracy and authoritarianism. I call such semidemocratic regimes "electoral democracies." This term is now generally used to describe a specific type of semidemocracy -- one that manages to hold (more or less) inclusive, clean, and competitive elections but fails to uphold the political and...
Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula
  • A Benneth
  • A Barth
  • K R Rutherford
Benneth, A., A. Barth, and K.R. Rutherford. "Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula." PS: Political Science & Politics 36, no. 3 (2003): 373-78.
Fünf Jahrzehnte Transformationsforschung: Entwicklung, Stand und Zukunftsperspektiven
  • A Croissant
Croissant, A. "Fünf Jahrzehnte Transformationsforschung: Entwicklung, Stand und Zukunftsperspektiven." Chap., In Demokratie -ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsprojekt, edited by F Gmainer-Pranzl, 15-48. Hamburg/Münster: LIT, 2017.
  • Seawright J.
continued underrepresentation of women in many of the discipline's top journals" in the article
  • Thelen Teele
Teele and Thelen find a "continued underrepresentation of women in many of the discipline's top journals" in the article "Gender in the Journals". The share of women in AJPS is the lowest at 18% and the highest in Political Theory and in Perspectives on Politics nearly at 34% between 1999/2003 and 2015.
Comparative Politics Articles Data Set
  • Snyder Munck
Munck and Snyder, "Comparative Politics Articles Data Set," 5 (Unit_Observations and N_Observations).
A Tale of Two Cultures"; Goertz and Mahoney, A Tale of Two Cultures; compare Kuehn and Rohlfing
  • Goertz Mahoney
Mahoney and Goertz, "A Tale of Two Cultures"; Goertz and Mahoney, A Tale of Two Cultures; compare Kuehn and Rohlfing, "Are There Really Two Cultures?".
Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization; Collier and Cardoso, The New Authoritarianism in Latin America
  • Brownlee
Brownlee, Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization; Collier and Cardoso, The New Authoritarianism in Latin America.