Popular perceptions of a state's legitimacy are inextricably bound to its ability to rule. Vast military and material reserves cannot counter the power of a citizen's belief, and the more widespread the crisis of a state's legitimacy, the greater the threat to its stability. Even such established democracies as France and India are losing their moral claims over society, while such highly illiberal states as China and Iran enjoy strong showings of public support. Through a remarkable fusion of empirical research and theory, Bruce Gilley makes clear the link between political consent and political rule. Fixing a definition of legitimacy that is both general and particular, he is able to study the role of legitimacy as it has been maintained and lost in a diverse selection of societies. He begins by detailing the origins of state legitimacy and the methods governments have used to wield it best. He then considers the habits of less successful states, exploring how the process works across different styles of government. Gilley's unique approach merges a broad study of legitimacy and performance in seventy-two states with a detailed empirical analysis of the mechanisms of legitimation. The results are tested on a case study of Uganda, a country that, after 1986, began to recover from decades of civil war. Considering a range of explanations of other domestic and international phenomena as well, Gilley ultimately argues that, because of its evident real-world importance, legitimacy should occupy a central place in political analysis.

本書為針對歐洲十八國之政黨體系、選舉制度及政府體制之完整分析研究。立基於托克維爾政治穩定之一般性理論，本書亦對歐洲政治公平性之演變有所考察。此外，本書亦蒐集了當今西歐市民社會與國家最新的調查統計數據。本書的重點在於作者所提出的一個突破性觀點：政治機構與政治運作的產出結果，均受到社會結構的影響，作者更站在市民社會、市場經濟以及階級、種族、地域認同、宗教等不同的立場，來描繪西歐政治體系的本質與形式。是一本對西歐政治社會現況有所完整觀察的著作。 —————————————————————— 序言 緒論 新托克維利學派 第一章 從政治社會學到政治制度主義的轉折 第二章 社會分歧 第三章 政黨政治 第四章 政黨與社會結構 第五章 政黨制度 第六章 決策機制：自主性 第七章 決策體系：影響力 第八章 政治議題 第九章 政治穩定 第十章 稅收與社會福利 第十一章 歐洲整合 第十二章 結論

这本书系统地分析了中国和俄罗斯改革的差异。在作者看来，俄罗斯的“休克疗法”是失败的，而中国的渐进式改革是成功的。而存在这种差异的原因主要在于两国选择的政策不同。俄罗斯选择了“大爆炸”式方法，即“休克疗法”。“休克疗法”代表了一种正统的转轨理论，认为经济改革的成功需要共产主义政治体制的改变。罗澜认为俄罗斯政策选择上的错误应归咎于西方新古典经济理论家，他们建议莫斯科和国际货币基金组织等机构接受新古典经济学的分析作为给予国际援助的条件的理论基础。中国与之不同，政策选择上没有听从国际组织和新古典经济理论家的建议，而是根据中国的实际自主抉择，“摸着石头过河”，因此获得了成功。

Political scientists have long classified systems of government as parliamentary or presidential, two-party or multi party, and so on. But such distinctions often fail to provide useful insights. For example, how are we to compare the United States, a presidential bicameral regime with two weak parties, to Denmark, a parliamentary unicameral regime with many strong parties? "Veto Players" advances an important, new understanding of how governments are structured. The real distinctions between political systems, contends George Tsebelis, are to be found in the extent to which they afford political actors veto power over policy choices. Drawing richly on game theory, he develops a scheme by which governments can thus be classified. He shows why an increase in the number of 'veto players', or an increase in their ideological distance from each other, increases policy stability, impeding significant departures from the status quo. Policy stability affects a series of other key characteristics of polities, argues the author. For example, it leads to high judicial and bureaucratic independence, as well as high government instability (in parliamentary systems). The propositions derived from the theoretical framework Tsebelis develops in the first part of the book are tested in the second part with various data sets from advanced industrialized countries, as well as analysis of legislation in the European Union. Representing the first consistent and consequential theory of comparative politics, "Veto Players" will be welcomed by students and scholars as a defining text of the discipline. From the preface to the Italian edition: 'Tsebelis has produced what is today the most original theory for the understanding of the dynamics of contemporary regimes...This book promises to remain a lasting contribution to political analysis' - Gianfranco Pasquino, Professor of Political Science, University of Bologna.

Review "...a major work with which all who subsequently write on the subject of transitions on developing countries will have to wrestle. The scholarly effort is also excellent evidence of why the current debate on regional studies versus comparative politics is so empty and sterile. The authors have learned much from the general comparative literature, and through intensive study of a region they are able to contribute much to the general scholarly dialogue. The entire field of comparative politics is enriched by their efforts." Jeffrey Herbst, Political Science Quarterly "...many stimulating ways of looking at democratization." Gail M. Gerhert, Foreign Affairs "Democratic Experiments in Africa is an ambitious and important book that should be read by every serious student of democratization and by every serious student of African politics. Democratic Experiments in Africa...is a major benchmark against which future studies of democratization in Africa should be judged." Joel D. Barkan, Journal of Democracy "This work sets high standards for both empirical and theoretical scholarship which will undoubtedly energize theoretical debates." Dan Ottemoeller, African Studies Review "Democratic Experiments in Africa illustrates the analytic leverage regime typologies offer in explaining cross-national variations in transitions to democracy, Bratton and van de Walle highlight three important ways that the type of nondemocratic regime shapes democratization processes." Comparative Politics Product Description Between 1989 and 1994, almost all of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa underwent significant political reform, including in many cases the first competitive elections in a generation. How can this wave of political liberalization be explained? Why did some countries complete a democratic transition, while others could not sustain more than limited political reform and others still suffered authoritarian reversals? What are the long term prospects for democracy in Africa? This study constitutes the first comprehensive analysis of democratic transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa.

"M. Steven Fish's book, Democracy Derailed in Russia, offers a lively, original account of the failure of democratization in post-Soviet Russia. Fish uses a wide-angled comparative lens to identify the factors explaining the emergence of oligarchic capitalism and an increasingly closed polity in Russia. The findings are provocative and will stimulate considerable debate." Thomas Remington, Emory University "By carefully comparing Russia's experience with that of other new democracies, M. Steven Fish has zeroed in on the factors that have impeded Russia's democratic development. Especially original and stimulating is the discussion of oil in Russia and the comparisons drawn with other petro-states throughout the world. Even scholars who disagree with Fish's analysis will want to engage it." Jeffrey Kopstein, University of Toronto "Building on a decade and a half of intensive research on post-communist democratic transition and Russian politics, M. Steven Fish presents a thought-provoking analysis of the trajectory of regime change in post-Soviet Russia. Fish argues that the time has come to declare Russia's post-communist democratic experiment a failure: Russia under Putin is now an authoritarian regime. But he insists that many widespread explanations for democratic failure in Russia are simply wrong.(continued underneath) Russia did not fail because of its Orthodox religious culture, its multi-ethnicity, its Leninist legacies, or its decision to implement radical economic reform. Rather, in comparative perspective, Russia's authoritarianism today can be traced largely to three factors: its dependence on raw material exports, the stateas continuing control over most economic resources, and superpresidentialism. Fish's book will become a standard reference in the fields of Russian and post-Communist politics, and a must read for those interested in comparative democratization in general." Stephen Hanson, University of Washington "Why has the global wave of democratization produced so many semi democracies" that are perched precariously between authoritarian and fully democratic politics? By drawing on the details of Russian political and economic evolution and by placing the Russian experience in comparative perspective, M. Steven Fish provides a compelling answer that spans the two dominant approaches in comparative politics to explaining regime trajectories--the political economy of reform and the design of political institutions. For Fish, Russian democracy has been compromised by too much oil, too little economic reform, and too weak a legislature. It is an answer that promises to travel well." Valerie Bunce, Cornell University "This is an important work, and should be read both by Russia specialists and those interested in comparative democratization. It is very well written and its presentation is easy to follow, making it amenable for undergraduate course use as well. With this book, Fish has raised the bar for future work on Russian politics." - Perspectives on Politics, Paul Kubicek, Oakland University "Fish's Democracy Derailed is still one of the most creative and analytically insightful books published to date on Russia's post-communist political development. There is no doubt that Fish's conclusions will play a prominent role in debates about democratization and post-communist politics for years to come." - Leah Gilbert, Ph.D. student in Government at Georgetown University "...this is a good piece of empirical work on contemporary Russia politics. Provocative in style, the book can be recommended for discussion by upper-level undergraduates and postgraduates studying Russian politics, comparative democratization, and the politics of transformation in the former communist world. Many themes in the book provide a good springboard for class discussions. There is an excellent bibliography and the author points readers in the direction of opposing views."

《亚洲金融危机的政治经济学》讲述了：比较政治经济学不为人所知完全不是因为它是一个崭新的领域或边缘领域。比较政治经济学通过比较不同国家或同一国家不同时期的政府、利益集团和市场的关系来探讨国家怎样管理经济事务。其实这个领域所研究的问题关系到我们每人每天的生活，也几乎是大众话题。跨时空比较政治因素和经济因素的关系应该说早就有了，但真正成为系统的研究领域还是20世纪后半期的事。肖恩菲尔德（Shordield）于1965年出版《现代资本主义》（Modern Capitalism）一书，将发达国家不同的经济政策与它们各自的历史和文化相连接，开创了当代比较发达国家经济政策的先河。

Review "...this book answers the question of our age and provides an eminently worthy target to shoot at." Robert Legvold, Foreign Affairs "Bunce's story is a complicated one, but that, in fact, is part of the message of her book: that parsimony in explaining macrolevel historical change may come at the cost of cutting out precisely those variables that need attention...The real value of her account is its concretizin exactly what the much-discussed "communist legacies" really are." World Politics 53 "The arguments presented in the book bear upon a larger circle of issues in the study of comparative transitions from socialism." Slavic and East European Journal Review "...this book answers the question of our age and provides an eminently worthy target to shoot at." Robert Legvold, Foreign Affairs "Bunce's story is a complicated one, but that, in fact, is part of the message of her book: that parsimony in explaining macrolevel historical change may come at the cost of cutting out precisely those variables that need attention...The real value of her account is its concretizin exactly what the much-discussed "communist legacies" really are." World Politics 53 "The arguments presented in the book bear upon a larger circle of issues in the study of comparative transitions from socialism." Slavic and East European Journal --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

在政權分類中，當前世上絕大多數的國家，都是屬於威權體制。導致這種政體出現的原因很多，包括政治、社會和經濟的誘因；而其形態也不同，有官僚威權政體、動員式政體和後極權式的威權政體等。這類政權的政治制度化的層次極低，國家目標混沌，領導者行一人或一黨專政，公民參政機會不多。在有限多元的限制下，反對黨僅具象徵性的「準反對」功能。但威權政黨的組織極為渙散，經常變形，勢力逐年下降。本書即針對威權政體的種種特質，作系統化的研究與闡述，極富學術價值。

Beginning in December 2010 popular revolt swept through the Middle East, shocking the world and ushering in a period of unprecedented unrest. Protestors took to the streets to demand greater freedom, democracy, human rights, social justice, and regime change. What caused these uprisings? What is their significance? And what are their likely consequences? In an engaging question-and-answer format, The Arab Uprisings explores all aspects of the revolutionary protests that have rocked the Middle East. Historian James Gelvin begins with an overview--What sparked the Arab uprisings? Where did the demands for democracy and human rights come from? How appropriate is the phrase "Arab Spring"?--before turning to specific countries around the region. He looks at such topics as the role of youth, labor, and religious groups in Tunisia and Egypt and discusses why the military turned against rulers in both countries. Exploring the uprisings in Libya and Yemen, Gelvin explains why these two states are considered "weak," why that status is important for understanding the upheavals there, and why outside powers intervened in Libya but not in Yemen. Next, Gelvin compares two cases that defied expectations: Algeria, which experts assumed would experience a major upheaval after Egypt's, and Syria, which experts failed to foresee. He then looks at the monarchies of Morocco, Jordan, and the Gulf, exploring the commonalities and differences of protest movements in each. The final chapter discusses the implications of the uprisings. What do they mean for the United States? For Iran? Has al-Qaeda been strengthened or weakened? What effects have the uprisings had on the Israel-Palestine conflict? What conclusions might we draw from the uprisings so far? For anyone wishing to understand the dramatic events in the Middle East, The Arab Uprisings is the place to turn.

This book tackles three puzzles of pacted transitions to democracy. First, why do autocrats ever step down from power peacefully if they know that they may be held accountable for their involvement in the ancien régime? Second, when does the opposition indeed refrain from meting out punishment to the former autocrats once the transition is complete? Third, why, in some countries, does transitional justice get adopted when successors of former communists hold parliamentary majorities? Monika Nalepa argues that infiltration of the opposition with collaborators of the authoritarian regime can serve as insurance against transitional justice, making their commitments to amnesty credible. This explanation also accounts for the timing of transitional justice across East Central Europe. Nalepa supports her theory using a combination of elite interviews, archival evidence, and statistical analysis of survey experiments in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

In this ambitious book Eva Bellin examines the dynamics of democratization in late-developing countries where the process has stalled. Bellin focuses on the pivotal role of social forces and particularly the reluctance of capital and labor to champion democratic transition, contrary to the expectations of political economists versed in earlier transitions. Bellin argues that the special conditions of late development, most notably the political paradoxes created by state sponsorship, fatally limit class commitment to democracy. In many developing countries, she contends, those who are empowered by capitalist industrialization become the allies of authoritarianism rather than the agents of democratic reform.Bellin generates her propositions from close study of a singular case of stalled democracy -- Tunisia. Capital and labor's complicity in authoritarian relapse in that country poses a puzzle. The author's explanation of that case is made more general through comparison with the cases of other countries, including Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, and Egypt. Stalled Democracy also explores the transformative capacity of state-sponsored industrialization. By drawing on a range of real-world examples, Bellin illustrates the ability of developing countries to reconfigure state-society relations, redistribute power more evenly in society, and erode the peremptory power of the authoritarian state, even where democracy is stalled.

Classical images of state-socialism developed in contemporary social sciences were founded on simple presuppositions. State-socialist regimes were considered to be politically stable due to their pervasive institutional and ideological control over the everyday lives of their citizens, impervious to reform and change, and representative of extreme political and economic dependency. Despite their contrasting historical experiences, they have been treated as basically identical in their institutional design, social and economic structures, and policies. Grzegorz Ekiert challenges this notion in a comparative analysis of the major political crises in post-1945 East Central Europe: Hungary (1956-63), Czechoslovakia (1968-76), and Poland (1980-89). The author maintains that the nature and consequences of these crises can better explain the distinctive experiences of East Central European countries under communist rule than can the formal characteristics of their political and economic systems or their politically dependent status. He explores how political crises reshaped party-state institutions, redefined relations between party and state institutions, altered the relationship between the state and various groups and organizations within society, and modified the political practices of these regimes. He shows how these events transformed cultural categories, produced collective memories, and imposed long-lasting constraints on mass political behavior and the policy choices of ruling elites. These crises shaped the political evolution of the region, produced important cross-national differences among state-socialist regimes, and contributed to the distinctive patterns of their collapse.

While one of the most important attempts to explain the rise of authoritarian regimes and their relationship to problems of economic development has been the "bureaucratic-authoritarian model," there has been growing dissatisfaction with various elements of this model. In light of this dissatisfaction, a group of leading economists, political scientists, and sociologists was brought together to assess the adequacy; of the model and suggest directions for its reformulation. This volume is the product of their discussions over a period of three years and represents an important advance in the critique and refinement of ideas about political development. Part One provides an overview of the issues of social science analysis raised by the recent emergence of authoritarianism in Latin America and contains chapters by David Collier and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The chapters in Part Two address the problem of explaining the rise of bureaucratic authoritarianism and are written by Albert Hirschman, Jose Serra, Robert Kaufman, and Julio Coder. In Part Three Guillermo O'Donnell, James Kurth, and David Collier discuss the likely future patterns of change in bureaucratic authoritarianism, opportunities for extending the analysis to Europe, and priorities for future research. The book includes a glossary and an extensive bibliography.

Why have some states in the developing world been more successful at facilitating industrialization than others? Challenging theories that privilege industrial policy and colonial legacies, this book focuses on state structure and the politics of state formation, arguing that a cohesive state structure is as important to developmental success as effective industrial policy. Based on a comparison of six Asian cases, including both capitalist and socialist states with varying structural cohesion, Tuong Vu proves that it is state formation politics rather than colonial legacies that have had decisive and lasting impacts on the structures of emerging states. His cross-national comparison of South Korea, Vietnam, Republican and Maoist China, and Sukarno's and Suharto's Indonesia, which is augmented by in-depth analyses of state formation processes in Vietnam and Indonesia, is an important contribution to understanding the dynamics of state formation and economic development in Asia.

In the late-1990s in Syria, the image of President Hafiz al-Asad is everywhere. In newspapers, on television and during orchestrated spectacles Asad is praised as the "father," the "gallant knight," even the country's "premier pharmacist". Yet most Syrians, including those who create the official rhetoric, do not believe its claims. Why would a regime spend scarce resources on a cult whose content is patently spurious? Lisa Wedeen concludes that Asad's cult acts as a disciplinary device, generating a politics of public dissimulation in which citizens act "as if" they revered their leader. By inundating daily life with tired symbolism, the regime exercises a subtle, yet effective form of power. The cult works to enforce obedience, induce complicity, isolate Syrians from one another and set guidelines for public speech and behaviour. Wedeen's ethnographic research demonstrates how Syrians recognize the disciplinary aspects of the cult and seek to undermine them.

Germany's and Italy's belated national unifications continue to loom large in contemporary debates. Often regarded as Europe's paradigmatic instances of failed modernization, the two countries form the basis of many of our most prized theories of social science. "Structuring the State" undertakes one of the first systematic comparisons of the two cases, putting the origins of these nation-states and the nature of European political development in new light. Daniel Ziblatt begins his analysis with a striking puzzle: Upon national unification, why was Germany formed as a federal nation-state and Italy as a unitary nation-state? He traces the diplomatic maneuverings and high political drama of national unification in nineteenth-century Germany and Italy to refute the widely accepted notion that the two states' structure stemmed exclusively from Machiavellian farsightedness on the part of militarily powerful political leaders.Instead, he demonstrates that Germany's and Italy's "founding fathers" were constrained by two very different pre-unification patterns of institutional development. In Germany, a legacy of well-developed sub-national institutions provided the key building blocks of federalism. In Italy, these institutions' absence doomed federalism. This crucial difference in the organization of local power still shapes debates about federalism in Italy and Germany today. By exposing the source of this enduring contrast, "Structuring the State" offers a broader theory of federalism's origins that will interest scholars and students of comparative politics, state-building, international relations, and European political history.