|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Law and Politics
Reference:
Shkel, S.N., Shakirova, E.V.
Measuring opposition: index analysis of the dynamics
of competitive potential of the political opposition
// Law and Politics.
2014. ¹ 8.
P. 1139-1150.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=52243
Shkel, S.N., Shakirova, E.V. Measuring opposition: index analysis of the dynamics of competitive potential of the political oppositionAbstract: The object of the article involves the method for measuring competitive potential of political opposition via index analysis. The provided scale for coding weak and strong points of the opposition takes into consideration both structural possibilities and regime stimulate, providing for distribution of resources between government and opposition. The provided method facilitates understanding of the factors responsible for the growth of opportunities for the opposition actors, as well as determinants preventing it. Growth of the number of authoritarian regimes in the world and the tendencies for the democracy deficit, showing themselves lately, make the problem of calculating the real competitive potential of political opposition in the conditions especially topical, when the electoral results get distorted and they therefore fail to objectively reflect the real support of opposition by the people. The method of studies is index analysis of political process. Formation of the index scale for measuring the competitive potential of political processes was based upon the methodology of index analysis by M.S. Shugart, J. Carey, as developed in the works A. Crowell and O.I. Zaznayev. The author used the experience of index analysis of other precedents within the frameworks of political science. The authors of the article offered the method of operationalizing the term “competitive potential of the political opposition” as an index scale for encoding the strong points of government and opposition, allowing to measure and calculate the index of competitive potential of the political opposition. As a test, the method of index analysis is used to measure the dynamics of evolution of the political opposition in Russia in 1993-2012. Keywords: Political opposition, index analysis, Russia, political regime, measurement methods, political elites, counterelites, political actors, electorate, power.
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here . References
1. Almond G., Verba S. Grazhdanskaya kul'tura i stabil'nost' demokratii // Polis. 1992. ¹ 4. S. 122-134.
2. Vasil'eva S.V. Konstitutsionno-pravovoi status politicheskoi oppozitsii. M.: Institut prava i publichnoi politiki, 2010. S.11.
3. Gel'man V.Ya. Iz ognya da v polymya? Dinamika postsovetskikh rezhimov v sravnitel'noi perspektive // Polis. 2007. ¹ 2. S. 81-108.
4. Dal' R. Poliarkhiya: uchastie i oppozitsiya. M.: GU VShE, 2010. C. 8
5. Dyuverzhe M. Politicheskie partii. M.: Akademicheskii prospekt, 2000. S.345
6. Zaznaev O.I. Indeksnyi analiz poluprezidentskikh gosudarstv Evropy i postsovetskogo prostranstva // Polis. 2007. ¹ 2. S. 146-164.
7. Lints X., Stepan A. Gosudarstvennost', natsionalizm i demokratizatsiya // Polis. 1997. ¹ 5. S. 9-30.
8. Lints Kh. Opasnosti prezidentstva // Predely vlasti. 1994. ¹ 2-3. (http://old.russ.ru/antolog/predely/2-3/dem14.htm)
9. Mel'vil' A.Yu. Opyt teoretiko-metodologicheskogo sinteza strukturnogo i protsedurnogo podkhodov k demokraticheskim tranzitam // Polis. 1998. ¹ 2. S. 6-38.
10. Merkel' V., Kruassan A. Formal'nye i neformal'nye instituty v defektnykh demokratiyakh (I) // Polis. 2002. ¹ 1. S. 6-17.
11. Mironyuk M. G., Timofeev I. N., Vaslavskii I. Ya. Universal'nye sravneniya s ispol'zovaniem kolichestvennykh metodov analiza (Obzor pretsedentov) // Polis. 2006. ¹ 5. S. 39-57.
12. Nort D. Instituty, institutsional'nye izmeneniya i funktsionirovanie ekonomiki. M.: Fond ekonomicheskoi knigi «Nachalo», 1997.
13. Olson M. Logika kollektivnykh deistvii. Obshchestvennye blaga i teoriya grupp. M.: FEI, 1995. C. 14
14. Rastou D. Perekhody k demokratii: popytka dinamicheskoi modeli // Polis. 1996. ¹ 5. S. 5-15.
15. Rogov K. Gipoteza tret'ego tsikla // Pro et Contra. 2010. ¹4-5. S. 6-22.
16. Rouz R., Manro N., Mishler U. Vynuzhdennoe prinyatie «nepolnoi» demokratii. Politicheskoe ravnovesie v Rossii // Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya. 2005. ¹ 2. S. 30-42.
17. Salikhov D. R. Aktual'nye voprosy oppozitsionnoi deyatel'nosti v Rossiiskoi Federatsii // Sovremennye nauchnye issledovaniya i innovatsii. 2010. ( http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2011/07/1421).
18. Khantington S. Tret'ya volna: demokratizatsiya v kontse KhKh v. M.: Progress, 2003. C. 178-181
19. Shcherbak A.N. «Neftyanoe proklyatie» politicheskogo razvitiya // Neft', gaz, modernizatsiya obshchestva. SPb.: «Ekonomicheskaya shkola» GU VShE, 2008.
20. Bueno De Mesquita, Smith A., Siverson R., Morrow J. M. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003. P. 134
21. Darden K., Grzymaa-Busse A.M. The Great Divide: Literacy, Nationalism, and the Communist Collapse // World Politics. 2006. Vol. 59. No. 1. P. 83-115.
22. Gandhi J., Przeworski A. Cooperation, cooptation and rebellion under dictatorship // Economics and Politics. 2006. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 1-26.
23. Gandhi J., Reuter O. J. The incentives for pre-electoral coalitions in non-democratic elections // Democratization. 2013. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 137-159.
24. Gerschewski J. The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes // Democratization. 2013. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 13-38.
25. Greene K. The Political Economy of Authoritarian Single-Party Dominance // Comparative Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 43. No. 7. P.807-834.
26. Higley J., Burton M. The Elite Variable in Democratic Transition and Breakdowns // American Sociological Review. 1989. Vol. 54. No. 1. P. 17-32.
27. Linz J. Opposition to and under an Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain // Regimes and Oppositions / R.Dahl (ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978.
28. Lipset S. M. Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy // American Political Science Review. 1995. Vol. 53. No. 1. P. 69-105.
29. Magaloni B. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and Its Demise in Mexico. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. P. 91-110
30. Magaloni B. Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule // Comparative Political Studies. 2008. Vol. 41. No. 4-5. P. 715-741.
31. O’Donnell G., Schmitter Ph. Whitehead L. Transition from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy. London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. p. 73
32. Pepinsky T. The Global Economic Crisis and the Politics of Non-Transitions // Government and Opposition. 2012. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 135-147.
33. Ross M. L. Does Oil Hinder Democracy? // World Politics. 2001. Vol. 53. No. 3. P. 325-361.
34. Shuqart M.S. Carey J.M. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
35. Way L. Authoritarian State Building and the Sources of Regime Competitiveness in the Fourth Wave: The Cases of Belarus, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine // World Politics. 2005. Vol. 57. No. 2. P. 231-261.
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
Eng
