Anomalous authoritarianism: what,which, why?

Research on autocracies has gained new momentum in the last decade. One element of this research is the observation that some autocracies are characterised by structural conditions that are normally conducive for democracy. These ‘anomalous autocracies’ have high levels of socioeconomic development and democratic neighbour countries. The study of these cases might expose factors that are decisive for autocratic stability and studying them might give us a better understanding of barriers towards democratisation. This paper contributes to the growing literature on autocracies by mapping anomalous autocracies during the third wave of democratisation, thereby paving the way for systematic case selection in future studies. A large-N analysis of 159 cases (1975–2008) identifies Belarus, Chile, China, Cuba, Morocco, North Korea, Peru, Singapore, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe. In a second step, the paper lays out a theoretical framework that centres on actors and institutions. Rulers must establish elite–elite and elite–mass interaction, and this papers argues that they can do so through quasi-compliance of elites and the masses based on traditional institutions woven into a dominant party. The paper uses the framework to tentatively examine the resilience of authoritarian rule in Swaziland and Morocco, two most-different anomalous cases. In both cases, an elaborate traditional institution has co-opted government, business and rural elites and coordinated interaction within elite circles and with the masses, in turn enabling the remarkable regime resilience.     

Exploring technology business incubators and their business incubation models: case studies from China

The Journal of Technology Transfer - This paper explores Technology Business Incubators (TBIs) and their chosen Business Incubation Models. The business models of TBIs have been largely ignored or...     

Racial Stereotypes and Asian American Youth Paradox

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Asian Americans are simultaneously stereotyped as a perpetual foreigner and a model minority. This cross-sectional study of 308 Filipino American youth (mean age...     

Stalin and the Soviet famine of 1932 – 33 Revisited

This article contributes to the debate about the role of Stalin in the Soviet famine of 1932 – 33. It provides data on Stalin's statements and actions in 1932 – 33, judicial and extra-judicial repression, and the process by which the 1933 deportation targets were drastically reduced. It is suggested that starvation was a cheap substitute for the cancelled deportations. It is argued that in 1932 – 33 Stalin pursued a multi-pronged policy of state terror against the population of the USSR. Some general issues of interpretation are also considered, such as Bolshevik perceptions, the characterisation of Soviet industrialisation, and approaches to Soviet history. Extensive attention is given to the classification of Stalin's actions according to national and international criminal law. In particular, the question of whether or not in 1932 – 33 the Ukrainian people were victims of genocide, is analysed.

Attentively studying the author's text, not only do [specialists] not stint their compliments, but they also make some critical remarks. Because (is it necessary to prove the obvious?) any really good book invites discussion (Ivanov 2006 Ivanov, P. 2006. Book review in Svobodnaya mysl'-XXI 1–2.  [Google Scholar], p. 120).

The Stalinist leadership was only able to retain power then [in 1932] by using the most savage repression (Khlevnyuk 1992 Khlevnyuk, O. V. 1992. 1937-i: Stalin, NKVD i sovetskoe obshchestvo, Moscow: Respublika.  [Google Scholar], p. 11).