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.     

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).     

Applying Stone in a Western Landscape: Ranchers,Conservationists, and Causal Stories in the “American Serengeti”

As the emergence of nongovernmental conservation efforts generates conflict among various stakeholders, the causal story that each party articulates regarding conservation and the causes of land degradation reflects their unique interests. This study uses existing literature to evaluate causal stories surrounding a contemporary conservation effort: Montana's American Prairie Reserve. Through qualitative review of web‐based documents and newspaper articles, it generates a preliminary account of key stakeholders' causal stories. The case study suggests that parties who might be disadvantaged by ascribing responsibility for environmental harms in an adversarial fashion may instead elect to articulate causal stories that are more neutral than existing approaches might forecast. The study concludes by suggesting that further development of causal story literature may enable it to better address contemporary conservation efforts.     

How Many Seats in Congress Is Control of Redistricting Worth?

How large a benefit is partisan control of the redistricting process? Do legal constraints on redistricting—such as the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act—alter this benefit? Are institutions designed to reduce the benefit to partisan control—such as redistricting commissions—effective? To measure the effects of partisan districting on the electoral fortunes of the parties, we collect data on the partisan composition of state government, House election outcomes, and moderating institutions over an 80-year period. Our results suggest that over time, both parties have benefited from unified control, with the effects largest in states where voters were evenly divided among the parties and smallest in states where the controlling party had a large advantage in the electorate. The effects have changed over time, with both parties having equally benefited from control during the middle of the 20th century, the benefit largely disappearing in the late part of the century, and the Republican Party seeing a moderate advantage from control in the current century. The benefits of partisan control were not diminished in states with redistricting commissions. The preclearance requirement appears to have hurt the Democratic Party except when its vote share was very low. The aggregate effects of partisan redistricting are moderate in magnitude—in the modern period, this effect has typically been less than 10 House seats, with the last election where control of the House would have flipped in expectation occurring in 1954.