Methods of influence, layers of impact, cycles of change: a framework for analysis
Methods of influence, layers of impact, cycles of change: a framework for analysis
复制标题
影响方法、影响层次、变化周期：分析框架
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Magen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Leonardo Morlino;A. Magen
我们应该如何概念化和评估国际影响的程度和性质，如果有的话，对国内制度的民主法治（DRoL）发展？纵观历史，大多数民主化研究的特点是令人困惑的缺乏对这些基本问题的系统思考。从20世纪60年代现代民主化研究的开始到冷战结束，民主转型和巩固的学者在很大程度上认为国内政治进程的结果是由精英和大众层面的国家力量和算计驱动的，并且不愿意冒险超越民众来寻找民主化的原因。民主发展研究的真实情况反映了一种更广泛的弊病，即几十年来，历史学家、政治学家和律师在很大程度上忽视了对国际影响国内变化的研究。从马克思到巴林顿摩尔，政治社会学的主导范式强调了内部社会结构和文化在塑造政治和国家中的重要性，忽视了世纪末约翰·罗伯特塞利和20世纪60年代奥托·欣策等著名学者的呼吁，为了弥补在解释国内政治发展时对国际因素的忽视（Almond 1989，239-41）。事实上，同一传统的知识分子后代继续发挥着相当大的影响力（并产生有意义的见解），强调继承的文化，意识形态，社会经济和制度遗产对定义民主过渡后的结果，对自由价值观的态度以及国家和种族认同的重要性（Ekiert and Hanson 2003）。直到最近，还有其他一些因素一直在合谋，压制了对国际影响国内民主发展的理论和实证研究。当第二次世界大战后出现对国际-国家联系的关注时-特别是在美国外交历史学家，政治学家和国际关系理论家的工作中，如Almond（1950），Dahl（1950）和Waltz（1967）-首先采用的棱镜是“自下而上”的棱镜，其中有两种影响方法，影响层，变化周期：分析框架
How should we conceptualize and evaluate the extent and nature of international influence, if any, on democratic rule of law (DRoL) developments in domestic systems? Throughout history, most studies in democratization have been characterized by a puzzling lack of systematic thinking about these fundamental questions. From the inception of modern democratization studies in the 1960s until the end of the Cold War, scholars of democratic transitions and consolidation largely conceived the outcomes of domestic political processes as being driven by national forces and calculations, at both elite and mass levels, and were reluctant to venture beyond the demos in search of the causes of democratization. What was true of studies regarding the development of democracy reflected a broader malaise in which research into international impact on domestic change was largely neglected for many decades by historians, political scientists and lawyers. The dominant paradigm of political sociology from Marx to Barrington Moore, for one, has stressed the importance of internal social structure and culture in the shaping of politics and the state, sidelining the calls of such eminent scholars as John Robert Seeley, in the late nineteenth century, and Otto Hintze, in the 1960s, to remedy the neglect of international factors in the explanation of domestic political developments (Almond 1989, 239–41). Indeed, the intellectual progeny of the same tradition continues to wield considerable influence (and yield meaningful insights) by emphasizing the importance of inherited cultural, ideological, socioeconomic, and institutional legacies to defining post-transition outcomes of democracy, attitudes to liberal values, as well as national and ethnic identities (Ekiert and Hanson 2003). Several additional factors have conspired until fairly recently to suppress both theoretical and empirical research into international influence on domestic democratic development. When preoccupation with the internationalnational linkages arose in the aftermath of the Second World War – notably in the work of American diplomatic historians, political scientists and international relations theorists such as Almond (1950), Dahl (1950) and Waltz (1967) – the prism adopted first was a ‘bottom-up’ one, in which it was the 2 Methods of influence, layers of impact, cycles of change: A framework for analysis