Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/185653
Title:
Modernization, repression, and political violence.
Author:
Fu, Hung-der.
Issue Date:
1991
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
During the process of modernization, countries are seeking different goals such as growth, equality, stability, democracy, autonomy, etc. While these goals are not readily compatible nor can be achieved simultaneously, the unavoidable consequences for modernization are inequality, instability, repressiveness, dependency, stagnation or the combination of these. The cross-national variation in the pattern of political violence is the most noticeable one. One of the most ambitious and influential attempts to develop a general theory of why modernizing countries are susceptible to political instability is that proposed by Samuel P. Huntington in the form of three interrelated "Gap" hypotheses. The lack of empirical support for Huntington's Gap hypotheses in explaining general instability calls for further studies. Alternative hypotheses are based on structural and behavioral explanation such as the type of state function and the way governments cooperate/coerce with opposition elites and dissident groups. Rational choice theory and relative deprivation theory are the two most plausible contending theories in developing a middle-range theory. Rational choice theory argues a combination of structural conditions and individual rationality. Relative deprivation asserts a discontent-aggression linkage in terms of the satisfaction of economic well-being. Guided by the modernization gap theory, rational choice theory, and deprivation theory, using six five-year intervals from 1948 to 1977, this study carried out vigorous multiple testings. The results show that rational choice theory is the most powerful theory in explaining political violence, while deprivation theory is secondly important.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Dissertations, Academic; Political science.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Political Sciences; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Muller, Edward N.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleModernization, repression, and political violence.en_US
dc.creatorFu, Hung-der.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFu, Hung-der.en_US
dc.date.issued1991en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractDuring the process of modernization, countries are seeking different goals such as growth, equality, stability, democracy, autonomy, etc. While these goals are not readily compatible nor can be achieved simultaneously, the unavoidable consequences for modernization are inequality, instability, repressiveness, dependency, stagnation or the combination of these. The cross-national variation in the pattern of political violence is the most noticeable one. One of the most ambitious and influential attempts to develop a general theory of why modernizing countries are susceptible to political instability is that proposed by Samuel P. Huntington in the form of three interrelated "Gap" hypotheses. The lack of empirical support for Huntington's Gap hypotheses in explaining general instability calls for further studies. Alternative hypotheses are based on structural and behavioral explanation such as the type of state function and the way governments cooperate/coerce with opposition elites and dissident groups. Rational choice theory and relative deprivation theory are the two most plausible contending theories in developing a middle-range theory. Rational choice theory argues a combination of structural conditions and individual rationality. Relative deprivation asserts a discontent-aggression linkage in terms of the satisfaction of economic well-being. Guided by the modernization gap theory, rational choice theory, and deprivation theory, using six five-year intervals from 1948 to 1977, this study carried out vigorous multiple testings. The results show that rational choice theory is the most powerful theory in explaining political violence, while deprivation theory is secondly important.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectDissertations, Academicen_US
dc.subjectPolitical science.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePolitical Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorMuller, Edward N.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberWhiting, Allen S.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberRusk, Jerrold G.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest9208052en_US
dc.identifier.oclc711795562en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.