國立虎尾科技大學 |

Why dominant parties lose : = Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective /

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Why dominant parties lose :/ Kenneth F. Greene.
Reminder of title:	Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective /
Author:	Greene, Kenneth F.,
Description:	1 online resource (xvi, 350 pages) :digital, PDF file(s). :
Notes:	Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).
Subject:	One-party systems. -
Online resource:	https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509803
ISBN:	9780511509803 (ebook)

Why dominant parties lose : = Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective /
Greene, Kenneth F.,1969-

Why dominant parties lose :Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective /Kenneth F. Greene. - 1 online resource (xvi, 350 pages) :digital, PDF file(s).

Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).

Introduction: The puzzle of single-party dominance -- A theory of single-party dominance and opposition party development -- Dominant party advantages and opposition party failure, 1930s-1990s -- Why participate? : a theory of elite activism in dominant party systems -- The empirical dynamics of elite activism -- Constrained to the core : opposition party organizations, 1980s-1990s -- Dominance defeated : voting behavior in the 2000 elections -- Extending the argument : Italy, Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan -- Conclusions and implications.

Why have dominant parties persisted in power for decades in countries spread across the globe? Why did most eventually lose? Why Dominant Parties Lose develops a theory of single-party dominance, its durability, and its breakdown into fully competitive democracy. Greene shows that dominant parties turn public resources into patronage goods to bias electoral competition in their favor and virtually win elections before election day without resorting to electoral fraud or bone-crushing repression. Opposition parties fail because their resource disadvantages force them to form as niche parties with appeals that are out of step with the average voter. When the political economy of dominance erodes, the partisan playing field becomes fairer and opposition parties can expand into catchall competitors that threaten the dominant party at the polls. Greene uses this argument to show why Mexico transformed from a dominant party authoritarian regime under PRI rule to a fully competitive democracy.

ISBN: 9780511509803 (ebook)Subjects--Topical Terms:

1439997
One-party systems.

LC Class. No.: JF2051 / .G75 2007

Dewey Class. No.: 324.2

Why dominant parties lose : = Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective /
LDR:03125nam a2200325 i 4500 001 1123246
003 UkCbUP
005 20151005020622.0
006 m|||||o||d||||||||
007 cr||||||||||||
008 240926s2007||||enk o ||1 0|eng|d
020 $a 9780511509803 (ebook)
020 $z 9780521877190 (hardback)
020 $z 9780521139892 (paperback)
035 $a CR9780511509803
040 $a UkCbUP $b eng $e rda $c UkCbUP
043 $a n-mx---
050 0 0 $a JF2051 $b .G75 2007
082 0 0 $a 324.2 $2 22
100 1 $a Greene, Kenneth F., $d 1969- $e author. $3 1439996
245 1 0 $a Why dominant parties lose : $b Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective / $c Kenneth F. Greene.
264 1 $a Cambridge : $b Cambridge University Press, $c 2007.
300 $a 1 online resource (xvi, 350 pages) : $b digital, PDF file(s).
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).
505 0 $a Introduction: The puzzle of single-party dominance -- A theory of single-party dominance and opposition party development -- Dominant party advantages and opposition party failure, 1930s-1990s -- Why participate? : a theory of elite activism in dominant party systems -- The empirical dynamics of elite activism -- Constrained to the core : opposition party organizations, 1980s-1990s -- Dominance defeated : voting behavior in the 2000 elections -- Extending the argument : Italy, Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan -- Conclusions and implications.
505 0 $a The puzzle of single-party dominance -- A theory of single-party dominance and opposition party development -- Dominant party advantages and opposition party failure, 1930s-1990s -- Why participate? : a theory of elite activism in dominant party systems -- The empirical dynamics of elite activism -- Constrained to the core : opposition party organizations, 1980s-1990s -- Dominance defeated : voting behavior in the 2000 elections -- Extending the argument : Italy, Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan.
520 $a Why have dominant parties persisted in power for decades in countries spread across the globe? Why did most eventually lose? Why Dominant Parties Lose develops a theory of single-party dominance, its durability, and its breakdown into fully competitive democracy. Greene shows that dominant parties turn public resources into patronage goods to bias electoral competition in their favor and virtually win elections before election day without resorting to electoral fraud or bone-crushing repression. Opposition parties fail because their resource disadvantages force them to form as niche parties with appeals that are out of step with the average voter. When the political economy of dominance erodes, the partisan playing field becomes fairer and opposition parties can expand into catchall competitors that threaten the dominant party at the polls. Greene uses this argument to show why Mexico transformed from a dominant party authoritarian regime under PRI rule to a fully competitive democracy.
650 0 $a One-party systems. $3 1439997
650 0 $a Opposition (Political science) $3 836096
650 0 $a Democratization $z Mexico. $3 801375
650 0 $a Presidents $z Mexico $x Election $y 2000. $3 1439998
650 0 $a Comparative government. $3 555341
776 0 8 $i Print version: $z 9780521877190
856 4 0 $u https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509803