Chapter 10
In this exerpt the writers bring up the conversation upon comparative perspectives on Contentious Politics. From the beginning, the writers state that this topic of discussion is "fragmented, disconnected, and contentious." I was able to realize that throughout the chapter, for the writers bring up many different theories and approaches within this subject, but also gives a dispute upon why a specific approach is not entirely valid enough to be the best way to study this subject. This is for, there is a variety of forms of contentious actions across the board, and also, a certain contentious act that may be similar in nature with another state has different variables in which makes each contentious act individually specific.
The disposition of the complexity of the study of contentious acts in a comparative perspective could be seen throughout the chapter. Though that may be so, three variables that are essential to the study of Contentious Politics are government, claims, and interactions. For example, the writers go on to write about specific regimes that affect the reactions of individuals towards proceeding with their specific claim. This could be seen through the examples of a democratic state, where citizens are able to make their claim through petitions, or voting, in comparison to countries where assasinations and coup d' etat may be the norms of approaching their claim. Even countries, such as North Korea, though in an international perspective, individuals may see the oppression of their citizens, it is the norms of the citizens to withold themselves from rebelling or causing riots, in comparison to their sister state of South Korea, where riots are a natural occurence.
Furthermore, I agree with McAdam as the writer disagrees with the ideals of Olson, as he states that it depends upon the actors and the situation for a claim to progess in to a contentious state. Without the right resources and motivations, an individual may not be entitled to progressing their claims within the state. That is where the study of collective claims steps in as well. As an individual progresses to act upon their claim, he/she will look to find support and resources to assist themselves in making an action. History has changed throughout time, and the use of technology has assisted in the evolution of contentious politics. Individuals are enabled to international access through technology to seek assistance from other individuals from a different country. In addition, the expansion and globalization through technology and industrialization has given way for non-governmental organizations, or non-state actors, to act contentiously within the international arena, such as through contemporary terrorism and insurgencies as well. This has led contemporary scholars to study transnational contention, or also known as "Global Civil Society."
As stated before, there are many different variables which makes studying upon Contentious Politics difficult, for there is no one method of analyzing it, especially through comparative perspective. Though that may be so, what I got out of the chapter was that, though there are difficulties upon this subject, there are still specific variables in which a scholar must pay close attention to, such as mechanisms of mobilization, regime, and the actors that engage themselves.
Chapter 12
Chapter 12 goes upon the subject of discussion upon the macropolitics and microbehavior in comparative politics. The study in conducted through the examination of cognitions and actions of citizens, and as a subfield of comparative politics, they are both studies as one, several, or for many countries. What I had gotten out of this excerpt was the study of individual's actions upon certain situations within politics, such as in the aspects of economy, party favors, and voting to preceive the behavioral study upon citizens.
To begin, Anderson introduces the concept of the Michigan approach, which focuses attention on the actions of citizens as autonomous individuals whose group memberships and social contexts were conceptualized as being experienced individually rather than structurally, or also known as the "sociological approach." The problem is stated within the concept introduced in that, it lacks the study of structural conditions citizens are enabled to, and therefore overlooks insights from mass politics research. This brings up the introduction of studies upon micro- and macro-level of processes and manifestations of behvior.
When studying a citizen based on voting patterns, one must also take in to consideration of the institution of the voting process that citizens are subjected to, in addition to the motives and incentives citizens may hold inside. Going upon micro-level studies of citizens, it is true that it is within human nature that "voters seek to rewards and punish government in ways that are consistent with own well-being." Though that may be a general approach, Anderson furthermore goes on to mention that that is not always necessarily true. Some citizens vote in a certain manner in an attempt for the greater collective good. I believe in that aspect, for citizens are collective within a state, and therefore, they naturally look for the greater good for the country, whether it be for the economy, or simple legislations which may assist their neighbors, though it may not affect a specific individual. I believe that, in an economical sense, as the domestic state's economy flourishes, it opens up more opportunities for an individual to thrive as well, such as tax cuts for a specific class or group.
In addition, apart from the concept of a collective good, individuals are also greatly affected not by interests but by the structure of voting politics itself. Whether it be the knowledge a citizen holds upon their government, party affiliation, or the chance of voting occurence, all these accumulate to the effects of voting pattern and turnout. For example, within a system where voting is frequent and open, a citizen may not take much interest, as in contrast for a ctizien who is installed in a system where voting is limited.
All in all, Anderson brings up the ideal that there are many different circumstances that take in to account when studying upon a citizen's behavior within the state. Therefore, the subfield of comparative perspective has given way for the study of micro- and macro-politics when engaging in behavioral studies. As conditions vary, and institutions evolve, so will the methods in engaging in comparative perspective upon behavioral politics.
Chapter 14
This chapter had gone upon surveying the main traditions of research examining the determinants of social programs enacted to ameliorate poverty or provide insurance in moments of unexpected drops in income. Isabela Mares' states that her goal within the chapter is to: "explore how different studies have reconciled the relative importance of structural, institutional, and ideational variables in accounting for the evolution and change in social policy, and also to evaluate wheter existing explanations developed in the context of advanced industrialized economies are robust and can account for the vation in the structure of social programs and levels of social spending a much larger universe of cases."
No comments:
Post a Comment