Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T11:19:30.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Coerciveness and Turmoil

A Cross-National Inquiry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Ivo K. Feierabend ,
Betty Nesvold  and
Rosalind L. Feierabend
Ivo K. Feierabend
Affiliation:
San Diego State College
Betty Nesvold
Affiliation:
San Diego State College
Rosalind L. Feierabend
Affiliation:
San Diego State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The central theme of this paper concerns the difficult question of whether the use of force, and, generally, the coercive character of a political regime stimulates or inhibits the occurrence of political strife and violence. More specifically, two questions are raised: First, what is the relationship between the degree of regime coerciveness and the amount of violence experienced within political systems? Second, in what way does the consistency or inconsistency with which force is applied affect internal political stability and turmoil?

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , August 1970 , pp. 93 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

AUTHORS' NOTE: We are grateful for the support of the National Science Foundation (Grant GS-1781), which made it possible to collect the cross-national data on permissiveness-coerciveness of political regimes as well as political violence and turmoil In addition we should like to thank the following people for their help: Franz Jaggar, Harley Balzar, Howard Cohen, Mark Owens, and Fred Rosenbaum.

References

BAY, C. (1958) The Structure of Freedom. Palo Alto: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
BERKOWITZ, L. (1962) Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
BUSS, A. (1961) The Psychology of Aggression. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BWY, D. (1968) “Political instability in Latin America: the cross-cultural test of a causal model.” Latin American Research Rev. 3 (Spring): 17–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier's Encylopedia (1945-1966) Yearbook. New York: Crowell-Colliers.Google Scholar
Council of Foreign Relations (1946-1966) Political Handbook of the World. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
CUTRIGHT, P. (1963) “National political development: measurement and analysis.” Amer. Soc. Rev. 28 (April): 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOLLARD, J., MILLER, N., DOOB, L., MOWRER, O., and R., SEARS (1939) Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britannica, Encyclopedia (1945-1966) Yearbook. Chicago: William Benton.Google Scholar
FEIERABEND, I. and R., FEIERABEND (1966a) “Aggressive behaviors within polities, 1948-1962: a cross-national study.” J. of Conflict Resolution 10 (September): 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R., FEIERABEND (1966b) “The relationship of systemic frustration, political coercion, international tension, and political instability.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.Google Scholar
R., FEIERABEND (1965) Cross-National Data Bank of Political Instability Events. (Code Index) San Diego: Public Affairs Research Institute.Google Scholar
FEIERABEND, I., R., FEIERABEND, and D., BOROVIAK (1968) “Cross-national data bank of regime permissiveness-coerciveness.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
FEIERABEND, I., R., FEIERABEND, and B., NESVOLD (1969) “Social change and political violence: cross-national patterns,” Pp. 606–667 in Graham, H. and Gurr, T. (eds.) Violence in America, Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
GILLESPIE, J. and B., NESVOLD [eds.] (1970) Macro-Quantitative Analysis: Conflict, Development, and Democratization. Vol. 1. Sage Readers in Cross-National Research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, H. and T., GURR (1969) Violence in America, Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
GURR, T. (1970) Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
GURR, T. (1969) “A comparative study of civil strife,” Pp. 544–605 in Graham, H. and Gurr, T. (eds.) Violence in America, Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Gurr, T. (1968) “Causal model of civil strife: a comparative analysis using new.indices.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 62 (December): 1104–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeVINE, R. (1959) “Anti-European violence in Africa: a comparative analysis.” J. of Conflict Resolution 3 (December): 420–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NESVOLD, B. (1969) “A scalogram analysis of political violence.” Comparative Pol. Studies 2 (July): 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIXON, R. (1965) “Freedom in the world's press: a fresh appraisal with new data.” Journalism Q. 42 (Winter): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OPPENHEIM, F. (1961) Dimensions of Freedom. New York: St. Martin's.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RUSSETT, B. (1964) “Inequality and instability: the relation of land tenure to politics.” World Politics 16 (April): 442–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEARS, R., E., MACCOBY, and H., LEVIN (1957) Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
WALTON, J. (1965) “Correlates of coerciveness and permissiveness of national political systems: a cross-national study.” Unpublished. San Diego State College.Google Scholar
WHITING, J. and I., CHILD (1953) Child Training and Personality. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar