We examine data from the World Values Survey regarding the existence of two consistent orientations in mass values, traditional versus secular/rational and survival versus self-expression. We also evaluate the empirical validity of Welzel’s revised value orientations: secular and emancipative. Over the years, a large body of work has presumed the stability and comparability of these value orientations across time and space. Our findings uncover little evidence of the existence of traditional–secular/rational or survival–self-expression values. Welzel’s two dimensions of value orientations—secular and emancipative—seem more reflective of latent value orientations in mass publics but are still imperfectly capturing these orientations. More importantly, these value orientations do not seem very comparable except among a small number of advanced post-industrial democracies. We call attention to the use of value measurements to explain important macro-level phenomena.
Recent theories of political development have emphasized redistributive demands as the main drivers of democratic transitions and consolidation. The authors employ Cox duration models to evaluate a number of economic, institutionalist, and sociological theories of regime transition, using global data from 1970 to 1999. This study suggests that demands for redistribution are insufficient explanators of political transitions. The authors find that transitions to democracy depend primarily on a high level of oppositionist social mobilization and, secondarily, favorable patterns of economic distribution. On the other hand, a high level of socioeconomic development is by far the best guarantor of democratic resiliency, whereas mass political conflict endangers consolidation once democracy has been introduced. The study also reveals that institutionalist factors are less influential than socioeconomic characteristics in explaining regime transitions. This study highlights the contribution of social movement theory to the study of regime transitions.
The literature on labor politics explains cooperation among unions, employers and state representatives in new democracies as a function of alliances between politically influential unions and left governments. This article introduces an original dataset of labor agreements in new democracies (1994—2004). Using Boolean analysis, it shows that while left governments are typically associated with more labor market regulation, they are not sufficient for social pacts to emerge in new democracies. Instead, protective labor market institutions and practices explain most instances of cooperation. Further analysis reveals this to be the case for all types of pacts analyzed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.