Диссертация (1136326), страница 43
Текст из файла (страница 43)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.144. Mainwaring S. Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System /Mainwaring S., Shugart M. // Presidentialism and Democracy in LatinAmerica / Ed. by Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997. P.394–439.145. Idem. Party Systems in the Third Wave // Journal of Democracy.1998. Vol 9, № 3.
P. 67–81.146. Idem. Political Sequences and the Stabilization of InterpartyCompetition: Electoral Volatility in Old and New Democracies / S.Mainwaring, E. Zoco // Party Politics. 2007. Vol. 13. № 2. P. 155–178.262147. Idem. Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy: The DifficultCombination // Comparative Political Studies. 1993. Vol.
26. № 2. P. 198–228.148. Mair P. Democracy Beyond Parties : Discussion Paper, Centre forthe Study of Democracy, University of California. Irvine, 2005.149. Idem. Party Membership in twenty European Democracies, 1980–2000 / P. Mair, I. van Biezen // Party Politics. 2001. Vol. 7. № 1.
P. 5–21.150. MaleskyE.NoddingorNeedling:AnalyzingDelegateResponsiveness in an Authoritarian Parliament / Malesky E., Schuler P. //American Political Science Review. 2010. Vol. 104. № 3. P. 482–502.151. Manifesto Project Database. URL: https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/(дата обращения: 06.12.2014)152. Manza J. Class Voting in Capitalist Democracies Since World WarII: Dealignment, Realignment, or Trendless Fluctuation? / Manza J., HoutM., Brooks C. // Annual Review of Sociology. 1995.
Vol. 21. P. 137–162.153. McAllister I. Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in PostCommunist Societies / McAllister I., White S. // Party Politics. 2007. Vol.13. № 2. P. 197–216.154. Merkl P. Which Are Today's Democracies? // International SocialScience Journal. 1993. Vol. 45. P. 257–270.155. Michelat G., Simon M. Classe, religion et comportment politique.Paris, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques – Editionssocials, 1977.156. Millard F. Elections, Parties and Representation in Post-CommunistEurope, 1990–2003. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.157. Modern Political Party Management: What Can Be Learned fromInternational Practices / Ed by C. Schlaeger, J.
Christ. Shanghai: FriedrichEbert Stiftung, 2014.263158. Molinar J. Counting the Number of Parties: An Alternative Index //The American Political Science Review. 1991. Vol. 85. № 4. P. 1383–1391.159. Moore B. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord andPeasant in the Making of the Modern World. - Westminster: PenguinUniversity Books, 1974.160. Morlino L. Political Parties // Democratization / Ed. by ChristianHaerpfer, Patrick Bernhagen, Ronald Inglehart, Christian Welzel. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2009. P. 201–218.161. Moser R.
Electoral Systems and the Number of Parties inPostcommunist States // World Politics. 1999. Vol. 51. № 3. P. 359–384.162. Mozaffar S. Electoral Institutions, Ethnopolitical Cleavages andParty Systems in Africa's Emerging Democracies / Mozaffar S., Scarritt J.,Galaich G. // American Political Science Review. 2003. Vol. 97. № 3. P.379–390.163. Mudde C. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2007.164.
Neto O. Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures and the Numberof Parties / Neto O., Cox G. // American Journal of Political Science. 1997.Vol. 41. № 1. P. 149–174.165. Nohlen D. (ed.). Elections in the Americas: A Data Handbook. Vol.I: North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2005.166. Idem. (ed.). Elections in the Americas: A Data Handbook. Vol. II:South America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.167.
Norris P. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and PoliticalBehavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.264168. O'Donnell G. Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism:Studies in South-American Politics. Oakland: University of CaliforniaPress, 1973.169. Ordeshook P. Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude and theNumber of Parties / Ordeshook P. , Shvetsova O. // American Journal ofPolitical Science. 1994. Vol. 38. № 1. P. 100–123.170.
Ostheimer A. (ed.) Challenges to Democracy by One-PartyDominance:AComparativeAssessment.Sankt-Augustin:KonradAdenauer Stiftung, 2006.171. PanebiancoA.PoliticalParties:OrganizationandPower.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.172. Park C.H. Factional Dynamics in Japan’s LDP Since PoliticalReform: Continuity and Change // Asian Survey. 2001.
Vol. 31. № 3. P.428–461.173. PARLINEDatabaseonNationalhttp://www.ipu.org/parline/parlinesearch.aspParliaments.(датаURL:обращения:06.12.2014).174. Party Governance and Party Democracy / Ed. by W. Müller, H.Narud. Berlin: Springer, 2013.175. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives /Ed. by S. Lipset, S. Rokkan. New York: Free Press, 1967.176. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountabilityand Political Competition / Ed. by H. Kitschelt H., S. Wilkinson S.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.177.
Political Parties and Democracy / Ed. by L. Diamond, R. Gunther.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.178. Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Expericences withDemocracy / Ed. by L. Diamond, J. Linz, S. Lipset. Boulder: LynneRienner Publications, 1995.265179. PolityIV2012Database.http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2012.xls(датаURL:обращения:06.12.2014).180. Powell E. New Approaches to Electoral Volatility: Evidence fromPostcommunist Countries / Powell E., Tucker J.: The Annual Meeting ofthe American Political Science Association.
Toronto, 2009.181. Przeworski A. Democracy and the Market: Political and EconomicReforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1991.182. Przeworski A. Democracy in a Russian Mirror. CambridgeUniversity Press. 2015183. Przeworski A. Modernization: Theories and Facts / Przeworski A.,Limongi F. // World Politics. 1997. Vol. 49. № 2. P. 155–183.184. QualityofGovernmenthttp://www.qogdata.pol.gu.se/StandardData.URL:data/qog_std_cs_20dec13.sav(датаобращения: 06.12.2014).185.
Rae D. Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. -New Heaven:Yale University Press, 1972.186. Randall V. Party Institutionalization in New Democracies / RandallV., Svasand L. // Party Politics. 2002. Vol. 8. № 1. P. 5–29.187. Reilly B. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering forConflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.188. Reuter O. Economic Performance and Elite Defection fromHegemonic Parties / Reuter O., Gandhi J. // British Journal of PoliticalScience.
2010. Vol. 41. P. 83–110.189. Roper S. Are All Semipresidential Regimes the Same? AComparison of Premier-Presidential Regimes // Comparative Politics.2002. Vol. 34. № 3. P. 253–272.266190. Rulers.org Project. URL: http://rulers.org/ (дата обращения:06.12.2014).191. Rupnik J. From Democracy Fatigue to Populist Backlash // Journalof Democracy. 2007. Vol. 18. № 4. P. 17–25.192. Sartori G. Comparative Constitutional Engineering.
New York: NYUPress, 1997.193. Sartori G. Parties and Party Systems: Volume 1 A Framework forAnalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.194. Scheiner E. Democracy Without Competition in Japan: OppositionFailure in a One-Party Dominant State. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2005.195. Schmidt M. Political Performance and Types of Democracy:Findings from Comparative Studies // European Journal of PoliticalResearch. 2002. Vol.
41. P. 147–163.196. Schmitter P. Parties Are Not What They Once Were // PoliticalParties and Democracy / Ed. by Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther.Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2001. P. 67–89.197. Idem. What Democracy Is... And Is Not / Schmitter P., Karl T. //Journal of Democracy. 1991. Vol.
2. № 3. P. 247–255.198. Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York:Harper and Row, 1950.199. Shugart M. Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demand andPersonal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under ProportionalRepresentation / Shugart M., Valdini M., Suominen K. // American Journalof Political Science. 2005. Vol.
49. № 2. P. 437–449.200. Idem. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design andElectoral Dynamics / Shugart M., Carey J. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992.267201. Idem. The Inverse Relationship Between Party Strength andExecutive Strength: A Theory of Politicians' Constitutional Choices //British Journal of Political Science. 1998. Vol. 28. № 1. P.
1–29.202. Silbey J. The Rise and Fall of the Political Parties in the UnitedStates, 1789–1989: The Congressional Roll Call Record. Hinesburg:Carlson Publishers, 1991.203. Sohn J. Intra-Party Management of Japan's LDP. // Modern PoliticalParty Management: What Can Be Learned from International Practices /Ed. by Catrina Schlaeger and Judith Christ. Shanghai: Friedrich-EbertStiftung, 2014. P. 80–90.204.
Snyder R. 2006. "Beyond Electoral Authoritarianism: The SpectrumofNon-democraticRegimes."InA.Schedler(Ed.).ElectoralAuthoritarianism. The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder .London:Lynne Riener Publishers.205. StateFragilityIndexhttp://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/SFIv2012a.xls2012.URL:(датаобращения:06.12.2014).206. Stevens E. Mexico's PRI: The Institutionalization of Corporatism? //Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America / Ed.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
