Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Comparative Political Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ZHANG, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Corporatism, Totalitarianism, and Transitions to Democracy

BAOHUI ZHANG

University of Texas at Austin

Recent studies of democratization generally emphasize the role of elites and political pacts in transitions to democracy. They usually give little attention to the institutional conditions for elite's successful pact making. This article argues that although choices by elites are important, pact making does require certain institutional conditions. By examining the democratization experiences of Spain, Brazil, the Soviet Union, and China in 1989, this article argues that only some types of authoritarian regimes have the historical possibility of following a pacted transition. Specifically, the author argues that corporatist regimes have unique advantages in following such a path. On the other hand, the totalitarian institutional legacies of once-entrenched communist regimes left democratic oppositions as broadly based social movements and their leaders with strong populist tendencies. These, the author argues, create structural obstacles to democratization through elite's pactmaking for these regimes.

Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, 108-136 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0010414094027001004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Comparative Political StudiesHome page
H. STOCKTON
Political Parties, Party Systems, and Democracy in East Asia: Lessons from Latin America
Comparative Political Studies, February 1, 2001; 34(1): 94 - 119.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
J. Kugler and Y. Feng
Explaining and Modeling Democratic Transitions
Journal of Conflict Resolution, April 1, 1999; 43(2): 139 - 146.
[PDF]


Home page
Modern ChinaHome page
Weixing Chen
The Political Economy of Rural Industrialization in China: Village Conglomerates in Shandong Province
Modern China, January 1, 1998; 24(1): 73 - 96.
[PDF]