Imperial power, gentry power and clan power: Western and Chinese cultural traditions in a comparative perspective

The differences between China and Western countries in human and physical environment has brought about two distinctive models of state. In the Chinese-style state of quasi-consanguinity, in which family and state have a similar structure, imperial power, gentry power, and clan power are the product of common ownership of consanguineous groups. The similarity in the structures of these three kinds of power derives from the fact that they are all restricted by the power of lineage generated from the self-sufficient small farmer economy, and must obey the conventions of ancestors which hold the benefits of the group as supreme. The relationship between these three kinds of power, is definitely not the one that is based on the division of power that is founded on individual private ownership in Western countries, where ‘public power’ and ‘individual private ownership’ are antithetic, but are three aspects of the patriarchal dictatorship that complement each other. Therefore, village rule in China and autonomy in the West are two totally different concepts, and gentry power is also not the ‘authorized power’ from the state. __________ Translated from the Journal of Tianjin Normal University, 2004: 1     

制约缺位：苏联政体的陷阱——陈独秀晚年对社会主义民主的思考

陈独秀晚年对前苏联的政治体制进行过冷峻的思考.他的结论是:斯大林的个人独裁,斯大林对民主的粗暴践踏,根本原因不在于他"个人心术特别坏",而在于政体存在严重弊端--最高统治者手中的权力缺乏起码的制约;是独裁制造就了独裁者,而绝非相反.陈独秀晚年对社会主义民主的思考,是独到的,具有前瞻性的.他明确地告诫人们:社会主义革命后建立的"民主政权",离真正的民主自由制度还差十万八千里;不吸收、借鉴资本主义时代的政治文明机制,不搭建权力分立、监督、制衡框架,不真正确立和完善民主选举、民主决策、言论自由等等具体的制度和程序,社会主义民主必然有其名而无其实,个人集权专断的悲剧便难免重演!陈独秀晚年的这些思考和见解,不仅在20世纪已经得到了验证,在刚刚迈入门槛的21世纪,依然具有现实的启示意义.     

论权力寻租及其法律制约

权力寻租是当前社会产生腐败的主要原因之一。权力寻租有其产生的必然性,它严重危害国家和杜会,已成为当今世界政治中的一大顽症。制约权力寻租最有效的方法是法律制约,但是法律制约权力寻租还必须有合适的环境为支撑。     

华侨华人学科建设的反思：东南亚历史研究的视角与经验

本文的讨论围绕三个层面展开 :华侨华人研究 ,东南亚 (华侨华人 )研究以及笔者个人对槟城—吉打州华人商业与权力关系的研究。争论的实质是这样一个理论与方法论的问题 ,即华侨华人研究应该分别被视为某一孤立的主题研究领域、区域研究和学科研究方法 ,还是一个相互关联的结合整体的问题。本文并非企图为华侨华人研究确立一个标准 ,而仅仅是呈献一个实例 ,即把个人的研究视角和经历 ,结合大的结构、进程、理论和方法论的关怀等问题 ,进行情景化的考察。     

Reaching across: institutional barriers to cross‐ethnic parties in post‐conflict societies and the case of Northern Ireland

This paper investigates the paradox in post‐conflict societies of continued marginality of cross‐ethnic parties despite significant convergence in public attitudes and identities. In so doing, it examines the argument that parties that attempt to reach across the divide are constrained by consocational institutions designed to accommodate rival identities in such environments. The paper explores this puzzle in the context of Northern Ireland, drawing upon qualitative evidence from elite interviews and focus groups collected in 2012 and 2013. It concludes that cross‐community parties operating in the region do encounter formal institutional barriers, but that such barriers only partially explain the phenomenon and an interplay between formal and informal constraints underlies their position of relatively limited electoral success.     

Is “Threat” in the Eye of the Researcher? Theory and Measurement in the Study of State‐Level Immigration Policymaking

This study initiates a methodological critique of the state‐level immigration policy literature through the lens of the racial threat and group power perspectives. First, I highlight the conceptual problems related to the application of such theories to legislature‐level data analysis. Next, I demonstrate the methodological and analytical problems that raise concerns about ad hoc theorizing in this field. Using counts of hostile and welcoming immigration legislation (2005–2011), I demonstrate that outgroup size measures correlate positively with both dependent variables while measures of population growth rate yield null results unless used on their own. These results suggest that the use of legislature‐level models with demographic indicators does not allow us to gain a clear understanding of whether and how population dynamics influence immigration policymaking. Based on these findings, I recommend that when using demographic indicators as key explanatory variables, researchers provide evidence of result consistency across multiple model specifications and also test the models with both hostile and inclusive policy variables. Such protocols would help avoid ad hoc theorizing.