Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper examines the causes of government change in Russia’s President-Parliamentary regime (1994-2003) and assesses three theoretical perspectives:

1) The view that the constitutional format of President-Parliamentary regimes causes government instability and conflict.
2) The proposition that Russia’s constitution creates such a powerful presidency that the incumbent can decide government changes unchecked.
3) The view that government change is the result of an institutionally structured bargaining process, in which the capability and willingness of actors to use their constitutional powers is shaped by election results, policy and public opinion shocks and government performance.

The paper analyses opinion poll, economic and election data, the memoir literature, press reports and current event almanacs.

This evidence suggests:

1) That the regime type perspective correctly identifies a tendency toward government instability in Russia’s president-parliamentary regime, but that it can neither account for the mechanisms of government change nor for variation in conflict and co-operation between president and assembly.
2) That the president was influential in many instances, but that major government changes had to be negotiated with the Duma, and that the president was not always able to secure his desired outcomes.
3) That government change in Russia appeared to be best understood as the outcome of an institutionally structured bargaining process, in which actors are influenced by election outcomes, public opinion and policy shocks and government performance.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The development of the Zapatista movement since the emergence of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in 1994 has occurred in highly complex circumstances. While the movement has enjoyed popular support, the political context has always been closed to their demands. Nevertheless, the Zapatistas have been able to maintain a constant level of protest activity over time within and outside their region of influence. This study investigates the local factors that have allowed the Zapatistas to maintain the level of protest activity by looking at the three main theoretical streams in the study of social movements, namely the structure of political opportunities, the availability of mobilizing networks, and the type of demands’ framing. I analyze the mobilizing capacity of the EZLN over an eight-year period (1994-2001). Using event history models, I analyze the ebb and flow of Zapatista initiated events across the 111 localities (municipios) of Chiapas. To complete these analyses, I coded protest events from national and local newspapers and collected data on socioeconomic and electoral information to create a comprehensive dataset on the Zapatista movement. The results of this study show that Zapatista protest events are more likely to occur in municipios ruled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), with low electoral fractionalization; where the Zapatistas could build upon pre-existing mobilizing organizations; where counter Zapatista organizations are also active; and where protests have been framed using political claims.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper seeks to broaden current conceptions of contentious politics by arguing that scholars should give equal weight both to social movements and their opponents, while devoting substantial attention to third parties involved in the main interaction. To do so, I first examine and critique the dominant “political process” theory of social movement development proposed by Doug McAdam and others. Next, I move from theoretical discussion to concrete illustration: Using an important recent episode of contentious politics, Mexico’s continuing Zapatista conflict in the southern state of Chiapas, I discuss a variety of state policies and show that they cannot simply be viewed as “reactive” to movement sallies. Rather, at least two other sets of factors, some internal to the state, others relating to third parties, play a key role in explaining state policy. Neither of these factors is adequately theorized by the political process approach, at least as it is commonly applied in studying contentious politics. In the conclusion, I propose hypotheses about the circumstances under which state policies toward movements will be more or less reactive to or independent from movement actions. In addition, I draw out some of the paper’s implications for social movement theory.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Using factor analysis and punctuated equilibrium modeling I reexamine the claims of realignment theory. I develop a narrative that places the election of 1994 within the context of the sequential development of the current 'Republican political regime,' and which suggests that the election of 2004 may signify the first 'birth pangs' of a new political order.

Publication Type: Proceeding