Revolution

Last updated

In political science, a revolution (Latin : revolutio, 'a turn around') is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's state, class, ethnic or religious structures. [1] [2] [3] A revolution involves the attempted change in political regimes, substantial mass mobilization, and efforts to force change through non-institutionalized means (such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence). [1]

Contents

Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, success or failure, duration, and motivating ideology. [1] [4] Revolutions may start with urban insurrections and the collapse of a regime or they may start in the periphery through guerilla war or peasant revolts. [1] Regimes may be vulnerable to revolutions due to military defeats, affronts to national pride and identity, repression and corruption. [1] Revolutions may prompt counter-revolutions that seek to prevent a revolution or reverse the course on an ongoing or successful revolution. [5]

The international system may diffuse ideologies and models of governance, such as nationalism, self-determination, republicanism, liberalism, democracy, fascism and socialism, that inspire revolutions. [6]

Notable revolutions in recent centuries include the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the Spanish American wars of independence (1808–1826), the European Revolutions of 1848, the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Revolution of the 1940s, the Decolonisation of Africa, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the European Revolutions of 1989.

Etymology

The word "revolucion" is known in French from the 13th century, and "revolution" in English by the late fourteenth century, with regard to the revolving motion of celestial bodies. "Revolution" in the sense of representing abrupt change in a social order is attested by at least 1450. [7] [8] Political usage of the term had been well established by 1688 in the description of the replacement of James II with William III. This incident was termed the "Glorious Revolution". [9]

Definition

Perhaps most often, the word "revolution" is employed to denote a change in social and political institutions. [10] [11] [12] Jeff Goodwin gives two definitions of a revolution. First, a broad one, including

any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional or violent fashion.

Second, a narrow one, in which

revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power. [13]

Jack Goldstone defines a revolution as

an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities. [1]

Early scholars debated distinctions between revolutions and civil wars. [4] [14] They also debated whether revolutions were purely political (concerning the transformation of government) or whether they were more expansive in nature to encompass broader social change. [15]

Types

A Watt steam engine in Madrid. The development of the steam engine propelled the Industrial Revolution in Britain and the world. The steam engine was created to pump water from coal mines, enabling them to be deepened beyond groundwater levels. Maquina vapor Watt ETSIIM.jpg
A Watt steam engine in Madrid. The development of the steam engine propelled the Industrial Revolution in Britain and the world. The steam engine was created to pump water from coal mines, enabling them to be deepened beyond groundwater levels.

There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature. [16]

Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between:

One of several different Marxist typologies [18] divides revolutions into:

Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated between;

Revolutions of 1848 were essentially bourgeois revolutions and democratic and liberal in nature, with the aim of removing the old monarchical structures and creating independent nation-states. Europe 1848 map en.png
Revolutions of 1848 were essentially bourgeois revolutions and democratic and liberal in nature, with the aim of removing the old monarchical structures and creating independent nation-states.

Mark Katz [21] identified six forms of revolution;

These categories are not mutually exclusive; the Russian Revolution of 1917 began with the urban revolution to depose the Czar, followed by rural revolution, followed by the Bolshevik coup in November. Katz also cross-classified revolutions as follows;

A further dimension to Katz's typology [23] is that revolutions are either against (anti-monarchy, anti-dictatorial, anti-communist, anti-democratic) or for (pro-fascism, communism, nationalism etc.). In the latter cases, a transition period is often necessary to decide on the direction taken.

Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions (inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with Communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization); or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.

The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy, and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions. [24] Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the Industrial Revolution, Scientific Revolution or the Commercial Revolution. Note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville. [25] A similar example is the Digital Revolution.

Definition

R E V O L U T I O N, graffiti with political message on a house wall. Four letters have been written backwards and with a different color so that they also form the word Love. Revolution - 2014.jpg
R E V O L U T I O N, graffiti with political message on a house wall. Four letters have been written backwards and with a different color so that they also form the word Love.
The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789 during the French Revolution. Prise de la Bastille.jpg
The storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789 during the French Revolution.
George Washington, leader of the American Revolution. Portrait of George Washington-transparent.png
George Washington, leader of the American Revolution.
Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Lenin.WWI.JPG
Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.
Sun Yat-sen, leader of the Chinese Xinhai Revolution in 1911. Sunyatsen1.jpg
Sun Yat-sen, leader of the Chinese Xinhai Revolution in 1911.
Khana Ratsadon, a group of military officers and civil officials, who staged the Siamese Revolution of 1932. kaarptiwatisyaam ph.s. 2475 kaarepliiynaeplngkaarpkkhr`ngkh`ngpraethsaithy 01.jpg
Khana Ratsadon, a group of military officers and civil officials, who staged the Siamese Revolution of 1932.

Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many social sciences, particularly sociology, political sciences and history. [26]

Scholars of revolutions, like Jack Goldstone, differentiate four current 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions. [1] The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood, or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory. [10]

Second generation theorists sought to develop detailed theories of why and when revolutions arise, grounded in more complex social behavior theories. They can be divided into three major approaches: psychological, sociological and political. [10]

The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz, and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g., modernization, recession, or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation. [10]

The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, and Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions. [10]

Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals. [10]

The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some change results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (e.g., a war, a riot, a bad harvest), now is sufficient; however, if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution through reform or repression. [1]

Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases: famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688), the French Revolution (1789–1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Chinese Revolution (also known as the Chinese Civil War) (1927–1949). [1] In his The Anatomy of Revolution, however, the Harvard historian Crane Brinton focused on the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. [27]

In time, scholars began to analyze hundreds of other events as revolutions (see List of revolutions and rebellions), and differences in definitions and approaches gave rise to new definitions and explanations. The theories of the second generation have been criticized for their limited geographical scope, difficulty in empirical verification, as well as that while they may explain some particular revolutions, they did not explain why revolutions did not occur in other societies in very similar situations. [1]

The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites, and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change. Particularly Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures [...] accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes. [1]

The fall of the Berlin Wall and most of the events of the Autumn of Nations in Europe, 1989, were sudden and peaceful. West and East Germans at the Brandenburg Gate in 1989.jpg
The fall of the Berlin Wall and most of the events of the Autumn of Nations in Europe, 1989, were sudden and peaceful.

From the late 1980s, a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions.

For some historians, revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions, firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated structuralist theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious agency in the form of ideology and culture in shaping revolutionary mobilization and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and social movements realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on contentious politics has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena. [1]

Further, social science research on revolution, primarily work in political science, has begun to move beyond individual or comparative case studies towards large-N empirical studies assessing the causes and implications of revolution. Initial studies generally rely on the Polity Project's data on democratization. [28] Such analyses, like those by Enterline, [29] Maoz, [30] and Mansfield and Snyder, [31] identify revolutions based on regime changes indicated by a change in the country's score on Polity's autocracy to democracy scale. More recently, scholars like Jeff Colgan have argued that Polity, which measures the degree of democratic or autocratic authority in a state's governing institutions based on the openness of executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition, is inadequate because it measures democratization, not revolution, and fails to account for regimes which come to power by revolution but fail to change the structure of the state and society sufficiently to yield a notable difference in Polity score. [32] Instead, Colgan offers a new data set on revolutionary leaders which identifies governments that "transform the existing social, political, and economic relationships of the state by overthrowing or rejecting the principal existing institutions of society." [33] This most recent data set has been employed to make empirically based contributions to the literature on revolution by identifying links between revolution and the likelihood of international disputes.

Revolutions have also been approached from anthropological perspectives. Drawing on Victor Turner's writings on ritual and performance, Bjorn Thomassen has argued that revolutions can be understood as "liminal" moments: modern political revolutions very much resemble rituals and can therefore be studied within a process approach. [34] This would imply not only a focus on political behavior "from below", but also to recognize moments where "high and low" are relativized, made irrelevant or subverted, and where the micro and macro levels fuse together in critical conjunctions.

Economist Douglass North argued that it is much easier for revolutionaries to alter formal political institutions such as laws and constitutions than to alter informal social conventions. According to North, inconsistencies between rapidly changing formal institutions and slow-changing informal ones can inhibit effective sociopolitical change. Because of this, the long-term effect of revolutionary political restructuring is often more moderate than the ostensible short-term effect. [35]

While revolutions encompass events ranging from the relatively peaceful revolutions that overthrew communist regimes to the violent Islamic revolution in Afghanistan, they exclude coups d'état, civil wars, revolts, and rebellions that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as Józef Piłsudski's May Coup of 1926 or the American Civil War), as well as peaceful transitions to democracy through institutional arrangements such as plebiscites and free elections, as in Spain after the death of Francisco Franco. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

A state is a political entity that regulates society and the population within a territory. Government is considered to form the fundamental apparatus of contemporary states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social movement</span> Loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular set of goals

A social movement is a loosely organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one. This may be to carry out a social change, or to resist or undo one. It is a type of group action and may involve individuals, organizations, or both. Social movements have been described as "organizational structures and strategies that may empower oppressed populations to mount effective challenges and resist the more powerful and advantaged elites". They represent a method of social change from the bottom within nations. On the other hand, some social movements do not aim to make society more egalitarian, but to maintain or amplify existing power relationships. For example, scholars have described fascism as a social movement.

In political science, a political system means the type of political organization that can be recognized, observed or otherwise declared by a state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social change</span> Any significant alteration in societal order

Social change is the alteration of the social order of a society which may include changes in social institutions, social behaviours or social relations. Sustained at a larger scale, it may lead to social transformation or societal transformation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratization</span> Society becoming more democratic

Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secularization</span> Societal transition away from religion

In sociology, secularization is a multilayered concept that generally denotes "a transition from a religious to a more worldly level." There are many types of secularization and most do not lead to atheism, irreligion, nor are they automatically anti-thetical to religion. Secularization has different connotations such as implying differentiation of secular from religious domains, the marginalization of religion in those domains, or it may also entail the transformation of religion as a result of its recharacterization.

Rebellion is a violent uprising against one's government. A rebel is a person who engages in a rebellion. A rebel group is a consciously coordinated group that seeks to gain political control over an entire state or a portion of a state.

Modernization theory holds that as societies become more economically modernized, wealthier and more educated, their political institutions become increasingly liberal democratic. The "classical" theories of modernization of the 1950s and 1960s, most influentially articulated by Seymour Lipset, drew on sociological analyses of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons. Modernization theory was a dominant paradigm in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, and saw a resurgence after 1991, when Francis Fukuyama wrote about the end of the Cold War as confirmation on modernization theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barrington Moore Jr.</span> American sociologist (1913–2005)

Barrington Moore Jr. was an American political sociologist, and the son of forester Barrington Moore.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theda Skocpol</span> American sociologist and political scientist (born 1947)

Theda Skocpol is an American sociologist and political scientist, who is currently the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. She is best known as an advocate of the historical-institutional and comparative approaches, as well as her "state autonomy theory". She has written widely for both popular and academic audiences. She has been President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association.

<i>States and Social Revolutions</i> 1979 book by Theda Skocpol

States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China is a 1979 book by Theda Skocpol, published by Cambridge University Press, that examines the causes of social revolutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Tilly</span> American sociologist (1929–2008)

Charles Tilly was an American sociologist, political scientist, and historian who wrote on the relationship between politics and society. He was a professor of history, sociology, and social science at the University of Michigan from 1969 to 1984 before becoming the Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science at Columbia University.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legitimation crisis</span> Decline of trust in authority

Legitimation crisis refers to a decline in the confidence of administrative functions, institutions, or leadership. The term was first introduced in 1973 by Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher. Habermas expanded upon the concept, claiming that with a legitimation crisis, an institution or organization does not have the administrative capabilities to maintain or establish structures effective in achieving their end goals. The term itself has been generalized by other scholars to refer not only to the political realm, but to organizational and institutional structures as well. While there is not unanimity among social scientists when claiming that a legitimation crisis exists, a predominant way of measuring a legitimation crisis is to consider public attitudes toward the organization in question.

Mass mobilization refers to mobilization of civilian population as part of contentious politics. Mass mobilization is defined as a process that engages and motivates a wide range of partners and allies at national and local levels to raise awareness of and demand for a particular development objective through face-to-face dialogue. Members of institutions, community networks, civic and religious groups and others work in a coordinated way to reach specific groups of people for dialogue with planned messages. In other words, social mobilization seeks to facilitate change through a range of players engaged in interrelated and complementary efforts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparative historical research</span> Method in the social sciences

Comparative historical research is a method of social science that examines historical events in order to create explanations that are valid beyond a particular time and place, either by direct comparison to other historical events, theory building, or reference to the present day. Generally, it involves comparisons of social processes across times and places. It overlaps with historical sociology. While the disciplines of history and sociology have always been connected, they have connected in different ways at different times. This form of research may use any of several theoretical orientations. It is distinguished by the types of questions it asks, not the theoretical framework it employs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology</span> Social science that studies human society and its development

Sociology is the study of human society that focuses on society, human social behavior, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and aspects of culture associated with everyday life. Regarded as a part of both the social sciences and humanities, sociology uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order and social change. Sociological subject matter ranges from micro-level analyses of individual interaction and agency to macro-level analyses of social systems and social structure. Applied sociological research may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, whereas theoretical approaches may focus on the understanding of social processes and phenomenological method.

Anocracy, or semi-democracy, is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features". Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements. Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas. Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition. Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.

Social revolutions are sudden changes in the structure and nature of society. These revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed society, economy, culture, philosophy, and technology along with but more than just the political systems.

Richard Lachmann was an American sociologist and specialist in comparative historical sociology who was a professor at University at Albany, SUNY.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Goldstone, Jack (2001). "Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory". Annual Review of Political Science . 4: 139–187. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.139 .
  2. Beck, Colin J. (2018). "The Structure of Comparison in the Study of Revolution". Sociological Theory. 36 (2): 134–161. doi:10.1177/0735275118777004. ISSN   0735-2751. S2CID   53669466.
  3. Skocpol, Theda (1979). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815805. ISBN   978-0-521-22439-0.
  4. 1 2 Stone, Lawrence (1966). "Theories of Revolution". World Politics. 18 (2): 159–176. doi:10.2307/2009694. ISSN   1086-3338. JSTOR   2009694. S2CID   154757362.
  5. Clarke, Killian (2023). "Revolutionary Violence and Counterrevolution". American Political Science Review. 117 (4): 1344–1360. doi: 10.1017/S0003055422001174 . ISSN   0003-0554. S2CID   254907991.
  6. Gunitsky 2018; Gunitsky 2017; Gunitsky 2021; Reus-Smit 2013; Fukuyama 1992; Getachew 2019
  7. OED vol Q-R p. 617 1979 Sense III states a usage "Alteration, change, mutation" from 1400 but lists it as "rare". "c. 1450, Lydg 1196 Secrees of Elementys the Revoluciuons, Chaung of tymes and Complexiouns." It's clear that the usage had been established by the early 15th century but only came into common use in the late 17th century in England.
  8. "Revolution". onlineetymology.com.
  9. Pipes, Richard. "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution". Archived from the original on 11 May 2011.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Goldstone, Jack (1980). "Theories of Revolutions: The Third Generation". World Politics . 32 (3): 425–453. doi:10.2307/2010111. JSTOR   2010111. S2CID   154287826.
  11. Foran, John (1993). "Theories of Revolution Revisited: Toward a Fourth Generation". Sociological Theory . 11 (1): 1–20. doi:10.2307/201977. JSTOR   201977.
  12. Kroeber, Clifton B. (1996). "Theory and History of Revolution". Journal of World History . 7 (1): 21–40. doi:10.1353/jwh.2005.0056. S2CID   144148530.
  13. Goodwin, p.9.
  14. Billington, James H. (1966). "Six Views of the Russian Revolution". World Politics. 18 (3): 452–473. doi:10.2307/2009765. ISSN   1086-3338. JSTOR   2009765. S2CID   154688891.
  15. Yoder, Dale (1926). "Current Definitions of Revolution". American Journal of Sociology. 32 (3): 433–441. ISSN   0002-9602.
  16. Grinin, Leonid; Grinin, Anton; Korotayev, Andrey (2022). "20th Century revolutions: characteristics, types, and waves". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications . 9 (1): 1–13. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01120-9 .
  17. Boesche, Roger (2006). Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism. Lexington Books. pp.  https://books.google.com/books?id=fLL6Bil2gtcC&pg=PA86 86]. ISBN   0-7391-1665-7.
  18. Topolski, J. (1976). "Rewolucje w dziejach nowożytnych i najnowszych (xvii-xx wiek)" [Revolutions in modern and recent history (17th-20th century)]. Kwartalnik Historyczny (in Polish). LXXXIII: 251–267.
  19. Tilly, Charles (1995). European Revolutions, 1492-1992. Blackwell Publishing. pp.  16. ISBN   0-631-19903-9.
  20. Lewis, Bernard. "Iran in History". Moshe Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University . Archived from the original on 29 April 2007.
  21. Katz 1997, p. 4.
  22. Katz 1997, p. 13.
  23. Katz 1997, p. 12.
  24. Fang, Irving E. (1997). A History of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions. Focal Press. pp. xv. ISBN   0-240-80254-3.
  25. Murray, Warwick E. (2006). Geographies of Globalization. Routledge. pp.  226. ISBN   0-415-31800-9.
  26. Goodwin, Jeff (2001). No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991. Cambridge University Press. p. 5.
  27. Brinton, Crane (1965) [1938]. The Anatomy of Revolution (revised ed.). New York: Vintage Books.
  28. "PolityProject". www.systemicpeace.org. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  29. Enterline, A. J. (1 December 1998). "Regime Changes, Neighborhoods, and Interstate Conflict, 1816-1992". Journal of Conflict Resolution . 42 (6): 804–829. doi:10.1177/0022002798042006006. ISSN   0022-0027. S2CID   154877512.
  30. Maoz, Zeev (1996). Domestic sources of global change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  31. Mansfield, Edward D.; Snyder, Jack (2007). Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies go to War. MIT Press.
  32. Colgan, Jeff (1 September 2012). "Measuring Revolution". Conflict Management and Peace Science. 29 (4): 444–467. doi:10.1177/0738894212449093. ISSN   0738-8942. S2CID   220675692.
  33. "Data - Jeff D Colgan". sites.google.com. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
  34. Thomassen, Bjorn (2012). "Toward an anthropology of political revolutions" (PDF). Comparative Studies in Society and History. 54 (3): 679–706. doi:10.1017/s0010417512000278. S2CID   15806418.
  35. North, Douglass C. (1992). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic performance. San Francisco: ICS Press. p. 13.

Bibliography


Further reading