Jämför metoder
Granska de valda metoderna sida vid sida; rader som skiljer sig är markerade.
| Resource Curse Analysis× | State Autonomy Analysis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Ämnesområde | Political Economy | Political Economy |
| Familj≠ | Regression model | Process / pipeline |
| Ursprungsår≠ | 2001 | 1984 |
| Upphovsperson≠ | Jeffrey Sachs & Andrew Warner (growth); Michael Ross (democracy) | Theda Skocpol, Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer & Michael Mann |
| Typ≠ | Cross-country regression analysis of resource dependence | State-centered analytical framework |
| Ursprungskälla≠ | Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (2001). Natural Resources and Economic Development: The Curse of Natural Resources. European Economic Review, 45(4-6), 827-838. DOI ↗ | Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521313131 |
| Alias | Natural Resource Curse Analysis, Paradox of Plenty Analysis, Rentier State Analysis, Resource Dependence Regression | State-Centered Analysis, Relative Autonomy Analysis, Infrastructural Power Analysis, Bringing the State Back In Approach |
| Närliggande | 3 | 3 |
| Sammanfattning≠ | Resource curse analysis is the empirical study of the paradox that economies rich in natural resources — oil, gas, minerals — often grow more slowly, remain less democratic, and suffer more conflict than resource-poor economies. Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner's influential work, summarized in their 2001 European Economic Review article, documented a robust negative cross-country correlation between resource dependence and economic growth. Michael Ross's 2001 World Politics article extended the logic to politics, showing statistically that oil wealth is associated with weaker democracy through rentier, repression, and modernization mechanisms. The workhorse method is a cross-country regression of growth or democracy on a measure of resource dependence with controls for the standard determinants of development. | State autonomy analysis treats the state not as a neutral arena or a simple instrument of the dominant class but as an organization with interests, capacities, and powers of its own. Crystallized in the 1985 volume Bringing the State Back In edited by Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol, and given a sharp conceptual edge by Michael Mann's 1984 distinction between despotic and infrastructural power, the framework asks two linked questions: how far can a state formulate goals independent of the preferences of dominant social classes (autonomy), and how effectively can it actually implement those goals across its territory (capacity)? The approach reoriented comparative political economy away from purely society-centered explanations. |
| ScholarGateDatamängd ↗ |
|
|