Author:
Crepaz Markus M. L.,Lijphart Arend
Abstract
Hans Keman's and Paul Pennings's critique (‘Managing Political and Societal Conflict in Democracies: Do Consensus and Corporatism Matter?’, this Journal, preceding pages) of our attempt to link corporatism and consensus democracy falls essentially into three parts. Their first criticism deals with the way we measured corporatism. They reject our ‘composite’ approach on the basis that different experts have different conceptual understandings of corporatism. Hence, they argue, it is unwarranted to add up these various scores. Secondly, they claim that our central relationship between consensus democracy and corporatism is a function of our particular measure of corporatism and, in addition, driven by two outlying cases: Italy and Austria. Thirdly, they claim that corporatism and consensus democracy are two different phenomena, and that therefore, corporatism should not be integrated into the concept of consensus democracy. We shall address these three main criticisms in the order described.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Sociology and Political Science
Reference20 articles.
1. Belseley , Kuh and Welsch , Regression Diagnostics, p. 7.
2. Keman and Pennings , ‘Managing Political and Societal Conflict’, p. 6.
3. Neocorporatism and Incomes Policy in Western Europe and North America
4. Lijphart and Crepaz , ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy’, p. 238.
5. Keman and Pennings , ‘Managing Political and Societal Conflict’, p. 274.
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献