How, if at all, do Muslims and non-Muslims differ? The question spurs spirited discussion among people the world over, in Muslim and non-Muslim lands alike, but we still lack answers based on sound empirical evidence. This book engages a set of the biggest issues using rigorous methods and data drawn from around the globe. It reveals that in some areas Muslims and non-Muslims differ less than is commonly imagined, and shows that Muslims are not unusually religious or inclined to favor the fusion of religious and political authority. Nor are Muslims especially prone to mass political violence. Yet in some areas Muslims and non-Muslims diverge: Gender inequality is more severe among Muslims, Muslims are unusually intolerant of homosexuality and other controversial behaviors, and democracy is rare in the Muslim world. Other areas of divergence bear the marks of a Muslim advantage: Violent crime and class-based inequities are less severe among Muslims than non-Muslims. Committed to discovering social facts rather than either stoking prejudices or stroking political sensibilities, Are Muslims Distinctive? represents the first major scientific effort to assess how Muslims and non-Muslims differ-and do not differ-in the contemporary world. Its findings have vital implications for human welfare, interfaith understanding, and the foreign policies of the United States and other Western countries.

This edited volume seeks to understand and explain the pattern of varying national and regional success in post-communist political and economic transition across the post-communist world. Despite widespread hopes for the development of vigorous democratic political systems and vibrant market economies, the outcomes of a quarter century of post-communist transition in the countries of the former communist bloc in Eurasia have been widely variant. Some have matched these hopes, including becoming full members of the EU; others have fallen far short, with political and economic systems little changed from the communist era. This collection, with an internationally respected list of contributors, addresses some of the pressing issues in political science and transition studies, ranging from theoretical overviews to the more specific nitty-gritty of contemporary politics.

Why has democracy failed to take root in Russia? After shedding the shackles of Soviet rule, some countries in the postcommunist region undertook lasting democratization. Yet Russia did not. Russia experienced dramatic political breakthroughs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but it subsequently failed to maintain progress toward democracy. In this book, M. Steven Fish offers an explanation for the direction of regime change in post-Soviet Russia. Relying on cross-national comparative analysis as well as on in-depth field research in Russia, Fish shows that Russia's failure to democratize has three causes: too much economic reliance on oil, too little economic liberalization, and too weak a national legislature. Fish's explanation challenges others that have attributed Russia's political travails to history, political culture, or to 'shock therapy' in economic policy. The book offers a theoretically original and empirically rigorous explanation for one of the most pressing political problems of our time.

This edited volume seeks to understand and explain the pattern of varying national and regional success in post-communist political and economic transition across the post-communist world. Despite widespread hopes for the development of vigorous democratic political systems and vibrant market economies, the outcomes of a quarter century of post-communist transition in the countries of the former communist bloc in Eurasia have been widely variant. Some have matched these hopes, including becoming full members of the EU; others have fallen far short, with political and economic systems little changed from the communist era. This collection, with an internationally respected list of contributors, addresses some of the pressing issues in political science and transition studies, ranging from theoretical overviews to the more specific nitty-gritty of contemporary politics.

Where is the power? Students of politics have pondered this question, and social scientists have scrutinized formal political institutions and the distribution of power among agencies of the government and the state. But we still lack a rich bank of data measuring the power of specific governmental agencies, particularly national legislatures. This book assesses the strength of the national legislature of every country in the world with a population of at least a half-million inhabitants. The Legislative Powers Survey (LPS) is a list of thirty-two items that gauge the legislature's sway over the executive, its institutional autonomy, its authority in specific areas and its institutional capacity. Data were gathered by means of a vast international survey of experts, extensive study of secondary sources and painstaking analysis of constitutions and other relevant documents. Individual country chapters provide answers to each of the thirty-two survey items, supplemented by expert commentary and relevant excerpts from constitutions.

Where is the power? Students of politics have pondered this question, and social scientists have scrutinized formal political institutions and the distribution of power among agencies of the government and the state. But we still lack a rich bank of data measuring the power of specific governmental agencies, particularly national legislatures. This book assesses the strength of the national legislature of every country in the world with a population of at least a half-million inhabitants. The Legislative Powers Survey (LPS) is a list of thirty-two items that gauge the legislature's sway over the executive, its institutional autonomy, its authority in specific areas and its institutional capacity. Data were gathered by means of a vast international survey of experts, extensive study of secondary sources and painstaking analysis of constitutions and other relevant documents. Individual country chapters provide answers to each of the thirty-two survey items, supplemented by expert commentary and relevant excerpts from constitutions.

Why has democracy failed to take root in Russia? After shedding the shackles of Soviet rule, some countries in the postcommunist region undertook lasting democratization. Yet Russia did not. Russia experienced dramatic political breakthroughs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but it subsequently failed to maintain progress toward democracy. In this book, M. Steven Fish offers an explanation for the direction of regime change in post-Soviet Russia. Relying on cross-national comparative analysis as well as on in-depth field research in Russia, Fish shows that Russia's failure to democratize has three causes: too much economic reliance on oil, too little economic liberalization, and too weak a national legislature. Fish's explanation challenges others that have attributed Russia's political travails to history, political culture, or to 'shock therapy' in economic policy. The book offers a theoretically original and empirically rigorous explanation for one of the most pressing political problems of our time.

This book presents a fresh view of Russian political change in the Gorbachev and early post-Soviet periods not by examining "perestroika" and "glasnost" in and of themselves, but by investigating the autonomous political organizations that responded to liberalization. Extensive study of these political groups, in Moscow and several provincial cities, has led M. Steven Fish to conclude that they were shaped to a far greater degree by the nature of the Soviet state than by socioeconomic modernization, political culture, native psychology, or Russian historical tradition. Fish's statist theory of societal change in Russia yields a powerful explanation of why Russia's new political society differs radically not only from the "totalized," sub-jugated country of the pre-1985 period but also from the "civil societies" found in the West and in many developing countries. In addition, the author shows how the legacy of the Soviet experience continues to influence the development--arguably the underdevelopment--of representative political institutions in post-Soviet Russia, making the establishment of stable democracy unlikely in the near term.

This book proposes a novel and theoretically sophisticated way to study Russian politics. It offers a rigorous approach to understanding social movements, political party formation, regime change, and democratization in general. While focusing primarily on a single country, it is vigorously comparative at the same time.

How, if at all, do Muslims and non-Muslims differ? The question spurs spirited discussion among people the world over, in Muslim and non-Muslim lands alike, but we still lack answers based on sound empirical evidence. This book engages a set of the biggest issues using rigorous methods and data drawn from around the globe. It reveals that in some areas Muslims and non-Muslims differ less than is commonly imagined, and shows that Muslims are not unusually religious or inclined to favor the fusion of religious and political authority. Nor are Muslims especially prone to mass political violence. Yet in some areas Muslims and non-Muslims diverge: Gender inequality is more severe among Muslims, Muslims are unusually intolerant of homosexuality and other controversial behaviors, and democracy is rare in the Muslim world. Other areas of divergence bear the marks of a Muslim advantage: Violent crime and class-based inequities are less severe among Muslims than non-Muslims. Committed to discovering social facts rather than either stoking prejudices or stroking political sensibilities, Are Muslims Distinctive? represents the first major scientific effort to assess how Muslims and non-Muslims differ-and do not differ-in the contemporary world. Its findings have vital implications for human welfare, interfaith understanding, and the foreign policies of the United States and other Western countries.

Why did the wave of democracy that swept the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe starting more than a decade ago develop in ways unexpected by observers who relied on existing theories of democracy? In "Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy," four distinguished scholars conduct the first major assessment of democratization theory in light of the experience of postcommunist states. Richard Anderson, Steven Fish, Stephen Hanson, and Philip Roeder not only apply theory to practice, but using a wealth of empirical evidence, draw together the elements of existing theory into new syntheses.

The authors each highlight a development in postcommunist societies that reveals an anomaly or lacuna in existing theory. They explain why authoritarian leaders abandon authoritarianism, why democratization sometimes reverses course, how subjects become citizens by beginning to take sides in politics, how rulers become politicians by beginning to seek popular support, and not least, how democracy becomes consolidated. Rather than converging on a single approach, each author shows how either a rationalist, institutionalist, discursive, or Weberian approach sheds light on this transformation.

They conclude that the experience of postcommunist democracy demands a rethinking of existing theory. To that end, they offer rich new insights to scholars, advanced students, policymakers, and anyone interested in postcommunist states or in comparative democratization.