LEADER 04282nam 2200745Ia 450 001 9910819610303321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a1-107-18288-3 010 $a1-281-04059-2 010 $a9786611040598 010 $a1-139-13310-1 010 $a0-511-33495-8 010 $a0-511-33435-4 010 $a0-511-33367-6 010 $a0-511-50980-4 010 $a0-511-33553-9 035 $a(CKB)1000000000478708 035 $a(EBL)307437 035 $a(OCoLC)476087540 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000271677 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11238838 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000271677 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10295208 035 $a(PQKB)11089044 035 $a(UkCbUP)CR9780511509803 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC307437 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL307437 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10193799 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL104059 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000478708 100 $a20070508d2007 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur||||||||||| 181 $ctxt$2rdacontent 182 $cc$2rdamedia 183 $acr$2rdacarrier 200 10$aWhy dominant parties lose $eMexico's democratization in comparative perspective /$fKenneth F. Greene 210 $aNew York $cCambridge University Press$d2007 215 $a1 online resource (xvi, 350 pages) $cdigital, PDF file(s) 300 $aTitle from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015). 311 $a0-521-13989-9 311 $a0-521-87719-9 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aIntroduction: The puzzle of single-party dominance -- A theory of single-party dominance and opposition party development -- Dominant party advantages and opposition party failure, 1930s-1990s -- Why participate? : a theory of elite activism in dominant party systems -- The empirical dynamics of elite activism -- Constrained to the core : opposition party organizations, 1980s-1990s -- Dominance defeated : voting behavior in the 2000 elections -- Extending the argument : Italy, Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan -- Conclusions and implications. 327 $aThe puzzle of single-party dominance -- A theory of single-party dominance and opposition party development -- Dominant party advantages and opposition party failure, 1930s-1990s -- Why participate? : a theory of elite activism in dominant party systems -- The empirical dynamics of elite activism -- Constrained to the core : opposition party organizations, 1980s-1990s -- Dominance defeated : voting behavior in the 2000 elections -- Extending the argument : Italy, Japan, Malaysia, and Taiwan. 330 $aWhy have dominant parties persisted in power for decades in countries spread across the globe? Why did most eventually lose? Why Dominant Parties Lose develops a theory of single-party dominance, its durability, and its breakdown into fully competitive democracy. Greene shows that dominant parties turn public resources into patronage goods to bias electoral competition in their favor and virtually win elections before election day without resorting to electoral fraud or bone-crushing repression. Opposition parties fail because their resource disadvantages force them to form as niche parties with appeals that are out of step with the average voter. When the political economy of dominance erodes, the partisan playing field becomes fairer and opposition parties can expand into catchall competitors that threaten the dominant party at the polls. Greene uses this argument to show why Mexico transformed from a dominant party authoritarian regime under PRI rule to a fully competitive democracy. 606 $aOne-party systems 606 $aOpposition (Political science) 606 $aDemocratization$zMexico 606 $aPresidents$zMexico$xElection$y2000 606 $aComparative government 615 0$aOne-party systems. 615 0$aOpposition (Political science) 615 0$aDemocratization 615 0$aPresidents$xElection 615 0$aComparative government. 676 $a324.2 700 $aGreene$b Kenneth F.$f1969-$01624966 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910819610303321 996 $aWhy dominant parties lose$93960214 997 $aUNINA