论文部分内容阅读
民主与经济发展的关系是政治学研究的重大课题之一。利普塞特从经验出发,运用统计分析,先后建立起两种正相关模式,在学界引发了大讨论。普沃斯基历时八年,用“外生化”思路进行统计分析,发现经济发展不能解释民主的出现,但有利于民主的存活,民主对经济发展的促进作用不明显。相较于利普塞特的研究,普沃斯基对核心变量的界定和分类更细化、可量化,对普塞特“内生化”批判的合理之处,纠正选择偏差的努力,研究的双向性与结论的不确定性均具有超越之处,然而对“内生化”的批判并不能导致“外生化”的合理与正确,统计分析方法本身的缺陷,加上其结论和分析对现实解释力的有限性,使其研究也具有一定的局限。
The relationship between democracy and economic development is one of the major topics in political science research. Starting from experience, using the statistical analysis, Lipset successively established two positive correlation modes and led to a great debate in academia. Przeworski spent eight years in a statistical analysis with the idea of “exogenous” and found that economic development can not explain the emergence of democracy, but is conducive to the survival of democracy. The promotion of democracy on economic development is not obvious. Compared with Lipsey’s research, Przeworski’s definition and classification of core variables are more elaborate, quantifiable, reasonable to Critique of Settler, and efforts to correct the choice of deviations, However, the criticism of “endogenous ” does not lead to the rational and correct “exogenous ”, the shortcomings of the statistical analysis method itself, coupled with its Conclusion and analysis of the practical explanatory power of the limited, its research also has some limitations.