宪法起草者如何使用比较证据

Svitlana Chernykh, Zachary Elkins
{"title":"宪法起草者如何使用比较证据","authors":"Svitlana Chernykh, Zachary Elkins","doi":"10.1080/13876988.2021.1990737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes the transcripts of constitutional deliberations in two settings of third-wave democratization, Brazil and Ukraine. The focus is on the extent and kind of references to foreign countries and political institutions. Such references are relevant to the micro-foundations of theories of institutional diffusion. The evidence suggests that foreign references in constitutional debate are as frequent as are references to core concepts such as “democracy” and “freedom”. Also, actors employ foreign references mostly in order to attempt analytic comparisons across institutional models. These references mostly take the form of “endorsements” of the speaker’s favored policy, but a full third of them are negative examples (“warnings”), which lends credence to arguments about “aversive” diffusion mechanisms. Finally, the identity of countries referenced by Brazilian and Ukrainian constitution makers is analyzed. The ordering and profile of these target countries is remarkably similar despite differences in the cultural and geographic character of the two countries. Actors in both countries focused their attention on a small set of countries in the democratic “core”.","PeriodicalId":15486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Constitutional Drafters Use Comparative Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Svitlana Chernykh, Zachary Elkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876988.2021.1990737\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article analyzes the transcripts of constitutional deliberations in two settings of third-wave democratization, Brazil and Ukraine. The focus is on the extent and kind of references to foreign countries and political institutions. Such references are relevant to the micro-foundations of theories of institutional diffusion. The evidence suggests that foreign references in constitutional debate are as frequent as are references to core concepts such as “democracy” and “freedom”. Also, actors employ foreign references mostly in order to attempt analytic comparisons across institutional models. These references mostly take the form of “endorsements” of the speaker’s favored policy, but a full third of them are negative examples (“warnings”), which lends credence to arguments about “aversive” diffusion mechanisms. Finally, the identity of countries referenced by Brazilian and Ukrainian constitution makers is analyzed. The ordering and profile of these target countries is remarkably similar despite differences in the cultural and geographic character of the two countries. Actors in both countries focused their attention on a small set of countries in the democratic “core”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.1990737\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.1990737","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文分析了巴西和乌克兰这两个第三波民主化背景下的宪法审议笔录。重点是对外国和政治制度的参考程度和种类。这些参考文献与制度扩散理论的微观基础有关。有证据表明,在宪法辩论中,外国提及“民主”和“自由”等核心概念的频率与外国提及的频率一样高。此外,参与者使用外国参考文献主要是为了尝试跨制度模型的分析比较。这些引用大多以“赞同”演讲者所支持的政策的形式出现,但其中整整三分之一是负面例子(“警告”),这为关于“厌恶”扩散机制的论点提供了可信度。最后,分析了巴西和乌克兰宪法制定者所参照的国家认同。尽管两国在文化和地理特征上存在差异,但这些目标国家的顺序和概况却非常相似。两国的行动者都把注意力集中在民主“核心”的一小部分国家上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Constitutional Drafters Use Comparative Evidence
Abstract This article analyzes the transcripts of constitutional deliberations in two settings of third-wave democratization, Brazil and Ukraine. The focus is on the extent and kind of references to foreign countries and political institutions. Such references are relevant to the micro-foundations of theories of institutional diffusion. The evidence suggests that foreign references in constitutional debate are as frequent as are references to core concepts such as “democracy” and “freedom”. Also, actors employ foreign references mostly in order to attempt analytic comparisons across institutional models. These references mostly take the form of “endorsements” of the speaker’s favored policy, but a full third of them are negative examples (“warnings”), which lends credence to arguments about “aversive” diffusion mechanisms. Finally, the identity of countries referenced by Brazilian and Ukrainian constitution makers is analyzed. The ordering and profile of these target countries is remarkably similar despite differences in the cultural and geographic character of the two countries. Actors in both countries focused their attention on a small set of countries in the democratic “core”.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信