No systematic mapping links contentious politics forms to regime types.

Evidence

In order to connect these complex phenomena to each other, furthermore, we must work very selectively. We must concentrate on a few significant variations and causal connections. In meeting this challenge, we have deplorably little systematic analysis to build on. Analysts commonly recognize the concentration of social movements (narrowly defined) in parliamentary democracies, the vulnerability of weakened despotic regimes to revolution, and the greater frequency of coups d’état where military forces exercise great autonomy. Discussions of regimes also retail a miscellany of near-tautologies such as the prevalence of strikes under industrial capitalism or the concentration of peasant revolts in large-landlord systems. But we have no well-established general mapping of variation in the forms and dynamics of contentious politics across the multiple types of governmental regime. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 44

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes Tilly’s core research gap — no general mapping of contention across regime types — which frames the whole book.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 44
• XREF: connects to: No coherent theory links regime type to forms of contention — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 42; Extant theory ignores how contention itself transforms regimes. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 45

Broader Connections

• No coherent theory links regime type to forms of contention #expands (0.97) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 42
• Extant theory ignores how contention itself transforms regimes. #expands (0.90) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 45