Testing Tilly’s repertoire generalizations requires parallel catalogs of state actions and claim-making

Evidence

Ideally, evidence for or against these generalizations would take two parallel forms for each regime: (1) a collection of governmental actions that facilitate or repress different kinds of claim-making performances, thus dividing them into prescribed, tolerated, and forbidden; (2) a collection of claim-making performances by actors within the regime. Properly supplemented by continuous information on governmental action, catalogs of “contentious gatherings” collected according to the procedures described in chapter 3 supply evidence of just this sort. Alas, no one has yet prepared the essential catalogs for Uganda, Peru, Morocco, and the other regimes we have been comparing. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 492

Categorization

• QUESTION: Tilly’s key distinction between prescribed/tolerated/forbidden rests on the state’s own repertoire of facilitation and repression — the second catalog has never been built, so his regime-type claims remain unverified at the evidentiary level.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 492
• XREF: connects to: Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669; Tilly’s regime-contention model generalizes across states via adjusted mapping. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 663

Broader Connections

• Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes #corroborates (0.88) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669
• Tilly’s regime-contention model generalizes across states via adjusted mapping. #complicates (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 663