Tilly’s analysis deliberately privileges regime form over demographic and economic change
Evidence
Let me say clearly what the book does not do, and what it only does halfway. It does not provide a comprehensive account of all change and variation in contentious politics. Instead, it concentrates on how regime change and variation affect contentious politics. Nor does the book offer a general description or explanation of regime change and variation, a topic I have dealt with extensively in other books. It singles out the kinds of change and variation in regimes that have the largest, most direct, and most visible impact on political contention. That means favoring shifts in alignments among major political actors and in forms of government over incremental transformations of economy, population, environment, and belief systems. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 118
Categorization
- XREF: Reader’s stated project tests an asymmetry about institutional absorption defusing politicization; this scoping statement clarifies Tilly only examines regime→contention direction, leaving contention→regime (and any asymmetry within it) mostly untreated. — connects to: Tilly leaves regime change, capacity shifts, and democratization causally unexplained — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1344; Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669; Regime typology work splits between principled and historical approaches — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 95
- QUESTION: Since Tilly deliberately brackets contention’s effects on regimes, testing whether constitutional rights regimes have asymmetric absorption effects may require going beyond this book’s stated scope.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 118
Broader Connections
- Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes
#responds-to(0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669 - Regime typology work splits between principled and historical approaches
#qualifies(0.85) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 95