Tilly’s regime-contention model generalizes across states via adjusted mapping.

Evidence

The overall sequence of events in South Africa between 1948 and 2000 belongs to South Africa alone. Nowhere else—not even in adjacent Namibia—did a tight system of apartheid mutate into a fledgling democracy along the same trajectory. My scheme’s claims to generality lie at two other levels. First, it offers a crude but serviceable model of how regime change does affect popular contention, from governmental change to regime realignment to alterations of POS to changes in contention. With appropriate adjustments, we can use it to map the interaction of changing regimes and repertoires in Uganda, Morocco, Peru, or the United States, as well as in South Africa. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 663

Categorization

• QUESTION: Tilly explicitly names the US as mappable by this scheme — the natural test site for whether constitutional rights absorption asymmetrically channels dominant vs subordinate politicization. Reader should chase whether his POS variables can carry that asymmetry.
• SEED: Angle: applying Tilly’s figure 5.2 to US civil rights history to test the untested asymmetry of institutional absorption.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 663
• XREF: connects to: Testing Tilly’s repertoire generalizations requires parallel catalogs of state actions and claim-making — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 492; Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669; A regime’s prior trajectory shapes its present repertoires — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 683 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes #complicates (0.82) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669
• Classical regime mapping classifies by who rules and whether for common or private interest #expands (0.80) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 74
• Regime capacity shapes how contention is channeled between prescribed, tolerated, and forbidden performances #expands (0.79) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 484
• A regime’s prior trajectory shapes its present repertoires #qualifies (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 683
• Regime change and contention mutually shape each other over long periods #expands (0.76) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 549
• Initial conditions shape but do not determine contention outcomes across regimes #qualifies (0.74) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 816
• Regime-internal relational shifts drive contention against both bottom-up and top-down causality #complicates (0.73) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 659