Tilly’s regime-repertoire model remains untested across multiple regimes

Evidence

No one has assembled the sort of systematic evidence for multiple regimes that is necessary for lining up case after case to determine whether the interplay of regime change and alteration in contentious repertoires does, indeed, generally conform to my simple model. In this book’s second half, my strategy instead is to work out the model’s implications for collective violence, revolutions, social movements, and democratization, then to see whether existing evidence on those contentious processes confirms this chapter’s reasoning. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 669

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s plan to test whether Tilly’s framework can be extended to the institutional-absorption asymmetry — Tilly himself concedes the model is unverified across cases. — connects to: Stable regimes sustain strong flexible repertoires shaped jointly by culture and structure — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 273; Repertoire clustering stems from daily organization, contention history, and regime operations — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 270; Contention-driven regime transformation remains an unanswered puzzle (+4 more)
• QUESTION: This concession opens the space for testing the asymmetry the reader wants: since Tilly never systematically compares how constitutional rights regimes affect subordinate vs dominant politicization, this is precisely the untested extension.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Contention-driven regime transformation remains an unanswered puzzle #qualifies (0.72)