Tilly leaves regime change, capacity shifts, and democratization causally unexplained

Evidence

The same sorts of causes that produce social movements also produce revolutions and collective violence. This book has concentrated on identifying causes that belong to change and variation in the organization of national regimes. So doing, it has clarified and made more urgent three questions that it nevertheless repeatedly brushed aside: Exactly how does contention itself transform regimes? What causes regimes to vary and change from low capacity to high capacity and back again? What causes democratization and democratization? This book underlines why we need better answers to all three questions. The future of popular politics is at stake. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1344

Categorization

• QUESTION: Reader’s stated research question needs Tilly’s regime-capacity/democracy matrix to extend asymmetrically — but this closing passage candidly admits contention-regime causation is brushed aside, so testing institutional-absorption asymmetry requires going beyond Tilly’s own apparatus.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s project: the three brushed-aside questions are exactly where an asymmetry claim about institutional absorption would have to live. — connects to: Tilly’s analysis deliberately privileges regime form over demographic and economic change — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 118; Causal dynamics of authoritarianism cannot be established by correlation alone
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1344

Broader Connections

• Tilly’s analysis deliberately privileges regime form over demographic and economic change #expands (0.78) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 118
• Causal dynamics of authoritarianism cannot be established by correlation alone #qualifies (0.74)