Samuel L. Popkin
Professor of Political Science
Ph.D., MIT, 1969
Voting Behavior, Political Economy, Comparative Politics
Popkin has published in unusually diverse areas. His most recent book is The Candidate: What it Takes to Win (and Hold) the White House. Earlier he authored The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns ; co-authored Issues and Strategies: The Computer Simulation of Presidential Campaigns; and he co-edited Chief of Staff: Twenty-Five Years of Managing the Presidency. He is equally well known for his work on peasant society, with particular reference to East and Southeast Asia, including The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Popkin has also been a consulting analyst in presidential campaigns, serving as consultant to the Clinton campaign on polling and strategy, to the CBS News election units from 1983 to 1990 on survey design and analysis, and more recently to the Gore campaign. He has also served as consultant to political parties in Canada and Europe and to the Departments of State and Defense. His current research focuses on presidential campaigns and the relationship of public opinion to foreign policy.
发表于2024-11-04
The Rational Peasant 2024 pdf epub mobi 电子书
图书标签: 社会学 农村研究 比较政治 政治学 乡村社会研究 经济学 东南亚研究 农村
Popkin develops a model of rational peasant behavior and shows how village procedures result from the self-interested interactions of peasants. This political economy view of peasant behavior stands in contrast to the model of a distinctive peasant moral economy in which the village community is primarily responsible for ensuring the welfare of its members.
只读了一遍,村庄如何回应来自外部的制度变化的压力,一些细节非常精彩。
评分coherence方面做得没有Scott好 有很多精彩的论点 但是对于道义经济学的批判还是过于分散了 更像是对前者的补充发展
评分给一本学术著作五星,不代表说的全对,而是有相当的参考价值。波普金完善了舒尔茨的理论,生成了“理性小农”学派的核心观点,为后人进一步研究打下了坚实的基础。在这里不得不再次感叹新古典令人赞叹的自洽性,只要假设对了,全程就是严丝合缝的论证,真是连根针都插不进去hhh;不过还是那句话,假设对吗?我在读舒尔茨时感觉理性小农不等于理性人小农,在这本书中我的感受加深了。可以说,小农是理性的,但新古典理论中的小农是经济理性的,理性与经济理性之间的差距在哪里?谁搞明白了这个问题,谁就抓住了农民问题的金钥匙。
评分斯波论战名动一时,但通读可知两人不自觉地讨论了完全不同的问题:斯氏关注殖民时代国家推展市场和现代化时腐蚀村落的生活有机共同体和冲击旧道义纽带而激起怀旧式反抗,形成道义与危机的循环;波氏则描绘前殖民和殖民时代行政村落内形成的不完备风险对抗、福利和公共设施环境所造成的农民个人冲动被共党及地方宗教采为资源,以政治经济手段有组织解决集体行动困境,发起有组织对抗国家体制并构建新民族国家的前瞻革命。两者可比较的顶多是前殖民和殖民时代,后殖民时期由于各地管理手段不一、相对和平与战争条件不同、成型组织间政治军事对抗凸显集体行动问题、国家建构进展等一系列变化,需要关注传统组织破坏与重构方可作比较。波氏顶多可批判道义经济视角的随意推广化,但他自己的个人理性—政治经济视角很难说否定了前者的意义,相互补充完全可能。
评分coherence方面做得没有Scott好 有很多精彩的论点 但是对于道义经济学的批判还是过于分散了 更像是对前者的补充发展
The Rational Peasant 2024 pdf epub mobi 电子书