Advertisement

The Plural Societies for Which Consociation Is Prescribed

  • Brighid Brooks Kelly
Chapter

Abstract

The plural societies described by Lijphart are identified as precisely as possible through analysis of every usage of the term in his work involving consociation. Comparison of this concept with similar ones described by other political scientists illustrates the relevance of this project’s findings to a wide body of research involving intergroup conflict. The optimal means available for operationalization of Lijphart’s plural societies through quantitative cases is explored, justified, and specified. The drawbacks of this methodological decision are acknowledged and discussed. Recognition of the imperfect correspondence between how plural societies would ideally be represented and the best data available now for doing so emphasizes the value of studying the effects of consociation through case studies, as well as statistical analysis.

References

  1. Fearon, James D. and David D. Laitin. “Collaborative Project: ‘Minorities at Risk’ Data Base and Explaining Ethnic Violence: NSF Grant Proposal.” 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Griffin, J. “Papua New Guinea.” Modern Asia: Problems and Politics. Eds. R. Brissenden and J. Griffin. Milton: Jacaranda Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. Gurr, Ted Robert. Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. Gurr, Ted Robert. Peoples Versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. Haug, Marie R. “Social and Cultural Pluralism as a Concept in Social System Analysis.” The American Journal of Sociology. 73:3 (November, 1967) 294–304.Google Scholar
  6. Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Lijphart, Arend. “Comment: Consociational Theory: Problems and Prospects: A Reply.” Comparative Politics. 13:3 (April, 1981) 355–360.Google Scholar
  8. Lijphart, Arend. “The Politics of Accommodation: Reflections—Fifteen Years Later.” Acta Politica. 19:1 (January, 1984) 9–18.Google Scholar
  9. Lijphart, Arend. “Democratic Political Systems: Types, Cases, Causes, and Consequences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics. 1:1 (1989) 33–48.Google Scholar
  10. Lijphart, Arend. “Self-Determination Versus Pre-determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power-Sharing Systems.” The Rights of Minority Cultures. Ed. Will Kymlicka. Oxford: Oxford University, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. Premdas, R. “Ethnicity and Nation-Building: The Papua New Guinea Case.” Ethnicity and Nation Building in the Pacific. Tokyo: United Nations University, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. Rabushka, Alvin and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
  14. Reilly, Ben. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brighid Brooks Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of DemocracyUniversity of PennsylvaniaSwarthmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations