Comments below:
> > Theda Skocpol argued that revolutions tend to happen when > > states are simultaneously besieged by internal rebellion and > > losses in the international arena. (Think the Bolshevik revolution) > > > Doubtful, i think cost benefit analysis is more appropriate. > Tullock wrote a wonderful book about this > "war and revolution" ca 1975 The title is an approximation. The Skocpol explanation is not inconsistent with a cost benefit analysis. It's merely a description of how some people assess the benefits of actions - when the state's millitary has suffered severe losses, it's safer to revolt. While we're on the topic, I'd also throw in Tilly's "From Mobilization to Revolution," which surveys different explanations of revolutions, including cost-benefit analyses. It' worth a good read. > But there are many signals, tax revenue, crime rates, control of the press > etc. Potential challengers must look at the whole picture not just > a small part. Well, one nice feature of Skocpol's explanation is that the signal is easy for people to observe - how do people really know if crime rates are up or down back in revolutionary France? Does the average Joe know about the state's revenues or control of the press, which matters mostly to the small literate population? Millitary victories are easy to observe and everybody knows about them. Your point is well taken. In one recently published account of Tienanmen movement, relaxtion of restrictions on the press was taken as signal of state weakness by Chinese students - but not by others. Fabio
