The Comparative Analysis of Military Regimes: Formations, Aspirations, and Achievements

  • Perlmutter A
  • Baker R
  • Decalo S
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Recent literature demonstrates that modern military regimes are actually military-civilian coalitions. The old dichotomy of civil/military is no longer a useful explanation for the politics and the dynamics of military regimes. Role expansion, new professionalism, and mission orientation have changed military missions, doctrines, and self-perception. The author proposes and develops a comparative analysis and a typology of contemporary military regimes: corporative; market-bureaucratic; socialist-oligarchic; personal tyrannies; and army-party. Case studies include Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. His conclusion, based on the literature, is that military regimes have not succeeded (at least not better than civilian regimes) in reforming, modernizing, and developing their respective societies despite organizational, structural, and personal commitments to development and reform.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Perlmutter, A., Baker, R. W., Decalo, S., Fitch, J. S., Lissak, M., Lowenthal, A. F., … Stepan, A. (1980). The Comparative Analysis of Military Regimes: Formations, Aspirations, and Achievements. World Politics, 33(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010257

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free