二十世纪四五十年代，《政治学评论》在主编、政治史学家沃特马·古里安（Waldemar Gurian）卓越的领导下，成为美国政治学和社会学理论最重要的刊物之一。本书收录了1939年到1962年之间，那一批杰出的，使这本刊物成为不朽的美国和欧洲移民知识分子的经典文章。对于当时的学术精英们来说，德国和俄国新型独裁政体的出现以及对其他政体的威胁更具有毁灭性，欧洲的战争要求人们重新审视那个时代的哲学前景与人性困境。他们的观点以及这本刊物本身所体现的“知识分子良心的模式”，在今天仍然有着不同寻常的重要意义。
“从雅克·马里坦和伊夫·西蒙，到汉娜·阿伦特和列奥·施特劳斯，这本杂志不断吸引最优秀的作者思考20世纪最深刻的政治学问题。本书涉及的主题从极权主义和虚无主义到教育的价值和个体的尊严。作者们的正直和智慧充分说明为什么这本杂志直到现在仍然是严肃的政治哲学研究者们关注的首要期刊。”
——Steven B. Smith，耶鲁大学政治科学Alfred Cowles讲座教授
人类存在的性质该如何理解？
我们对于自己的生命能够了解多少？
在一个遍布和我们一样的人类的世界里
我们应该怎样生活？
——詹姆斯·麦克亚当斯

What does the durability of political institutions have to do with how actors form knowledge about them? Andreas Glaeser investigates this question in the context of a fascinating historical case: socialist East Germany's unexpected self-dissolution in 1989. His analysis builds on extensive in-depth interviews with former secret police officers and the dissidents they tried to control as well as research into the documents both groups produced. In particular, Glaeser analyzes how these two opposing factions' understanding of the socialist project came to change in response to countless everyday experiences. These investigations culminate in answers to two questions: why did the officers not defend socialism by force? And how was the formation of dissident understandings possible in a state that monopolized mass communication and group formation? He also explores why the Stasi, although always well informed about dissident activities, never developed a realistic understanding of the phenomenon of dissidence. Out of this ambitious study, Glaeser extracts two distinct lines of thought. On the one hand he offers an epistemic account of socialism's failure that differs markedly from existing explanations. On the other hand he develops a theory - a sociology of understanding - that shows us how knowledge can appear validated while it is at the same time completely misleading.

In The Road to Serfdom and The Intellectuals and Socialism, Hayek explained the enduring appeal of socialist ideas. Socialism satisfies peoples desire to impose order on the world through central direction rather than allowing an order to develop through individuals autonomous choices. Socialism has particular appeal to intellectuals -- the teachers, journalists and other commentators who pass comment on public policy without any special expertise on economic matters, whom Hayek termed the second-hand dealers in ideas. Once the logic of planning has become accepted throughout society, the only solution to the inevitable failure of socialism will be the imposition of a more comprehensive plan. Hence, planning leads to a process by which individual freedom is incrementally eroded -- the road to serfdom. The two papers, together with the forewords and introduction, are still so relevant today as we seek a freer world, whilst surrounded by an intellectual establishment, both in the UK and EU, that is largely hostile to freedom and capitalism.

According to conventional wisdom, rising corruption reduces economic growth. And yet, between 1978 and 2010, even as officials were looting state coffers, extorting bribes, raking in kickbacks, and scraping off rents at unprecedented rates, the Chinese economy grew at an average annual rate of 9 percent. In Double Paradox, Andrew Wedeman seeks to explain why the Chinese economy performed so well despite widespread corruption at almost kleptocratic levels.
Wedeman finds that the Chinese economy was able to survive predatory corruption because corruption did not explode until after economic reforms had unleashed dynamic growth. To a considerable extent corruption was also a by-product of the transfer of undervalued assets from the state to the emerging private and corporate sectors and a scramble to capture the windfall profits created by their transfer. Perhaps most critically, an anticorruption campaign, however flawed, has proved sufficient to prevent corruption from spiraling out of control. Drawing on more than three decades of data from China—as well as examples of the interplay between corruption and growth in South Korea, Taiwan, Equatorial Guinea, and other nations in Africa and the Caribbean—Wedeman cautions that rapid growth requires not only ongoing and improved anticorruption efforts but also consolidated and strengthened property rights.

From 1885–1924, China underwent a period of acute political struggle and cultural change, brought on by a radical change in thought: after over 2,000 years of monarchical rule, the Chinese people stopped believing in the emperor. These forty years saw the collapse of Confucian political orthodoxy and the struggle among competing definitions of modern citizenship and the state. What made it possible to suddenly imagine a world without the emperor?
After Empire traces the formation of the modern Chinese idea of the state through the radical reform programs of the late Qing (1885–1911), the Revolution of 1911, and the first years of the Republic through the final expulsion of the last emperor of the Qing from the Forbidden City in 1924. It contributes to longstanding debates on modern Chinese nationalism by highlighting the evolving ideas of major political thinkers and the views reflected in the general political culture.
Zarrow uses a wide range of sources to show how "statism" became a hegemonic discourse that continues to shape China today. Essential to this process were the notions of citizenship and sovereignty, which were consciously adopted and modified from Western discourses on legal theory and international state practices on the basis of Chinese needs and understandings. This text provides fresh interpretations and keen insights into China's pivotal transition from dynasty to republic.

本书是传播学领域的奠基之作，它第一次对公众舆论做了全景式的描述，自1922年问世以来，已被翻译成几十种文字，至今仍然保持着这个领域中的权威地位。其影响力经久不衰的奥秘在于，它卓有成效地梳理了舆论研究中一系列难以回避的问题．比如舆论从哪里来，它是怎样形成的?它能造成什么样的结果?谁是公众?公众舆论是什么意思?它是仅仅在公众中传播还是由公众自己形成的?它什么时候才能成为独立的力量?它对成见、兴趣、公意的形成和民主形象等问题做了精辟而深刻的探讨，完成了新闻史上对舆论传播现象的首次全面论述，为后人的研究奠定了基础。

“为什么法院说什么，美国人都会照办？”面对一位非洲法官抛出的疑问，斯蒂芬•布雷耶大法官试图给出答案。他回顾了“马伯里诉麦迪逊案”、“切诺基印第安人案”、“黑奴公民身份案”和“小石城事件”，藉此提醒广大读者：最高法院在美国宪政体制中的无上权威，并非一朝一夕确立。历史教训表明，当最高法院的判决不被主流民意接受，甚至遭遇总统、国会的抵制时，司法机关保障人权、节制公权的作用将彻底失灵。经过几代大法官的孜孜努力，美国人民才将尊重并遵从最高法院的宪法解释，视为传统与习惯。
如今，三分之二的美国人能说出《美国偶像》三位评委的姓名，却不知道三权分立是哪“三权”。布雷耶大法官对此忧心忡忡。他认为，民主政制的有效运行，既需要一个独立而强大的司法系统支撑，也取决于普罗大众的理解和认同。为维系人民对法院的信任，布雷耶结合“华盛顿禁枪案”、“日裔公民集中拘押案”、“关塔那摩囚犯案”等案件背后的重大争议，阐述了最高法院应当如何以务实态度，处理好与国会、内阁、各州、先例和下级法院的关系，推动实现切实可行的民主。为进一步开启民智，这位“当代美国最有智慧的大法官”，用平实、通俗、浅显的语言，为广大非专业读者，撰写了这本《法官能为民主做什么》。

Dylan Riley reconceptualizes the nature and origins of interwar fascism in this remarkable investigation of the connection between civil society and authoritarianism. From the late nineteenth century to World War I, voluntary associations exploded across Europe, especially among rural non-elites. But the development of this "civil society" did not produce liberal democracy in Italy, Spain, and Romania. Instead, Riley finds that it undermined the nascent liberal regimes in these countries and was a central cause of the rise of fascism. Developing an original synthesis of Gramsci and Tocqueville, Riley explains this surprising outcome by arguing that the development of political organizations in the three nations failed to keep pace with the proliferation of voluntary associations, leading to a crisis of political representation to which fascism developed as a response. His argument shows how different forms of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Romania arose in response to the divergent paths taken by civil society development in each nation. Presenting the seemingly paradoxical argument that the rapid development of civil society facilitated the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Romania, Riley credibly challenges the notion that a strong civil society necessarily leads to the development of liberal democracy. Scholars and students interested in debates about the rise of fascism and authoritarianism, democratization, civil society, and comparative and historical methods will find his arguments compelling and his conclusions challenging.

"A landmark in comparative history and a challenge to scholars of all lands who are trying to learn how we arrived at where we are now."
-The New York Times Book Review

The New Political culture, which began to take shape in the 1970s, continues to challenge many assumptions of traditional politics, especially on issues of environmentalism, growth management, gay rights, and abortion. Concerned mostly with home, consumption, and lifestyle, the New Politics emerges fully in cities with more highly educated citizens, higher incomes, and more high-tech service occupations. Leadership does not come from parties, unions, or ethnic groups but rather shifts from issue to issue: leaders on abortion are distinct from leaders on environmental issues. Based on data gathered by the Fiscal Austerity and Urban Innovation Project, the most extensive study of local government in the world to date, this book provides an explicit analysis of the social structural characteristics that encourage or discourage the New Political culture.

《中国民众政治支持的测量与分析》，本书包括导论；北京的公众政治支持度；普遍支持与特定支持的关系；普遍支持的来源；特定支持的来源；政治支持的行为结果；结论：实证结果及其政治含义。

《威权统治的转型:关于不确定民主的试探性结论》是吉列尔莫•奥唐奈、菲利普•施密特、劳伦斯•怀特黑德合编的四卷本《从威权主义统治转型:民主的前景》的最后一卷。该丛书是研究威权政体和民主转型的划时代著作。《威权统治的转型:关于不确定民主的试探性结论》在精辟地总结前三卷集体智慧的基础上，提出了具有开山性质的关于政治转型研究的范式和理论，并以引人入胜的叙事方式和恰当的隐喻讲述了政治转型充满不确定性的过程和不可预测的结果。
我们相信，借着表现出我们的无知，我们对悖论与抉择的反思，还有对典型案例的转型过程的总结，我们提供一个很有用的工具—一份地图的几部分——给那些今天正在探索以及那些明天将会探索的人们，一份关于从未知路线走向民主政治的地图。
我们所有人都希望这个项目至少能够促成一个对于学者和活跃分子而言更理性、信息更充分的讨论，一个关于威权主义制度衰败和有可能被民主制度代替的这一复杂过程中涉及到的潜力、困境,及其局限性的讨论。
《威权统治的转型:关于不确定民主的试探性结论》对在转型之后建立民主或多头政治的分析方法与规范性视角，提供了一个不只是对学者，而且对政治参与者同样有价值的视角。
——亚伯拉罕•F. 洛文索

本书是劳伦斯•E.哈里森继与萨缪尔•亨廷顿合编的《文化的重要作用：价值观如何影响了人类进步》后的一部重要著作，试图解决该书的遗留问题：我们怎样来灌输和加强能促进进步的价值和观念。
过去人们面对文化问题的不积极态度部分地反映了将文化因素量化及判识准确的因果模式的困难，现在这本书给出了25个在趋向和阻碍进步的文化中表现迥异的因素模型，并不断地通过个案之间的比较来寻找规律。它令人信服地表明了是哪一类价值观、信仰和态度在起作用以及我们如何能够培育它们。作者希望创建出一套行动指南，从而促进几个关键领域的文化变革。

《思考法国大革命》是傅勒1978年出版的，此书是法国大研究史上具有开创性的著作。严格说来，《思考法国大革命》由四篇论文组成，分做上下篇。上篇相当于总论性质的导言，勾画了一种概念史的方法，其中心观念是在大革命史中引入批判理论。下篇是对两份历史文献（托克维尔和古参）的解读。傅勒提出结束对历史记忆中大革命所包含的虚幻性东西的崇拜：法国大革命结束了，应当给法国大革命打上日期并收进档案。此论一出即引发史学界地震一般的连锁反应。
《思考法国大革命》重评二百年来史学界对法国大革命的研究阐释，有力论证了时代变迁与对法国革命的评价的微妙关系，推动法国史学界转向对法国大革命的实证研究，摈弃从意识形态角度对法国大革命所采取的全盘否定或肯定态度。自1800年以来，法国及欧洲留下了汗牛充栋的关于法国大革命的思考和评说。各时代的史家对法国革命的研究固然做出了自己的贡献。但也同时带有强烈的时代政治的印记。《思考法国大革命》细致梳理法国革命史论线索，是此领域中正本清源之作。

Drawing on the rich resources of the ten-volume series of The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science, this one-volume distillation provides a comprehensive overview of all the main branches of contemporary political science: political theory; political institutions; political behavior; comparative politics; international relations; political economy; law and politics; public policy; contextual political analysis; and political methodology. Sixty-seven of the top political scientists worldwide survey recent developments in those fields and provide penetrating introductions to exciting new fields of study. Following in the footsteps of the New Handbook of Political Science edited by Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann a decade before, this Oxford Handbook will become an indispensable guide to the scope and methods of political science as a whole. It will serve as the reference book of record for political scientists and for those following their work for years to come.

本书共分五编，内容包括：现代民主的根源、反对派批评者、民主程序的理论、民主过程理论中存在的诸多问题、民主的局限性与可能性、朝向第三次转型等。

这部《旧制度与大革命》给我们带来了什么新东西，发了什么前人所未发的新意？托克维尔开宗明义就指出，他从事的是“关于法国革命的研究”，而不是写另一部大革命史。既是“研究”，就要提出问题。从各章题目就可以知道作者要解决的是哪些问题。从方法论说，这也可以称为后来“年鉴学派”创导的问题史学。例如，托克维尔企图说明：何以全欧洲几乎都有同样的政体，它们如何到处都陷于崩溃？何以封建特权对法国人民比在其他地方变得更为可憎？何以中央集权行政体制是旧制度的体制，而不是大革命或帝国的创造？何以18世纪的法国的人们比其他国家人民更彼此相似，同时又彼此分离，漠不相关？尽管文明不断进步，何以18世纪法国农民的处境有时甚至比13世纪的农民处境更恶劣？何以18世纪法国文人成为国家的主要政治人物？何以法国人宁愿先要改革，后要自由？何以行政革命先于政治革命？路易十六时期是旧王朝最繁荣时
期，这种繁荣如何加速了革命？等等。每一个问题几乎都可写成专著。
与19世纪一些思想家、哲学家——从斯塔埃尔夫人到基内——不同，托克维尔不是凭空“思考”法国革命，而是扎扎实实地依靠对原始材料的分析研究得出结论。他阅读、利用了前人从未接触过的大量档案材料，包括古老的土地清册、赋税簿籍、地方与中央的奏章、指示和大臣间的通信、三级会议记录和1789年的陈情书。他是第一个查阅有关国有财产出售法令的历史家；他还努力挖掘涉及农民状况和农民起义的资料。根据这些史料，他得以深入了解、具体描绘旧制度下的土地、财产、教会、三级会议、中央与地方行政、农民生活、贵族地位、第三等级状况等，并阐发自己的论点。

Product Description
Tocqueville pessimistically predicted that liberty and equality would be incompatible ideas. Robert Dahl, author of the classic A Preface to Democratic Theory, explores this alleged conflict, particularly in modern American society where differences in ownership and control of corporate enterprises create inequalities in resources among Americans that in turn generate inequality among them as citizens.
Arguing that Americans have misconceived the relation between democracy, private property, and the economic order, the author contends that we can achieve a society of real democracy and political equality without sacrificing liberty by extending democratic principles into the economic order. Although enterprise control by workers violates many conventional political and ideological assumptions of corporate capitalism as well as of state socialism. Dahl presents an empirically informed and philosophically acute defense of "workplace democracy." He argues, in the light of experiences here and abroad, that an economic system of worker-owned and worker-controlled enterprises could provide a much better foundation for democracy, political equality, and liberty than does our present system of corporate capitalism.

本书共收入研究论文17篇，结构上分为三部分。第一部分“市民社会的概念与理论”，主要侧重于论者对市民社会概念之特定内涵的分疏及厘定，试图反映市民社会理念从与政治社会不分，此后逐渐与国家相分离直到最后经社会与国家互动而形成第三域（即市民社会）的演化的内在理路；第二部分“市民社会及相关问题”，侧重于展示市民社会与文化符号、社会整合、国家政权建构、民族主义以及军事政治等重大问题的研究，以图使中国市民社会论者拓宽研究题域，更为清晰地呈现出市民社会理念除自身的内在问题外而与其他问题相勾连时所具有的繁复性；第三部分“市民社会与中国问题”，主要围绕美国汉学家、中国大陆及台湾论者援用市民社会模式所做的研究，同时侧重于对当下研究的反思及论辩，并呈示某些晚近涌动的立基于中国历史与现状的本土性研究趋向。