TY - JOUR
T1 - What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes
AU - Marsh, David
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - I find Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes’ (2008) response to my original article disappointing because they both misrepresent my position and fail to engage with my critique of the Differentiated Polity Model (DPM). As such, I want to use this opportunity to restate the differences between the DPM and the Asymmetric Power Model (APM). In doing so, I will attempt to correct some of Bevir and Rhodes’ misrepresentations of my position, but that is not my main aim. Rather, I want to make it clear what is at stake in the engagement between the two models, particularly as the DPM is becoming the new orthodoxy. First, however, I need to address an issue of nomenclature.
AB - I find Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes’ (2008) response to my original article disappointing because they both misrepresent my position and fail to engage with my critique of the Differentiated Polity Model (DPM). As such, I want to use this opportunity to restate the differences between the DPM and the Asymmetric Power Model (APM). In doing so, I will attempt to correct some of Bevir and Rhodes’ misrepresentations of my position, but that is not my main aim. Rather, I want to make it clear what is at stake in the engagement between the two models, particularly as the DPM is becoming the new orthodoxy. First, however, I need to address an issue of nomenclature.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54049087010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00341.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00341.x
M3 - Comment/debate
AN - SCOPUS:54049087010
SN - 1369-1481
VL - 10
SP - 735
EP - 739
JO - British Journal of Politics and International Relations
JF - British Journal of Politics and International Relations
IS - 4
ER -