What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes

David Marsh

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)


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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)735-739
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Journal of Politics and International Relations
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this