What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes

David Marsh

doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00341.x

What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes

David Marsh

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	735-739
Number of pages	5
Journal	British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Volume	10
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00341.x
Publication status	Published - 2008
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00341.x

Cite this

@article{df46edaabc8d43fd9fb15e91ac28890b,

title = "What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes",

abstract = "I find Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes{\textquoteright} (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{\textquoteright} 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.",

author = "David Marsh",

year = "2008",

doi = "10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00341.x",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

pages = "735--739",

journal = "British Journal of Politics and International Relations",

issn = "1369-1481",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

number = "4",

}

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 - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/54049087010

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 -

What is at stake? A response to Bevir and Rhodes

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this