A Note on the Determinants of the Regulation of Religion

Schleutker, Elina

doi:10.1017/s1755048316000109

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from standard OLS regression models predicting governmental restrictions on religion are consistent with previous research (Finke and Martin ; Grim and Finke ; Schleutker ). Internal structural measures are significant predictors of religious restrictions (Model 1, Table ).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In this situation, the significant clustering of governmental restrictions on religion may in fact occur through the clustering of governance structures, such as the presence of an independent judiciary or government favoritism of particular religions. This is an important consideration, as structural components have been thoroughly tested in previous research (Finke and Martin 2014;Grim andFinke 2007, 2011;Schleutker 2016) and governance itself has been shown to spatially diffuse and cluster (Berry, Guillén, and Hendi 2014;Ward 2006, 2008;O'Loughlin et al 1998;Starr 1991;Wjnert 2005). As Gurr (2000) argues, even cultural factors that may result in increased conflict or subsequent restrictions diffuse between state borders.…”

Section: Alternative Explanations For the Clustering Of Restrictions mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finke and Martin () found a significant relationship between independent judiciary and the level of restrictions, where the presence of a separate judicial body protects the rights of individuals. Others find connections between democracies or autocratic governments and the presence of religious restrictions (Schleutker ). Not only does the research that approaches restrictions on religions through governance dimensions highlight religious freedom as a form of human rights, but it also emphasizes the impact of political institutions as protectors of freedoms, including reduced levels of religious restrictions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Countries Mimicking Neighbors: The Spatial Diffusion of Governmental Restrictions on Religion

Mataic

2018

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualized as efforts to deny religious freedoms, previous research explains the presence of governmental restrictions on religion by isolating national governments, asserting that the primary determinant is a country's internal structural characteristics. These approaches overlook why the levels of governmental restriction on religion are spatially clustered and increasing in distinct patterns. Utilizing spatial analysis and data from the Religion and State Project, this article demonstrates that governmental restrictions on religion are spatially clustered, not independent from neighboring countries, and that increases in a country's level of restrictions reflect similar changes in bordering countries. Spatial clustering emerges through the diffusion of policies, where national governments mimic their neighbor's policies and practices even when accounting for internal structural characteristics. The article concludes that while a country's internal structure is clearly a predictor of policies, national governments are not isolated from neighbors where the level of restrictions are susceptible to external influence.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Alternative Explanations For the Clustering Of Restrictions mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Countries Mimicking Neighbors: The Spatial Diffusion of Governmental Restrictions on Religion

Mataic

2018

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the theoretical frameworks which are employed in these studies are often related to the secularization/modernization theory, economics of religion (Stark and Iannaccone 1994), and the clash of civilizations (Huntington 1993). References to the larger institutional set-up of the countries are still scarce, even though there recently has been more and more attempts to bring the state back in (Buckley and Mantilla 2013; Schleutker 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

Schleutker

2020

Politics and Religion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Comparative research on authoritarianism has largely neglected religion. Yet, in order to understand the logic of authoritarian control over the civil society, it is necessary to study how the authoritarian regimes deal with religious groups. In this paper, lessons from the two rapidly expanding fields on regulation of religion and comparative authoritarianism are combined. In particular, a conceptualization of regulation of religion in the authoritarian context is proposed, according to which positive endorsement of religion can be understood as co-optation, whereas negative restrictions can be seen as repression. By employing data on positive endorsement and negative restrictions on religion from 2014 for ca. 70 countries, three different clusters of authoritarian countries regarding the regulation of religion are identified. Finally, it is argued that capacity and ambition of both the religious groups and the authoritarian regimes are the main determinants of regulation.

show abstract

“…This expanded discussion of institutional features holds particular importance for studies that attempt to understand the role of the courts in protecting religious freedom in comparative, quantitative perspective. Important preliminary efforts have been made along these lines (e.g., Finke and Martin ; Finke, Martin, and Fox ; Schleutker ), but they have, for perfectly good reasons, tended to focus most heavily on legal autonomy. Future quantitative analyses will need to develop data and measures that capture these other institutional features as well.…”

Section: The Road Ahead: New Directions For Future Research On Jrfmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Judicialization of Religious Freedom: An Institutionalist Approach

Mayrl

2018

Scientific Study of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen growing interest in the judicialization of religious freedom (JRF). In this article, I identify two distinct meanings of JRF, which are often conflated but which need to be kept separate. I then argue for a stronger institutionalist approach to JRF. An institutionalist approach focuses our attention on both the rules internal to courts, and the relationship of courts to administrative agencies, legislatures, and other governing bodies. I argue that there is room to strengthen our analyses of JRF by paying greater attention to these institutional dynamics. I demonstrate this by highlighting two overlooked features of courts—interpretive rules and access rules—that are particularly important for governing JRF; and by developing a framework that relates the courts to other institutional venues and political actors. In so doing, I identify a number of promising directions for future research into the causes and consequences of JRF.

show abstract

A Note on the Determinants of the Regulation of Religion

Cited by 6 publications

References 50 publications

Countries Mimicking Neighbors: The Spatial Diffusion of Governmental Restrictions on Religion

Countries Mimicking Neighbors: The Spatial Diffusion of Governmental Restrictions on Religion

Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes

The Judicialization of Religious Freedom: An Institutionalist Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About