{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016861219195849545, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.225806451612903, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Coercion–Extraction Cycle and the Paradox of Stability

Abstract Our paper revisits the work of Samuel Finer and David Easton in order to establish a firmer grasp on the problem of political stability within a given state or regime. We suggest that Finer’s approach to the problem of coercion–extraction is not wholly incompatible with Easton’s political system approach (as modified by Gabriel Almond). By combining what Finer and Easton (as understood through Almond) offer, we construct a framework that allows us to better understand political stability. The model we construct offers current researchers exploring the workings of political stability a useful tool to study and focus on the various dynamics that drive the stability of any given political system.