Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:59:21.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Roger E. Backhouse
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Philippe Fontaine
Affiliation:
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Many histories can be told of political science. Some start in classical Athens (Almond 1995); others start in the Scottish Enlightenment (Farr 1988). But if we are specifically interested in political science as one of the set of institutionally differentiated disciplines that together make up contemporary academic social science, it was born in America early in the twentieth century (Ross 1991, chaps. 3 and 8; Adcock 2003). The prominence of America then and now might suggest a narrative of Americanization. However, we will argue that this narrative needs tempering with recognition of the influence of Europe on America and the way different traditions modify ideas adopted from elsewhere. The history of political science is one of the contingent transnational exchanges in which ideas are appropriated, modified, and transformed.

The direction and extent of the transnational exchanges vary across different aspects of political science. If the Americanization narrative appears most plausible with regard to the institutions of political science as an autonomous discipline, it becomes harder to sustain once our focus shifts to intellectual history. When we look at the British case, for example, we will argue that new empirical topics in political science arose from exchanges in which British figures played as great an initiating role as Americans; that new quantitative techniques were indeed more commonly developed in America and then adopted in Britain, but they were modified in the process of adoption; and that the postwar history of American political science has been dominated by new theories – from the positivist theories of behavioralism to rational choice theory – that had little impact on British political science.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adcock, Robert. 2003. “The Emergence of Political Science as a Discipline: History and the Study of Politics in America, 1875–1910.” History of Political Thought 24: 481–508.Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert 2007. “Interpreting Behavioralism,” in Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, (eds.), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, pp. 180–208. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert, Bevir, Mark, and Stimson, Shannon C.. 2007. “Historicizing the New Institutionalism(s),” in Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, (eds.) Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, pp. 259–89. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert (eds.). 2007. Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1950. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1960. “A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics,” in Almond, Gabriel A. and Coleman, James S. (eds.), The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1965. “A Developmental Approach to Political Systems.” World Politics 17: 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A. 1995. “Political Science: The History of the Discipline,” in Goodin, Robert E. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (eds.), A New Handbook of Political Science, pp. 50–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amadae, S. M. 2003. Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Parties, APSA Committee on Political. 1950. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” American Political Science Review 44, suppl.Google Scholar
Barker, Ernest. 1915. Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to Present Day. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Barker, Ernest 1944. The Development of Public Services in Europe, 1660–1930. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adcock, Robert ed. 1946. The Politics, by Aristotle, trans. Barker, E.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1970. Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian 1999. “The Study of Politics as a Vocation,” in Hayward, Barry, and Brown, (eds.), The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century, pp. 455–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H. 1981. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H. 1983. Essays on the Political Economy of Rural Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, Samuel H. 1956. “Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain.” American Political Science Review 50: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, Samuel H. 1958. “The Analysis of Political Systems,” in Beer, Samuel H. and Ulam, Adam B. (eds.), Patterns of Government: The Major Political Systems of Europe. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Beer, Samuel H. 1963a. Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Beer, Samuel H. 1963b. “Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-enactment.” History and Theory 3: 6–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, Barth, Aharon, and Rutherford, Kenneth R.. 2003. “Do We Preach What We Practice? A Survey of Methods in Political Science Journals and Curricula.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36: 373–78.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark. 2006. “Political Studies as Narrative and Science, 1880–2000.” Political Studies 54: 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, Mark 2007. “Institutionalism and the Third Way,” in Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, (eds.), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, pp. 290–312. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark and Trentmann, Frank (eds.) 2002. Critiques of Capital in Modern Britain and America: Transatlantic Exchanges 1800 to the Present Day. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRef
Bevir, Mark and Rhodes, R. A. W.. 2006. “Prime Ministers, Presidentialism, and Westminster Smokescreens.” Political Studies 54: 671–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, Jean. 1969. Comparative Government. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, Jean 1981. The Discipline of Politics. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Bogdanor, Vernon. 1999. “Comparative Politics,” in Hayward, Barry, and Brown, (eds.) The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bryce, James. 1888. The American Commonwealth, 3 vols. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bryce, James 1921. Modern Democracies, 2 vols. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald. 1969. Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Rose, Richard. 1960. The British General Election of 1959. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, Jean. 1987. Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890–1960. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph to a Monument to a Successful Protest.” American Political Science Review 55: 763–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darnell, A. 1981. “A. L. Bowley, 1869–1957,” in O 'Brien, D. and Presley, J. (eds.), Pioneers of Modern Economics in Britain, pp. 140–74. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Karl W. 1961. “Social Mobilization and Political Development.” American Political Science Review 55: 634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100: 627–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1951. “The Decline of Modern Political Theory.” Journal of Politics 13: 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Easton, David. (ed.). 1966. Varieties of Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Easton, David, Gunnell, John G., and Graziano, Luigi (eds.). 1991. The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey. London: Routledge.CrossRef
Eckstein, Harry. 1960. Pressure Group Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 50 (March): 154–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J., Heard, Alexander, Huntington, Samuel P., Morris Janowitz, Avery Leiserson, McKean, Dayton D., and Truman, David B.. 1952. “Research in Political Behavior.” American Political Science Review 46: 1003–45.Google Scholar
Englander, David, and Rosemary, O'Day, (eds.). 1995. Retrieved Riches: Social Investigation in Britain, 1880–1914. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
,ESRC. 2007. International Benchmarking Review of UK Politics and International Studies. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/P_IBR-Final_Report_tcm6–23426.pdf. Last accessed February 22, 2010.Google Scholar
Farr, James. 1988. “Political Science and the Enlightenment of Enthusiasm.” American Political Science Review 82: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James 2007. “The Historical Sciences of Politics: The Principles, Association, and Fate of an American Discipline,” in Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, (eds.), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, pp. 66–96. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Finer, Herman. 1932. Theory and Practice of Modern Government, 2 vols. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Finer, S. E. 1958. Anonymous Empire: A Study of the Lobby in Great Britain. London: Pall Mall Press.Google Scholar
Flora, Peter. 1974. “A New Stage of Political Arithmetic.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 18: 143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Michael. 1993. The Rise of the British Presidency. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer, and Evans-Pritchard, E. E.. 1940. African Political Systems. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Smith, A. S.. London: Tavistock Publishers.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Carl J. 1929. “Review of Quantitative Methods in Politics.” American Political Science Review 23: 1022–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Carl J. 1937. Constitutional Government and Politics. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Carl J. 1941. Constitutional Government and Democracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Carl J., (ed.). 1949. The Philosophy of Kant. New York: Modern Library.
Friedrich, Carl J. 1952. The Age of the Baroque, 1610–1660. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Carl J. 1953. “Comments on the Seminar Report.” American Political Science Review 47: 658–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garceau, Oliver. 1951. “Research in the Political Process.” American Political Science Review 45: 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosnell, Harold F. 1927. Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, Ernest S. (ed.). 1948. Research in Political Science. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Gunnell, John G. 1993. The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 2007. “Making Democracy Safe for the World: Political Science between the Wars,” in Adcock, , Bevir, , Stimson, (eds.), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, pp. 137–57. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hauptmann, Emily. 2005. “Defining ‘Theory’ in Postwar Political Science,” in Steinmetz, George (ed.), The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hayward, Jack. 1991. “Political Science in Britain.” European Journal of Political Research 20: 301–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Jack, Barry, Brian, and Brown, Archie (eds.). 1999. The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heaney, Michael T., and Hansen, J. M.. 2006. “Building the Chicago School.” American Political Science Review 100: 589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Pendleton. 1929. Group Representation before Congress. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Herring, Pendleton 1953. “On the Study of Government.” American Political Science Review 47: 961–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubble, Nick. 2006. Mass Observation and Everyday Life: Culture, History, and Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Peters, Mark D., and Kinder, Donald M.. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political Science Review 65: 991–1017.Google Scholar
Kastendiek, Hans. 1991. “Political Science in West Germany,” in Easton, Gunnell, and Graziano, (eds.). The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey. London: PioutledgeGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, Dennis. 2007. “The Emergence of an Embryonic Discipline: British Politics without Political Scientists,” in Adcock, , Bevir, , Stimson, (eds.), Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges Since 1880, pp. 97–117. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. O., Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Key, V.O., Jr. 1955. “A Theory of Critical Elections.” Journal of Politics 17: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V.O., Jr. 1958. “The State of the Discipline.” American Political Science Review 52: 961–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V.O., Jr. 1959. “Secular Realignment and the Party System.” Journal of Politics 21: 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloppenberg, James T. 1986. Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People's Choice. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Leiserson, Avery. 1951. “Systematic Research in Political Behavior.” Social Science Research Council Items 5: 29–32.Google Scholar
Lippincott, Benjamin E. 1940. “The Bias of American Political Science.” Journal of Politics 2: 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy.” American Political Science Review 53: 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, A. L. 1896. Governments and Parties in Continental Europe, 2 vols. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lowell, A. L. 1908. The Government of England, 2 vols. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lowell, A. L. 1913. Public Opinion and Popular Government. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Lowenberg, Gerhard . 2006. “The Influence of European Émigré Scholars on Comparative Politics, 1925–65.” American Political Science Review 100: 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, W. J. M. 1955. “Pressure Groups in British Government.” British Journal of Sociology 6: 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, Ronald B., and Readman, Alison. 1947. The British General Election of 1945. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. T. 1955. British Political Parties. London: Mercury Books.Google Scholar
Merelman, Richard M. 2003. Pluralism at Yale: The Culture of Political Science in America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1984. “The New Economics of Organization.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 739–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, Paul R., North, Douglass C., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1990. “The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs.” Economics and Politics 2: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass C., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1989. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” The Journal of Economic History 49: 803–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odegard, Peter H. 1928. Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1979. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. W. A. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Rodgers, Daniel T. 1998. Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1965. Politics in England: An Interpretation. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roux, Christophe. 2004. “Half a Century of French Political Science: Interview with Jean Leca.” European Political Science 3: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1935. Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23: 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. “Structure-Induced Equilibria and Legislative Choice.” Public Choice 37: 503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 2006. “The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review.” American Political Science Review 100: 463–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1967. The Development of Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Behavior, SSRC Committee on Political. 1950. “Committee Briefs: Political Behavior.” Social Science Research Council Items 4: 20.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1949. “Political Philosophy and History.” Journal of the History of Ideas 10: 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truman, David B. 1951. “The Implications of Political Behavior Research.” Social Science Research Council Items 5: 37–39.Google Scholar
,UNESCO. 1950. Contemporary Political Science: A Survey of Methods, Research and Teaching. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Wallas, Graham. 1908. Human Nature in Politics. London: Constable.Google Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1969. “Political Theory as a Vocation.” American Political Science Review 63: 1062–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worcester, Robert. 1991. British Public Opinion: A Guide to the History and Methodology of Political Opinion Polling. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×