In recent decades, the field of comparative politics generally has
retreated from grand explanatory models and narrowed its scope and
research ambitions (Katznelson, 1997; Lichbach, 1997). This is
particularly evident in the structural–historical approach as well as in
the increasingly influential rational choice and postmodern approaches
to comparative research (Kohli et al., 1995: 2; Lijphart, 1970:
682–93;
Skocpol and Summers, 1980: 174–97). The 1995 World Politics Symposium,
at which leading comparativists gathered to discuss “The Role of Theory
in Comparative Politics” was clear evidence of this trend. Many analysts
deemed the construction of theory, or the “messy centre” in comparative
politics, problematic and some realized the attractiveness of
alternative approaches (Kohli et al., 1995). As Katznelson noted of
recent comparative scholarship, “compared to the work of their
predecessors… scholars in comparative politics have shortened their time
horizons, contracted their regime questions, and narrowed the range of
considered outcomes” (Katznelson, 1997).