Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T06:47:34.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regime Type and Diffusion in Comparative Politics Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2005

Stephen E. Hanson  and
Jeffrey S. Kopstein
Stephen E. Hanson
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Jeffrey S. Kopstein
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. In recent years, several prominent political scientists have argued that quantitative and qualitative methodologies should be seen as united by a single logic of scientific inference. Just exactly how this reconciliation of quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches should be effected in practice, however, remains highly contentious. For all its promise, the project of uniting quantitative and qualitative methods in political science has thus reached something of an impasse. Participants on both sides of the quantitative/qualitative debate are convinced that this methodological divide should eventually be transcended, but few have abandoned the conviction that their preferred approach sets the standard by which progress in this endeavor should be judged. Evidently, we still lack consensus on precisely where the distinctive strengths of each methodological approach lie, and how these strengths can be combined effectively in systematic investigations of the political world. In this essay, we argue that a satisfactory synthesis of quantitative and qualitative methods for making causal inferences in comparative politics depends upon the resolution of a prior theoretical problem at the stage of research design: establishing a typology of political regimes and accounting for the mechanisms of their reproduction and diffusion over time and space.

Résumé. Ces dernières années, plusieurs politologues éminents ont soutenu qu'il faudrait considérer les méthodologies quantitative et qualitative comme étant unies par une même logique de déduction scientifique. Comment réaliser cette réconciliation des approches quantitative et qualitative dans la pratique demeure cependant un sujet hautement contesté. Tout prometteur qu'il soit, le projet d'unifier les méthodes quantitative et qualitative en science politique se retrouve en fait dans une impasse. Les participants des deux côtés du débat quantitatif/qualitatif sont persuadés qu'il faudra un jour transcender cette fracture méthodologique, mais ils sont peu nombreux à avoir abandonné la conviction que l'approche qu'ils privilégient établit la norme qui permettra d'évaluer les progrès accomplis. Il est évident qu'il n'y a pas encore de consensus quant aux forces respectives précises de chaque méthode, ni sur la manière de les combiner efficacement pour procéder à des études systématiques du monde politique. Dans cet article, nous avançons qu'une synthèse satisfaisante des méthodes quantitative et qualitative pour arriver à des déductions causales en politique comparée exige qu'on s'emploie à résoudre d'abord un problème théorique à l'étape de la conception de la recherche, à savoir l'établissement d'une typologie des régimes politiques et l'inventaire des mécanismes de leur reproduction et de leur diffusion dans l'espace et dans le temps.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 69 - 99
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Agnew, John A. 1987. Place and Politics: The Geographic Mediation of State and Society. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Anselin, Luc. 1995. “Local Indicators of Spatial Association—LISA.” Geographical Analysis 27(2): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anselin, Luc and W. Tam Cho. 2002. “Spatial Effects and Ecological Inference.” Political Analysis 10 (Summer): 276–297.Google Scholar
Bendix, Reinhard. 1978. Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berman, Sheri. 1997. “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic.” World Politics 49 (April): 401–429.Google Scholar
Blais, Andre and Louis Massicotte. 1997. “Electoral Formulas: A Macroscopic Perspective.” European Journal of Political Research 32 (January): 107–129.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry and David Collier, eds. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools Shared Standards. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brady, Henry, David Collier and Jason Seawright. 2004. “Critiques, Responses and Trade-offs: Drawing Together the Debate.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, eds. Henry Brady and David Collier. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brams, Steven J. 1966. “Transaction Flows in the International System.” American Political Science Review 60 (December): 880–898.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie and Maria Csanadi. 1993. “Uncertainty in the Transition: Post-Communism in Hungary.” East European Politics and Societies 7 (Spring): 240–275.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald. 1975. “Degrees of Freedom and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 178–193.Google Scholar
Caporaso, James. 1995. “Research Design, Falsification, and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 457–460.Google Scholar
Cento Bull, Anna. 1996. “Ethnicity, Racism, and the Northern League.” In Italian Regionalism: History, Identity and Politics, ed. Carl Levy. Oxford and Washington, DC: Berg, pp. 171–187.
Chambers, Simone and Jeffrey Kopstein. 2001. “Bad Civil Society.” Political Theory 29 (December): 837–869.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 1995. “Translating Quantitative Methods for Qualitative Researchers: The Case of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 461–466.Google Scholar
Collier, David and Ruth Berins Collier. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Collier, David and James Mahon, Jr. 1993. “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis.” American Political Science Review 87 (December): 845–855.Google Scholar
Collier, David and Richard E. Messick. 1975. “Prerequisites versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations of Social Security Adoption.” American Political Science Review 69 (December): 1299–1315.Google Scholar
Collier, David and Steven Levitsky. 1997. “Democracy With Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49 (April): 430–451.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1999. “Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics.” Comparative Politics 31 (July): 465–476.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Melo, Martha, C. Denizer, A. Gelb and S. Tenev. 1997. “Circumstance and Choice: The Role of Initial Conditions and Policies in Transitional Economies.” World Bank Working Paper #1866.
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Origin and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen, and New York: Wiley.
Ekiert, Grzegorz and Stephen E. Hanson. 2003. “Time, Space, and Institutional Change in Central and Eastern Europe.” In Capitalism and Democracy in Eastern and Central Europe:Assessing the Legacy of Communist Rule, eds. Grzegorz Ekiert and Stephen E. Hanson. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–48.
Ertman, Thomas. 1997. Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Peter. 1979. Dependent Development:The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fish, M. Steven. 1998a. “Democratization's Requisites: The Postcommunist Experience.” Post-Soviet Affairs 14 (July-September): 212–247.Google Scholar
Fish, M. Steven. 1998b. “The Determinants of Economic Reform in the Post-Communist World.” East European Politics and Societies 12 (Winter): 31–77.Google Scholar
Getis, Arthur and J.K. Ord. 1992. “The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics.” Geographical Analysis 24(1): 189–206.Google Scholar
Gibson, James. 1993. “Perceived Political Freedom in the Soviet Union.” Journal of Politics 55 (November): 936–974.Google Scholar
Gibson, James. 1996. “A Mile Wide but an Inch Deep (?): The Structure of Democratic Commitments in the Former USSR.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (May): 396–419.Google Scholar
Gibson, James. 1998. “Putting Up With Fellow Russians: An Analysis of Political Tolerance in the Fledgling Russian Democracy.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (March): 37–68.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Ellis. 1996. “Thinking About How Democracy Works.” Politics and Society 24 (March): 7–18.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jeff. 2001. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Peter. 2002. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373–404.
Handwerker, W. Penn and Danielle F. Wozniak. 1997. “A Sampling Strategy for the Collection of Cultural Data: An Extension of Boas's Answer to Galton's Problem.” Current Anthropology 38 (December): 869–875.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. 1998. “Analyzing Postcommunist Economic Change: A Review Essay.” East European Politics and Societies 12 (Winter): 145–171.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. and Jeffrey Kopstein. 1997. “The Weimar/Russia Comparison.” Post-Soviet Affairs 13 (July-September): 252–281.Google Scholar
Hellman, Joel. 1998. “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Transitions.” World Politics 50 (January): 203–234.Google Scholar
Hine, David. 2001. “Liberalism as a Minority Subculture: The Case of Italy.” In Liberalism, Anti-Semitism, and Democracy: Essays in Honour of Peter Pulzer, eds. Henning Tewes and Jonathan Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209–231.
Janos, Andrew. 1986. Politics and Paradigms: Changing Theories of Change in Social Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Keck, Margaret and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
King, Gary. 2001. “Proper Nouns and Methodological Propriety: Pooling Dyads in International Relations Data.” International Organization 55 (Spring): 497–507.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. 1995. “The Importance of Research Design in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 475–481.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Ori Rosen, Martin Tanner and Alexander F. Wagner. Nd. “The Ordinary Election of Adolf Hitler: A Modern Voting Behavior Approach.” Unpublished paper.
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2003. “Accounting for Regime Diversity: What Counts as a Good Cause?” In Capitalism and Democracy in Eastern and Central Europe: Assessing the Legacy of Communist Rule, eds. Grzegorz Ekiert and Stephen E. Hanson. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–86.
Kohli, Atul. 1987. The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koopmans, Ruud. 1993. “The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany 1965 to 1989.” American Sociological Review 58 (October): 224–245.Google Scholar
Kopstein, Jeffrey S. and David A. Reilly. 1999. Explaining the Why of the Why: A Comment on Fish's “Determinants of Economic Reform in the Post-Communist World.” East European Politics and Societies 13 (Fall): 613–624.Google Scholar
Kopstein, Jeffrey S. and David A. Reilly. 2000. “Geographic Diffusion and the Transformation of the Postcommunist World.” World Politics 52 (October): 1–37.Google Scholar
Laitin, David D. 2003. “The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science.” Politics and Society 31 (March): 163–184.Google Scholar
Laitin, David D. 1995. “Disciplining Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 454–456.Google Scholar
Levi, Margaret. 1996. “Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work.” Politics and Society 24 (March): 45–55.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Stein Rokkan, eds. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.
Lovett, Clara M. 1982. The Democratic Movement in Italy, 1830–1876. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McKeown, Timothy. 1999. “Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba's ‘Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.’” International Organization 53 (Winter): 161–190.Google Scholar
McNeill, William. 1976. Plagues and People. New York: Anchor Press.
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29: 507–48.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, John and Michael T. Hannan, eds. 1979. National Development and the World System: Educational, Economic, and Political Change, 1950–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, Barrington, Jr.. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.
Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr. 1989. Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. Columbia SC: Columbia University Press.
Munck, Gerardo L. 1998. “Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis.” Studies In Comparative International Development 33 (Fall): 18–45.Google Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L. 2001. “The Regime Question: Theory Building in Democracy Studies.” World Politics 54 (October): 119–144.Google Scholar
Naroll, Raoul. 1961. “Two Solutions to Galton's Problem.” Philosophy of Science 28: 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naroll, Raoul and Roy G. D'Andrade. 1963. “Two Further Solutions to Galton's Problem.” American Anthropologist 65 (5): 1053–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberschall, Anthony. 1989. “The 1960s Sit-Ins: Protest Diffusion and Movement Takeoff.” Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 11: 20–33.Google Scholar
O'Loughlin, John, Colin Flint and Luc Anselin. 1994. “The Geography of the Nazi Vote: Context, Confession, and Class in the Reichstag Election of 1930.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84 (September): 351–380.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1964. “Evolutionary Universals in Society.” In On Institutions and Social Evolution, ed. Leon Mayhew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press pp. 296–326.
Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94 (June): 251–267.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2002. “Big, Slow Moving, and … Invisible: Macrosocial Processes in the Study of Comparative Politics.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–207.
Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Historical Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, Robert with Robert Leonardi and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ragin, Charles. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Riker, William H. 1976. “The Number of Political Parties: A Reexamination of Duverger's Law.” Comparative Politics 9 (October): 93–106.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rogowski, Ronald. 1995. “The Role of Theory and Anomaly in Social-Scientific Inference.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 467–470.Google Scholar
Rostow, Walt. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2002. “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 305–336.
Sabetti, Filippo. 1996. “Path Dependency and Civic Culture: Some Lessons From Italy About Interpreting Social Experiments.” Politics and Society 24 (March): 19–44.Google Scholar
Sachs, Jeffrey. 1997. “Geography and Economic Transition.” Harvard University, Center for International Development, Working Paper.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” American Political Science Review 64 (December): 1033–1053.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sartori, Giovanni, ed. 1984. Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, Richard and James Mahoney. 1999. “The Missing Variable: Institutions and the Study of Regime Change.” Comparative Politics 32 (October): 103–120.Google Scholar
Somers, Margaret. 1998. “‘We're No Angels’: Realism, Rational Choice, and Relationality in Social Science.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (November): 722–784.Google Scholar
Strang, David and Sarah Soule. 1998. “Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1995. “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 471–475.Google Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1996. “Making Social Science Work Across Space and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work.” American Political Science Review 90 (June): 389–387.Google Scholar
Tilly, Charles, ed. 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tilly, Charles, Louise Tilly and Richard Tilly. 1975. The Rebellious Century, 1830–1930. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (June): 369–404.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.