No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Discussion of Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu's Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 March 2016
Abstract
Comparative politics has witnessed periodic debates between proponents of contextually sensitive area studies research and others who view such work as unscientific, noncumulative, or of limited relevance for advancing broader social science knowledge. In Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis, edited by Erik Martinez Kuhonta, Dan Slater, and Tuong Vu, a group of bright, young Southeast Asianists argue that contextually sensitive research in Southeast Asia using qualitative research methods has made fundamental and lasting contributions to comparative politics. They challenge other Southeast Asianists to assert proudly the contributions that their work has made and urge the rest of the comparative politics discipline to take these contributions seriously. This symposium includes four short critical reviews of Southeast Asia in Political Science by political scientists representing diverse scholarly traditions. The reviews address both the methodological and the theoretical orientations of the book and are followed by a response from the editors.
- Type
- Roundtable
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © East Asia Institute
References
Anderson, Benedict R. O'G.
1982. “Perspective and Method in American Research on Indonesia.” In Interpreting Indonesian Politics: Thirteen Contributions to the Debate, ed. Anderson, Benedict and Kahin, Audrey, 115–135. Ithaca: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict R. O'G.
1983. “Old State, New Society: Indonesia's New Order in Comparative Historical Perspective.” Journal of Asian Studies
42, 3: 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, Mary. 2003. Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Deaton, Angus. 2009. “Instruments of Development: Randomization in the Tropics, and the Search for the Elusive Keys to Economic Development.” NBER Working Paper No. 14690. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 2006. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Shapiro, Ian. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gomez, Edmund Terence, and Jomo, K. S.
1999. Malaysia's Political Economy: Politics, Patronage, and Profits. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harisson, Graham. 2004. The World Bank and Africa: The Construction of Governance States. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harriss, John. 2002. Depoliticising Social Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hewison, Kevin, Robison, Richard, and Rodan, Garry. 1993. Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2009. Building Party Systems in Developing Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayasuriya, Kanishka. 2005. Reconstituting the Global Liberal Order: Legitimacy and Regulation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, Simon, and Mitton, Todd. 2003. “Cronyism and Capital Controls: Evidence from Malaysia.” Journal of Financial Economics
67, 2: 351–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerkvliet, Benedict. 1977. The Huk Rebellion: A Study of Peasant Revolt in the Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kuhonta, Erik Martinez, Slater, Dan, and Vu, Tuong, eds. 2008. Southeast Asia in Political Science: Theory, Region, and Qualitative Analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddle, R. William. 1991. “The Relative Autonomy of the Third World Politician: Soeharto and Indonesian Economic Development in Comparative Perspective.” International Studies Quarterly
35, 4: 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddle, R. William. 1992. “The Politics of Development Policy.” World Development
20, 6: 793–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddle, , William, R., and Mujani, Saiful. 2007. “Leadership, Party, and Religion: Explaining Voting Behavior in Indonesia.” Comparative Political Studies
40, 7: 832–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2001. The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Malesky, Edmund J.
2008a. “Battling Onward: The Debate Over Field Research in Developmental Economics and Its Implications for Comparative Politics.” Qualitative Methods
6, 2: 17–21.Google Scholar
Malesky, Edmund J.
2008b. “Straight Ahead on Red: How Foreign Direct Investment Empowers Subnational Leaders.” Journal of Politics
70, 1: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCargo, Duncan. 2006. “Rethinking Southeast Asian Politics.” In Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New Directions, ed. Chou, Cynthia and Houben, Vincent, 102–122. Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
McCoy, Alfred W.
1972. The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
McCoy, Alfred W.
1999. Closer Than Brothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. “Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics.” Politics of Modernization, no. 9. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
Pepinsky, Thomas B.
2009. Economic Crises and the Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes: Indonesia and Malaysia in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 1997. “Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented Research.” Comparative Social Research
16: 27–42.Google Scholar
Ricci, David. 1984. The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship and Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Robison, Richard, ed. 2006. The Neo Liberal Revolution: Forging the Market State. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodan, Garry, Hewison, Kevin, and Robison, Richard. 1997, 2001, 2008. The Political Economy of Southeast Asia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodrik, Dani. 2008. “The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, but How Shall We Learn?” HKS Working Paper No. RWP08-055. Cambridge: Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
Scott, James C.
1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, James C.
1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, James C.
2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Up land Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, Alfred. 1988. Rethinking Military Politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashar, Deborah. 1997. Demanding Democracy: Reform and Reaction in Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1870s–1950s. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar