Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T12:08:36.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commentary on Coming and Hines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Robert A. Packenham*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stanford University Stanford, California 94305
Get access

Extract

Corning and Hines' assertions at the beginning of their article are correct. The political development literature is in “disarray.” There is dissensus on definitions and measures. The term ‘political evolution’ is seldom used in any technical or precise sense. Political scientists are mostly “unaware of the burgeoning literature… on the causal dynamics underlying the evolution of society in general and of politics and the state in particular,” and their “knowledge of pre-modern politics” does tend to be “sketchy.” The time is “ripe” (as always?) for “fresh approaches.” The introduction or reintroduction of “an evolutionary perspective” could be, depending on how it is defined, a “radical departure” from dominant frames of reference in political science.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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.)