1 Along with conflicting imperatives and conceptual oppositions, Reinhard Bendix uses other labels as well (“basic conflicts of values” and “polarities”). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960; Anchor Books, 1962), p. 438Google Scholar; Nation-Building and Citizenship (New York: Wiley & Sons, 1964; new enlarged edition, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977), p. 137Google Scholar; Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 17, 56–57Google Scholar; Unsettled Affinities, ed. Bendix, John (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1993), p. 12.Google Scholar

2 Pitkin, Hannah Fenichel, The Concept of Representation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), p. 9Google Scholar; Stepan, Alfred C., The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. 40–45 291–97, and 301–316.Google Scholar

3 A major emphasis in the methodology of concept analysis is on the relationships between the attributes in a concept's definition and the cases to which the concept usefully applies. Sartori, Giovanni, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political Science Review 64, no. 4 (12 1970) 1033–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sartori, Giovanni, “Comparing and Miscomparing,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (1991): 243–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sartori, Giovanni, ed., Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984)Google Scholar; Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York: John Wiley, 1970)Google Scholar; Collier, David and Mahon, James, “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories of Comparative Analysis,” American Political Science Review 87, no. 4 (12 1993): 845–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gerring, John, “What Makes a Concept Good?: An Integrated Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences,” Polity 31 (Spring 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Conceptual analyses of regime, democracy, and related terms exemplify this emphasis. Fishman, Robert M., “Rethinking State and Regime: Southern Europe's Transition to Democracy,” World Politics 42 (04 1990): 422–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmitter, Philippe and Karl, Terry, “What Democracy Is ⃛ And Is Not,” Journal of Democracy 2, no. 3 (1991): 75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lawson, Stephanie, “Conceptual Issues in the Comparative Study of Regime Change and Democratization” Comparative Politics 25 (01 1993): 183–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Munck, Gerardo L., “Disaggregating Political Regime: Conceptual Issues in the Study of Democratization,” Kellogg Institute Working Paper, no. 228 (Notre Dame, IN: Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, 08 1996)Google Scholar; Collier, David and Levitsky, Steven, “Research Note: Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research” World Politics 49, no. 3 (1997): 430–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schedler, Andreas, “What Is Democratic Consolidation?” Journal of Democracy 9, no. 2 (1998): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Sartori, Giovanni, “Guidelines for Concept Analysis,” in Sartori, , Social Science Concepts, p. 54.Google Scholar

5 While one could begin this analysis with the work of various scholars other than Weber, there are differences between approaches to concept formation discussed here and some other approaches derived from the dialectical and utilitarian traditions. Conflicting imperatives involve a more complex reading of individual human motivation, both in terms of the internal conflict that individuals are hypothesized to experience and in terms of the range of possible motivations. In the dialectical tradition, conflicts within a system are sometimes asserted to lead to the transformation and eventually the replacement of the system. By contrast, Weber's placement of conflicting imperatives at the core of several concepts does not necessarily imply that the realities closely matched those concepts are in the process of being permanently undermined from within. In addition, in some other approaches, concepts can be simply taken from a larger theory and used largely without further refinement.

6 Weber, Max, Economy and Society, ed. Roth, Guenther and Wittich, Claus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 215.Google Scholar

7 Bendix, , Nation-Building and Citizenship, p. 40, n. 1.Google Scholar

8 Weber, , Economy and Society, p. 227.Google Scholar

9 Bendix, , Kings or People, p. 21Google Scholar; Bendix, Reinhard, Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), p. 38.Google Scholar

10 Weber, , Economy and Society, p. 242.Google Scholar

11 Marostica, Matthew Merril, “Pentecostals and Politics: The Creation of the Evangelical Christian Movement in Argentina, 1983–1993” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1997), pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

12 Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Parsons, Talcott (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1976), p. 180Google Scholar; Weber, , Economy and Society, p. 556.Google Scholar

13 Jackson, Robert H. and Rosberg, Carl G., Personal Rule in Black Africa: Prince, Autocrat, Prophet, Tyrant (Berkeley: University of California Press 1982), p. 9Google Scholar; Jowitt, Kenneth, The Leninist Response to National Dependency, Research Series of the Institute for International Studies, no. 37 (Berkeley: University of California, 1978)Google Scholar; Jowitt, Kenneth, New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992).Google Scholar

14 Weber, , Economy and Society, p. 215.Google Scholar

15 Bendix, , Unsettled Affinities, p. 167.Google Scholar

16 Bendix's father was Jewish and a lawyer in Weimar Germany. Bendix, Reinhard, From Berlin to Berkeley (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1986), pp. 87–95Google Scholar

17 Shklar, Judith, Legalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

18 Bendix, , Nation–Building and Citizenship, p. 132Google Scholar; Kopstein, Jeffrey, The Politics of Economic Decline in East Germany, 1945–1989 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), p. 112Google Scholar

19 These results generated by a cited reference search for Author=Schmitter, Title=Rev Politics, and Year=1974 in the Institute for Scientific Information's Social Science Citation Index (on the “Web of Science” for 1988–99 and in book form for 1978–87).

20 Schmitter, Philippe C., “Still the Century of Corporatism?” Review of Politics 36, no. 1 (1974): 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Schmitter, Philippe C., “Modes of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe,” in Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation, ed. Schmitter, Philippe C. and Lembruch, Gerhard (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979), p. 93, fn. 1.Google Scholar

22 Stepan, State and Society, cites David Apter's discussion of polar models and their characteristic predicaments. Apter, David, The Politics of Modernization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 28–36Google Scholar. In discussing different developmental types, Apter notes that “each type of system manifests internal conflicts and contradictions in connection with the variables listed,” that is, goals, costs, uses of coercion, and information available to decision-makers. Apter, David E., “System, Process and the Politics of Economic Development,” in Industrialization and Society, ed. Hoselitz, Berthold Frank and Moore, Wilbert Ellis (The Hague: Mouton, 1963), p. 145.Google Scholar

23 Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, The Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 53Google Scholar. See also Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, “Inducements versus Constraints: Disaggregating Corporatism,” American Political Science Review 73, no. 4 (1979): 967–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Schmitter, Philippe C., “Confesiones de un pirata conceptual,” in Teoria del Neocorporatismo. Ensayos de Philippe C. Schmitter, ed. Rigoberto, Ocampo A. (Guadalajara, Mexico: Universidad de Guadalajara, 1992)Google Scholar. For Schmitter's first conceptualization, see his Interest Conflict and Political Change in Brazil (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar. Even while disagreeing over key issues, other scholars advanced the concept. Wilensky, Harold L, The ‘New Corporatism,’ Centralization, and the Welfare State (London and Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1976)Google Scholar; Wilensky, Harold L., “Leftism, Catholicism and Democratic Corporatism: The Role of Political Parties in Recent Welfare State Development,” in The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, ed. Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold J. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1981), pp.345–82Google Scholar

25 Thelen, Kathleen, “Beyond Corporatism: Toward a New Framework for the Study of Labor in Advanced Capitalism,” Comparative Politics 27 (1994): 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collier, David, “Trajectory of a Concept: ‘Corporatism’ in the Study of Latin American Politics,” in Latin America in Comparative Perspective: New Approaches to Methods and Analysis, ed. Smith, Peter H. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995), pp. 135–62.Google Scholar

26 Collier, and Collier, , Shaping the Political Arena, p.48.Google Scholar

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid., pp. 162–68.

29 Ibid., pp. 55, 785.

30 Munck, Gerardo L., Authoritarianism and Democratization: Soldiers and Workers in Argentina, 1976–1983 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), pp. 29, 31–32Google Scholar. For the first exposition of bureaucratic authoritarianism and its internal tensions, see O'Donnell's, Guillermo works, including Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973; second edition with postscript, 1979).Google Scholar

31 Ibid., p 165.

32 Ibid., pp. 170–84, especially Figure 7.1.

33 Bendix, Reinhard, “Reflections on Charismatic Leadership,” in State and Society: A Reader in Comparative Political Sociology, ed. Bendix, Reinhard (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1968), pp. 616–29.Google Scholar

34 Jowitt, , The Leninist Response, p. 34Google Scholar. Emphases removed in all quotations from this source.

35 Ibid., p. 35.

36 Ibid., p. 36.

37 Ibid., p. 50.

38 Jowitt, Kenneth, “Inclusion and Mobilization in European Leninist Regimes,” World Politics 28, no. 1 (1975): 69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Padgett, John F. and Ansell, Christopher K., “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434,” American journal of Sociology 98, no. 6 (1993): 1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Ibid., p. 1307.

41 Ibid., p. 1310.

42 Smelser traces the roots of the idea of psychological ambivalence in the works of Eugen Bleuler and Sigmund Freud. He also notes Robert K. Merton's similar conception, “sociological ambivalence.” Smelser, Neil, “The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences,” American Sociological Review 63, no. 1 (1998): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Ibid., p. 6. Emphasis removed.

44 Ibid., p. 11.

45 Pitkin, , Concept of Representation, pp. 9–10, 92, 144, 153–54.Google Scholar

46 Ibid., pp.165–66.

47 Ragin, Charles C., “Introduction: Cases of ‘What Is A Case?’” in What Is A Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, ed. Ragin, Charles C. and Becker, Howard S. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 9.Google Scholar