Debating the direction of comparative politics: An analysis of leading journals

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 5-31

  Munck, Gerardo L ^a   Snyder, Richard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Area studies; Comparative politics; Methods; Paradigm; Rational choice; Scope

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751549908     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: 15523829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414006294815     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Almond, G. A. (1990). A discipline divided. Schools and sects in political science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Almond, G. A., & Coleman, J. S. (Eds.). (1960). The politics of the developing areas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Bates, R. H. (1996). Letter from the president: Area studies and the discipline. APSA-CP: Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 7 (1). 1-2.
4. Bates, R. H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L., & Weingast, B. (1998). Analytic narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Bollen, K. A., Entwisle, B., & Alderson, A. S. (1993). Macrocomparative research methods. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 321-351.
6. Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Berkeley Public Policy.
7. Brady, H. E., Collier, D., & Seawright, J. (2004). Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 3-20). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Berkeley Public Policy.
8. Collier, D. (1999). Data, field work and extracting new ideas at close range. APSA-CP. Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 10 (1). 1-2, 4-6.
9. Collier, D., Brady, H. E., & Seawright, J. (2004). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 229-266). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Berkeley Public Policy.
10. Eckstein, H., & Apter, D. (Eds.). (1963). Comparative politics. New York: Free Press.
11. Esping-Andersen, G., & Przeworski, A. (2001). Quantitative cross-national research methods. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Bates (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 12649-12655). New York: Elsevier Science.
12. Geddes, B. (1991). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. In J. A. Stimson (Ed.), Political analysis, vol. 2 1990 (pp. 131-149). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13. Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
14. Goldthorpe, J. H. (1998). The quantitative analysis of large-scale data-sets and rational action theory: For a sociological alliance. In H.-P. Blossfeld & G. Prein (Eds.), Rational choice theory and large-scale data analysis (pp. 31-53). Boulder, CO: Westview.
15. Green, D., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice. A critique of applications in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Huber, E., & Dion, M. (2002). Revolution or contribution? Rational choice approaches in the study of Latin American politics. Latin American Politics and Society, 44 (3). 1-28.
17. Hull, A. P. (1999). Comparative political science: An inventory and assessment since the 1980's. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32 (1). 117-124.
18. Keech, W., Bates, R., & Lange, P. (1991). Political economy within nations. In W. Crotty (Ed.), Political science: Looking to the future, vol. 2. Comparative politics, policy, and international relations (pp. 219-263). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
19. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Kohli, A. (2002). State, society, and development. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 84-117). New York: Norton.
21. Laitin, D. D. (1993). Letter from the incoming president. APSA-CP. Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 4 (2). 3-3, 18-18.
22. Laitin, D. D. (1998). Toward a political science discipline: Authority patterns revisited. Comparative Political Studies, 31, 423-443.
23. Laitin, D. D. (2002). Comparative politics: The state of the subdiscipline. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 630-659). New York: Norton.
24. Laitin, D. D. (2003). The perestroikan challenge to social science. Politics and Society, 31 (1). 163-184.
25. Laitin, D. D. (2004). The political science discipline. In E. Mansfield & R. Sisson (Eds.), The evolution of political knowledge: Democracy, autonomy, and conflict in comparative and international politics (pp. 11-40). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
26. Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In M. I. Lichbach & A. S. Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture and structure (pp. 19-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Levi, M. (2000). The economic turn in comparative politics. Comparative Political Studies, 33 (6/7). 822-844.
28. Lichbach, M. I. (1997). Social theory and comparative politics. In M. I. Lichbach & A. S. Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture and structure (pp. 239-276). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Lichbach, M. I. (2003). Is rational choice theory all of social science? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65 (3). 682-693.
31. Lustick, I. S. (1994). Rational choice as a hegemonic project, and the capture of comparative politics. APSA-CP. Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 5 (2). 7-7, 31-31.
32. Macridis, R., & Cox, R. (1953). Research in comparative politics. Seminar report. American Political Science Review, 47 (3). 641-657.
33. Mahoney, J., & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative historical analysis: Achievements and agendas. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 3-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Mansfield, E., & Sisson, R. (Eds.). (2004a). The evolution of political knowledge: Democracy, autonomy, and conflict in comparative and international politics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
35. Mansfield, E., & Sisson, R. (Eds.). (2004b). The evolution of political knowledge: Theory and inquiry in American politics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
36. Monroe, K. R. (Ed.). (2005). Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37. Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (2004). What has comparative politics accomplished? APSA-CP. Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 15 (2). 26-31.
38. Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (in press-a). Passion, craft, and method in comparative politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39. Munck, G. L., & Snyder, R. (in press-b). Who publishes in comparative politics? Studying the world from the United States. PS: Political Science & Politics.
40. Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 693-721). New York: Norton.
41. Portes, A. (2005). Sociology in the hemisphere: Past convergencies and a new middle-range agenda. In C. H. Wood & B. R. Roberts (Eds.), Rethinking development in Latin America (pp. 27-52). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
42. Sartori, G. (2004). Where is political science going? PS: Political Science & Politics, 37 (4). 785-786.
43. Schmitter, P. C. (1993). Comparative politics. In J. Krieger (Ed.), The Oxford companion to the politics of the world (pp. 171-177). New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Shapiro, I., Smith, R., & Masoud, T. (Eds.). (2004). Problems and methods in the study of politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Sigelman, L., & Gadbois, G. H. (1983). Contemporary comparative politics: An inventory and assessment. Comparative Political Studies, 16 (3). 275-305.
46. Skocpol, T. (2003). Doubly engaged social science: The promise of comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 407-428). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36 (1). 93-110.
48. Stepan, A. (2001). Reflections on "problem selection" in comparative politics. In A. Stepan (Ed.), Arguing comparative politics (pp. 1-10). New York: Oxford University Press.
49. Weingast, B. R. (2002). Rational choice institutionalism. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 660-692). New York: Norton.
50. Weyland, K. (2002). Limitations of rational-choice institutionalism for the study of Latin American politics. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37 (1). 57-85.