Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:46:38.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - The comparative sequential method

from Part IV - Issues of method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

By
Tulia G. Falleti  and
James Mahoney
Edited by
James Mahoney  and
Kathleen Thelen
Tulia G. Falleti
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
James Mahoney
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
James Mahoney
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Kathleen Thelen
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access

Summary

Although comparative-historical analysis (CHA) is often understood to entail the comparison of a small to medium number of cases (usually countries or other macro units), we argue in this chapter that it may be more informative to say that this field involves the systematic comparison of sequences (Rueschemeyer and Stephens 1997). We suggest that a principal overarching methodology of comparative-historical analysis is the comparative sequential method (see Falleti 2010, 20–4). This method is defined by the systematic comparison of two or more historical sequences. In CHA, the “cases” studied nearly always are decomposed into sequences of events, and CHA causal claims rest upon the inferences derived from the analysis and comparison of those sequences. To take a classic example, Barrington Moore's (1966) main cases in Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy include countries such as England, France, the United States, and Germany. But these cases are studied as types of sequences of events that unfold over time. These sequences are the central units of comparison, and they provide the main basis for Moore's inferences about the causes of dictatorship and democracy.

The comparative sequential method is an overarching methodology in the sense that it can and must encompass more specific methods of cross-case analysis and within-case analysis. The main cross-case methods include simple matching tools such as J. S. Mill's methods of agreement and difference as well as more complex tools such as statistical analysis and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). The within-case methods include inductive process tracing and modes of hypothesis testing such as hoop tests and counterfactual analysis. In this chapter, we show how cross-case (in particular, Millian) methods and within-case (specifically, process tracing) are put to use to analyze and compare sequences of events in CHA. We argue that, depending on the kind of sequential argument, contrasting sets of methods are more or less appropriate – and more or less useful – as tools for analyzing sequences and carrying out causal assessment.

Type
Chapter
Information
Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis , pp. 211 - 239
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Amel. 2013. Democracy and the Politics of Electoral System Choice: Engineering Electoral Dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aminzade, Ronald. 1992. “Historical Sociology and Time.” Sociological Methods and Research 20:456–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. Brian. 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrenechea, Rodrigo, Gibson, Edward, and Terrie, Larkin. Forthcoming. “Historical Institutionalism in Democratization Studies.” In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism, edited by O. Fioretos, T. G. Falleti, and A. Sheingate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beach, Derek, and Pederson, Pasmus Brun. 2013. Process Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2008. “Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, 217–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Checkel, Jeffrey, eds. 2015. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Andrew, and Elman, Colin. 2006. “Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence.” Political Analysis 14:250–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1975. “‘Degrees of Freedom’ and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies 8:178–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraway, Teri L. 2004. “Inclusion and Democratization: Class, Gender, Race, and the Extension of Suffrage.” Comparative Politics 36 (4): 443–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castiglioni, Rossana. 2014. “Paths to Welfare: Class Coalitions, Ideas, and Party Politics in Chile and Uruguay.” Paper presented at the REPAL Annual Conference, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Chibber, Vivek. 2003. Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 1993. “The Comparative Method.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, edited by Finifter, Ada, 105–19. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Collier, DavidFinifter, Ada 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (4): 823–30.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2010. “Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd ed., edited by Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David, 161–99. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Collier, Ruth Berins, and Collier, David. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
David, Paul A. 1985. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review 75:332–7.Google Scholar
Ertman, Thomas. 1997. Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, Tulia G. 2010. Decentralization and Subnational Politics in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, Tulia G., and Lynch, Julia. 2009. “Context and Causation in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 49 (9): 1143–66.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerschenkron, Alexander. 1943. Bread and Democracy in Germany. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. 1998. “The Problem of the ‘Early Modern’ World.” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 41:249–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Larry J. 1992. “Temporality, Events, and Explanation in Historical Sociology: An Introduction.” Sociological Methods and Research 20:403–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2011. “Time Will Tell? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal Mechanisms and Processes.” Comparative Political Studies 44:1267–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 1998. “The Historical Logic of National Health Insurance: Structure and Sequence in the Development of British, Canadian, and U.S. Medical Policy.” Studies in American Political Development 12 (1): 57–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2013. “Tracing the Progress of Process Tracing.” European Political Science 12:20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, and Jacobs, Alan. 2013. “Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Inferences.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
Jacobs, Alan M. 2008. “The Politics of When: Redistribution, Investment, and the Politics of the Long Term.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2010. “Policymaking as Political Constraint: Institutional Development in the U.S. Social Security Program.” In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, edited by Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, 94–131. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kohli, Atul. 2004. State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luebbert, Gregory M. 1991. Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 1999. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (4): 1154–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29:507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James 2010. Colonialism and Postcolonial Development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James 2012. “The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.” Sociological Methods and Research 41:566–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, Timothy J. 1999. “Case Studies and the Statistical Worldview: Review of King, Keohane, and Verba's Designing Social Inquiry.” International Organization 53:161–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Barrington Jr. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Onoma, Ato Kwamena. 2010. “The Contradictory Potential of Institutions: The Rise and Decline of Land Documentation in Kenya.” In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, edited by Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, 63–93. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94:251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Monica. 2012. The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles C 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riofrancos, Thea. 2014. “Contesting Extraction: State-Making, Democracy and Large Scale Mining in Ecuador.” PhD diss., Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rohlfing, Ingo. 2014. “Comparative Hypothesis Testing via Process Tracing.” Sociological Methods and Research, 43 (4): 606–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, Fernando. 2013. “How to Party? Static and Dynamic Party Survival in Latin American Consolidated Democracies.” PhD diss., Instituto de Ciencia Política, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2003. “Can One or a Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, 305–36. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Stephens, John D.. 1997. “Comparing Historical Sequences – A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis.” Comparative Social Research 17:55–72.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, Evelyne Huber, and Stephens, John D.. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970. “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.” Comparative Politics 2 (3): 337–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, William H. Jr. 1996. “Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology.” In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, edited by McDonald, Terrence J., 245–80. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda 1999. “Why I Am a Historical Social Scientist.” Extensions: Journal of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar
Smith, Benjamin. 2007. Hard Times in the Lands of Plenty: Oil Politics in Iran and Indonesia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Soifer, Hillel David. 2012. “The Causal Logic of Critical Junctures.” Comparative Political Studies 45:1572–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, Hendrik. 1994. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1968. Constructing Social Theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2008. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2:369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen 2003. “How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative-Historical Analysis.” In Comparative-Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, 208–40. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2000. Forging Democracy from Below: Insurgent Transitions in South Africa and El Salvador. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×