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-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T19:18:23.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Comparative-historical analysis in contemporary political science

from Part I - Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

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

Summary

Comparative-historical analysis (CHA) has a long and distinguished pedigree in political science. In a discipline in which a succession of different movements has advocated new approaches promising more powerful theory or new methodologies for more rigorously testing theory, or both, CHA has stood the test of time. It remains the approach of choice for many scholars spanning all generations and continues to set agendas – both theoretical and substantive – for many other scholars who use alternative analytical and methodological tools.

In this introductory chapter, we explore the resilience and continuing influence of CHA in contemporary political science. We attribute the enduring impact of CHA to strengths built into its very defining features: its focus on large-scale and often complex outcomes of enduring importance; its emphasis on empirically grounded, deep case-based research; and its attention to process and the temporal dimensions of politics. These features not only distinguish CHA but also endow the approach with comparative advantages not found in other research.

The methodological churning within political science is not new, and yet it seems to have intensified over the past several years. Beginning in the late 1980s, the field underwent important changes as rational choice theory made its way into the mainstream of the discipline. Scholarship using game theory was greeted with considerable fanfare and controversy, celebrated by some for the theoretical elegance of its models, criticized by others for the limited leverage that these models often seemed to offer in explaining real world outcomes. Even if this line of work did not have the transformative effects that some predicted, clearly it now occupies an important place in the discipline.

More recently, an empiricist strand of work has emerged with similar energy and force. Billed by its proponents as a “revolution in causal inference,” the experimental method has been sweeping through many departments. Today's experimentalists put great emphasis on research design, often recruiting subjects – in the lab, in the field, or online – to participate in experiments that attempt to isolate the effects of variables of concern.

Type
Chapter
Information
Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis , pp. 3 - 36
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

Beissinger, Mark. 2002. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capoccia, Giovanni. 2005. Defending Democracy: Reactions to Extremism in Interwar Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Christia, Fotini. 2012. Alliance Formation in Civil Wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, Elisabeth S., and Guthrie, Doug, eds. 2010. Politics and Partnerships: The Role of Voluntary Associations in America's Political Past and Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Culpepper, Pepper D. 2010. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falleti, Tulia G. 2010. Decentralization and Subnational Politics in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, Marie. 2006. The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, Anna Maria. 2007. Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-Communist Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Jeffrey. 2000. States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, and Stephens, John D. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2011. Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2013. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Kohli, Atul. 2004. State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippner, Greta R. 2011. Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan. 2003. Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan 2009. Boundaries of Contagion: How Ethnic Politics Have Shaped Government Responses to AIDS. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Julia. 2006. Age in the Welfare State: The Origins of Social Spending on Pensioners, Workers, and Children. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2001. The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James 2010. Colonialism and Postcolonial Development Spanish America in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Michael. 2005. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo, and Swank, Duane. 2012. The Political Construction of Business Interests: Coordination, Growth, and Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meierhenrich, Jens. 2008. The Legacies of Law: Long-Run Consequences of Legal Development in South Africa, 1652–2000. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2005. Soldiers to Citizens: The G.I. Bill and the Making of the Greatest Generation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murillo, Maria Victoria. 2001. Labor Unions, Partisan Coalitions, and Market Reforms in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, Monica. 2006. Politics of the Free Market: The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Policies in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prasad, Monica 2013. The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sheingate, Adam. 2001. The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power in the United States, France, and Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Tulsa: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda, Liazos, Ariane, and Ganz, Marshall. 2006. What a Mighty Power We Can Be: African American Fraternal Groups and the Struggle for Racial Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Slater, Dan. 2010. Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruyt, Hendrik. 2005. Ending Empire: Contested Sovereignty and Territorial Partition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 2010. The Evolution of Modern States: Sweden, Japan, and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Swenson, Peter. 2002. Capitalists against Markets: The Making of Labor Markets and Welfare States in the United States and Sweden. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Lily. 2007. Accountability without Democracy: Solidarity Groups and Public Goods Provision in Rural China. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Walle, Nicolas. 2001. African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979–1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varshney, Ashutosh. 2001. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Winters, Jeffrey A. 2011. Oligarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashar, Deborah J. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2006. Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Andrew. 1997. “Of Time and Space.” Social Forces 75 (4): 1149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Andrew 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, Daron, and Robinson, James A. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Gerard. 2001. “Institutions, Path Dependence, and Democratic Consolidation.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 13 (3): 249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amenta, Edwin. 2003. “What We Know about the Development of Social Policy: Comparative and Historical Research in Comparative and Historical Perspective.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, 91–130. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aminzade, Ronald. 1992. “Historical Sociology and Time.” Sociological Methods and Research 20:456–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo, Heller, Patrick, and Silva, Marcelo K. 2011. Bootstrapping Democracy: Transforming Local Governance and Civil Society in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert H., Greif, Avner, Levi, Margaret, Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent, and Weingast, Barry. 2000. “The Analytic Narrative Project.” American Political Science Review 94 (3): 696–702.Google Scholar
Beath, Andrew, Christia, Fotini, and Enikolopov, Ruben. 2013. “Empowering Women through Development Aid: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan.” American Political Science Review 107 (3): 540–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2008. “Time-Series Cross-Sectional Analysis.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, 475–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beissinger, Mark R. 2009. “Nationalism and the Collapse of Soviet Communism.” Contemporary European History 18 (3): 331–47.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
Blackwell, Matthew. 2013. “A Framework for Dynamic Causal Inference in Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 504–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Taylor. 2007. “Conceptualizing Continuity and Change: The Composite-Standard Model of Path Dependence.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (1): 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David. 2012. “The Problem of Preferences: Medicare and Business Support for the Welfare State.” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2): 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büthe, Tim. 2002. “Taking Temporality Seriously: Modeling History and the Use of Narratives as Evidence.” American Political Science Review 96 (3): 481–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, Steven, and Krehbiel, Keith. 2013. “Gridlock and Delegation in a Changing World.” Unpublished manuscript, March 1. Stanford Business School.
Capoccia, Giovanni, and Keleman, Daniel. 2007. “The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism.” World Politics 59 (3): 341–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Angel. 2003. Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Cioffi, John W. 2010. Public Law and Private Power: The Comparative Political Economy of Corporate Governance Reform in the Age of Finance Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.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
Deaton, Angus. 2010. “Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development.” Journal of Economic Literature 48 (2): 424–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, Angus 2014. “Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development.” In Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences, edited by Langan Teele, Dawn, 141–84. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Druckman, James, Green, Donald P, Kuklinski, James H, and Lupia, Arthur, eds. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas. 2012. “Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 875–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, Catherine D., Fatas, Enrique, and Wilson, Rick. 2010. “Cooperation and Status in Organizations.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 12 (4): 737–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1982. “The Case for Methodological Individualism.” Theory and Society 11 (4): 453–82.Google 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 F.. 2009. “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (9): 1143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Jeffrey. 1996. The Rational Choice Controversy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 2013. “Albert O. Hirschman, 1915–2012.” The American Interest (March/April): 93–95.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Donald, P. Green, and Kaplan, Edward H.. 2014. “The Illusion of Learning from Observational Research.” In Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences, edited by Teele, Dawn Langan, 9–32. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack A. 2003. “Comparative Historical Analysis and Knowledge Accumulation in the Study of Revolutions.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, 41–90. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Ha, Shang E., and Bullock, John G.. 2010. “Enough Already about ‘Black Box’ Experiments: Studying Mediation Is More Difficult Than Most Scholars Suppose.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 628:200–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Shapiro, Ian. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greif, Avner. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Guy, and Baldassarri, Delia. 2012. “The Impact of Elections on Cooperation: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Uganda.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 964–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2011. “Time Will Tell? Temporality and the Analysis of Causal Mechanisms and Processes.” Comparative Political Studies 44:1267–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gugerty, M. K., and Kremer, M.. 2008. “Outside Funding and the Dynamics of Participation in Community Associations.” American Journal of Political Science 52:585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob. 2005. “Policy Drift: The Hidden Politics of US Welfare State Retrenchment.” In Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, edited by Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen, 40–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob, and Pierson, Paul. 2010. “Drift and Democracy: The Neglected Politics of Policy Inaction.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2–5.
Haggard, Stephan, and Kaufman, Robert R. 2012. “Inequality and Regime Change: Democratic Transitions and the Stability of Democratic Rule.” American Political Science Review 106 (3): 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, 373–404. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter 2006. “Systematic Process Analysis: When and How to Use It.” European Management Review 3:24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter, and Soskice, David. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2007. “Meanings of Methodological Individualism.” Journal of Economic Methodology 14 (2): 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, and Stephens, John D. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John. 2013. “Is Theory Getting Lost in the ‘Identification Revolution?’” The Political Economist: Newsletter of the Section on Political Economy 10 (1): 1–3.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 765–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, Torben, Pontusson, Jonas, and Soskice, David. 2000. Unions, Employers, and Central Banks: Wage Bargaining and Macroeconomic Regimes in an Integrating Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2001. “An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95 (4): 875–93.Google Scholar
Iverson, Torben, and Soskice, David 2006. “Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions.” American Political Science Review 100 (2): 165–81.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2012. Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy D., and Franzese Jr., Robert J. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Khwaga, A. I. 2009. “Can Good Projects Succeed in Bad Communities?” Journal of Public Economics 93(7–8): 899–916.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2014. “Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard's Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47 (1): 165–76.Google Scholar
Kohli, Atul, ed. 2001. The Success of India's Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Way, Lucan A. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Daniel. 2012. “Explanatory Autonomy and Coleman's Boat.” Theoria 74:137–51.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1968. “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered.” British Journal of Sociology 19 (2): 119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29:507–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James 2001. The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James 2003. “Knowledge Accumulation in Comparative Historical Research: The Case of Democracy and Authoritarianism.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, 131–75. 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
Mahoney, James, and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Thelen, Kathleen, eds. 2010a. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2010b. “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, edited by Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, 1–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mares, Isabela. 2003. The Politics of Social Risk: Business and Welfare State Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathie Jo, and Swank, Duane. 2004. “Does the Organization of Capital Matter? Employers and the Active Labor Market Policy at the National and Firms Levels.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.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
Pierson, Paul 2007. “The Costs of Marginalization: Qualitative Methods in the Study of American Politics.” Comparative Political Studies 40 (2): 146–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul, and Skocpol, Theda. 2002. “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, edited by Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen, 693–721. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rixen, Thomas, and Viola, Lora Anne. 2014. “Putting Path Dependence in Its Place: Toward a Taxonomy of Institutional Change.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 26 (3): 1–23.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 H., and Stephens, John D.. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S., and Titiunik, Rocío. 2012. “When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural Nor Experiments.” American Political Science Review 106 (1): 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2004. “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or: What's Wrong with Political Science and What to Do about It.” In Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, edited by Shapiro, Ian, Smith, Rogers, and Masoud, Tarek, 588–611. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian 2014. “Methods Are Like People: If You Focus Only on What They Can't Do, You Will Always Be Disappointed.” In Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences, edited by Langan Teele, Dawn, 228–42. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, and Simmons, Erica. 2010. “Informative Regress: Critical Antecedents in Comparative Politics.” Comparative Political Studies 43:886–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, Smith, Benjamin, and Nair, Gautam. 2014. “Economic Origins of Democratic Breakdown? The Redistributive Model and the Postcolonial State.” Perspectives on Politics 12:353–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, Dan, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2013. “The Enduring Indispensability of the Controlled Comparison.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (10): 1301–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. Maynard, and Price, G. R.. 1973. “The Logic of Animal Conflict.” Nature 246 (5427): 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soifer, Hillel David. 2012. “The Causal Logic of Critical Junctures.” Comparative Political Studies 45 (12): 1572–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2014. “A Defense of Observational Research.” In Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences, edited by Langan Teele, Dawn, 33–57. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2005. “Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies.” In Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, edited by Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen, 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swenson, Peter. 1991. “Bringing Capital Back In, or Social Democracy Reconsidered: Employer Power, Cross-Class Alliances, and the Centralization of Industrial Relations in Denmark and Sweden.” World Politics 43 (4): 513–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swenson, Peter 2002. Capitalists Against Markets. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
Thelen, Kathleen 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudor, Maya. 2013. The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Steven K. 2006. Japan Remodeled: How Government and Industry Are Reforming Japanese Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Weibull, Jörgen W. 1997. Evolutionary Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weir, Margaret 1992. Politics and Jobs: The Boundaries of Employment Policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Woolcock, Michael. 2013. “Using Case Studies to Explore the External Validity of ‘Complex’ Development Interventions.” Evaluation 19 (3): 229–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashar, Deborah. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2009. “Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth Century Germany.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel Forthcoming. Conservative Political Parties and the Birth of Democracy in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

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
×