¹ They carried on indeed a proud traditional theme from Machiavelli and Montesquieu to Bagehot and Bryce, Woodrow Wilson and Lowell, Burgess and Goodnow. To this distinguished list should be added the rich literature growing out of the response to totalitarianism, – red, black, and brown – during the inter-war period. One may also be reminded of the suggestive Chicago series of comparative Studies in the Making of Citizens edited by C. E. Merriam, and the monumental Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences which contains numerous articles of systematic and comparative classics.

Among single-handed comprehensive contributions on Comparative Government the following books stand out: Friedrich, Carl J., Constitutional Government and Democracy (Rev. ed., Boston, 1950)Google Scholar, Finer, Herman, The Theory and Practice of Modern Government (New York, 1949)Google Scholar and Loewenstein, Karl, Political Reconstruction (New York, 1946)Google Scholar and his most recent Political Power and the Governmental Process (Chicago, 1957).Google Scholar

For an overall analysis of the consequential stages of Comparative Politics, in the U.S.A. see Neumann, Sigmund “Comparative Politics: A half-Century Appraisal”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 19. pp. 369–390 (08, 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² A complete list of these projects in process could well illustrate the sweeping outburst of research interest. Here are a few field topics: The Roles of Political Parties and Interest Groups in Policy Making in Great Britain since 1945 (Samuel H. Beer); The Bureaucracy of Pakistan (Ralph Braibanti): Interest Groups and the Governmental Process in France, Germany and Italy (Henry W. Ehrmann); The Contemporary Transition in the Pattern of Group Participation in Cuba (Federico G. Gil); Interest Group Organization and Political Behavior in Selected Administrative Settings in Italy (Joseph LaPalombara); Society and Politics in Spain (Juan Jose Linz); Social Determinants of Support of Political Groups in Western Democracies (Seymour M. Lipset); Relationships of Trade Unions and Political Parties (Val R. Lorwin); Political Consensus, Group Interaction and Group Ideology in France (Roy C. Macridis); The Political Role of Bureaucracy in Thailand (Fred W. Riggs); and Interest Groups in India (Myron Weinei).

³ For a well-balanced plea for a thorough reorientation in the discipline, taking serious account of the non-Western world, see Rustow, Dankwart A., “New Horizons for Comparative Politics”, World Politics, Vol. 9, pp. 530–549 (07, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and his “Politics and Westernization in the Near East”, Center of International Studies (Princeton 1956)Google Scholar; cp. also Coleman, James S., “The Problem of Political Integration in Emergent Africa”, Western Political Quarterly, 8:44–57 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ The Committee on Comparative Politics of the SSRC has given much attention to these problems and expects to present in the near future a series of papers on such “New Aspects of Comparative Politics”.

Preliminary reports of its research conferences and analytical memoranda may be found in the following: George McT. Kahin, Guy J. Parker, Lucian W. Pye, “Comparative Politics of Non-Western Countries”, and Almond, Gabriel A., Cole, Taylor, Macridis, Roy C., “A suggested research strategy in Western European Government and Politics”, American Political Science Review, 49:1022–49 (12 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and in the summary analysis of a planning seminar (held at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Palo Alto, April 1957) presented in the American Political Science Review (05 1958) by the Committee's Chairman Almond, Gabriel A.Google Scholar; see also his “Comparative Political Systems”, Journal of Politics, 18:402ff (1956)Google ScholarPubMed, and Macridis, Roy C., The Study of Comparative Government (New York, 1955).Google Scholar

⁵ At this stage of a concerted comparative research attack it will be wise to beware of premature generalizations while awaiting a richer harvest to be fully assessed by a more circumspect theory. True, such a self-imposed reserve may tax the patience of the enterprising researcher, yet the later returns will be the more rewarding. For such a preliminary set of propositions see the author's concluding chapter, “Toward a Comparative Study of Political Parties” in Modern Political Parties (Chicago 1956).Google Scholar

At the same time one will appreciate the currently revived interest in earlier books that had a thesis (true classics that they are: always quoted and never read, and indeed, until recently, hard to get hold of) such as: Ostrogorski, M. I., Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (New York, 1902)Google Scholar, and Michels, Robert' Political Parties (new ed., Glencoe, III., 1949).Google Scholar Equally challenging are current systematic attempts such as Duverger, Maurice's bold Les Partis Politiques (Paris, 1951; English translation: New York, 1954).Google Scholar The resulting discussion is full proof of the widespread awareness of comparative data and the deep interest in a theoretical underpinning. Substantive progress will demand a continuous confluence of field findings and systematic penetration. For a general survey of the current literature compare Engelmann, Frederick C., “A Critique of Recent Writings on Political Parties”, Journal of Politics, 19:423–440 (08 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hoffmann, Stanley, “Tendances de la Science Politique aux Etats-Unis”, Revue Française de Science Politique, 7:913–932 (10–12 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Apart from the rich output of established area institutes such as Harvard's Russian Research Center, Columbia's Russian Institute, Princeton's Center of International Studies and Duke's Commonwealth Institute, the following random selection of substantive studies might be indicative of the productive variety in recent American Political Science: Almond, Gabriel A., The Appeals of Communism (Princeton, 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Apter, David, The Gold Coast in Transition (Princeton, 1955)Google Scholar; Barghoorn, Frederick C., Soviet Russian Nationalism (New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Berelson, B. R., Lazarfeld, Paul F., McPhee, W. N., Voting (Chicago, 1954)Google Scholar; Carter, Gwendolyn M., The Politics of Inequality (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Cohen, Bernard C., Peace Making in a Democracy: The Political Process and the Japanese Peace Settlement (Princeton, 1956)Google Scholar; Cole, Allan B. and others, Conflict in Indo-China and International Repercussions: A Documentary History, 1945–1955Google Scholar; Ehrmann, Henry W., Organized Business in France (Princeton, 1957)Google Scholar, Einaudi, Mario and Goguel, Francois, Christian Democracy in Italy and France (Notre Dame, 1952)Google Scholar; Emerson, Rupert, Representative Government in South East Asia (Cambridge, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Furnivall, J. S., Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India (new edition, New York, 1956)Google Scholar; Grunebaum, G. E. von (ed.), Unity and Variety in Muslim Civilization (Chicago, 1955)Google Scholar; Lenczowski, George, The Middle East in World Affairs (2nd ed., Ithaca, N.Y., 1956)Google Scholar; Lipset, S. M. and others, Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union (Glencoe, III., 1956)Google Scholar; Overacker, Louise, The Australian Party System (New Haven, 1952)Google Scholar; Pye, Lucian W., Guerilla Communism in Malaya (Princeton, 1956)Google Scholar; Rustow, Dankwart, The Politics of Compromise (Princeton, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scalopino, Robert A., Democracy and the Party Movement in Pre-War Japan (Berkeley, 1953)Google Scholar and Speier, Hans and Davison, Phillips (eds), West German Leadership and Foreign Policy (Evanston, III., 1957)Google Scholar; Thayer, Philip W., Nationalism and Progress in Free Asia (Baltimore 1956)Google Scholar and Wertheim, W. F., Indonesian Society in Transition: A Study of Social Change (New York, 1956).Google Scholar

To assess the exciting effects of this new comparative turn in United States political science one ought to analysize its repercussions on the study of American institutions proper. Increasingly it has become truly comparative, as it should. To mention only two of the most recent publications see Leiserson, Avery, Parties and Politics (New York, 1958)Google Scholar, and Ranney, Austin, The Governing of Men (New York, 1958).Google Scholar

⁷ For a concise and original evaluation of this study see Lipson, Leslie, “The Comparative Method in Political Studies”, The Political Quarterly, 28:372–382 (10–12, 1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Here are a number of the outstanding books of the Nuffield College groups: Mc-Callum, R. B. and Readman, A., The British General Election of 1945 (Oxford, 1947)Google Scholar; Nicholas, H. G., The British General Election of 1950 (London, 1951)Google Scholar; Butler, D. E., The British General Election of 1951 (London, 1952)Google Scholar and The British General Election of 1955 (London, 1955)Google Scholar; and the equally impressive monograph by Butler, D. E., The Electoral System in Britain, 1918–1951 (Oxford)Google Scholar, which, incidentally, gives valuable insights as to the possible effect the much discussed proportional representation would have had if it had been introduced in Great Britain. The comparative approach across national frontiers, which is characteristic for the college's work and staffing, is highlighted by a study in progress on the West-German Bundestag elections of 1957.

A sample selection of the rich output of the Paris Fondation might mention the following: Morize, C. and others, Etudes de Sociologie Electorale (Paris, 1947)Google Scholar; Cadart, J., Régime Electorate et Régime Parlementaire en Grande-Bretagne (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar; Siegfried, A., Géographie de L’Ardèche (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar; Duverger, M., Goguel, F., and others, L’Influence des Systèmes Electoraux sur la Vie Politique (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar; Latreille, A. and Siegfried, A., Les Forces Religieuses et la Vie Politique: Le Catholicisme et le Protestantisme (Paris, 1951)Google Scholar; Dupeux, G. and Goguel, F., Géographie des Elections Françoises de 1870 à 1951 (Paris, 1951).Google Scholar For a report and discussion of the steady flow of publications see Revue Française de Science Politique.

The Institut has so far published ten major monographs all of them oriented toward a comparative analysis. The following may be of special interest to the student beyond national lines. Lange, M. G., Totalitäre Erziehung, Das Erziehungssystem der Sowjetzone Deutschlands (1954)Google Scholar; Bracher, Karl Dietrich, Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik, Eine Studie zum Problem des Machtverfalls in der Demokratie (1955)Google Scholar; Parteien in der Bundesrepublik, Studien zur Entwicklung der deutschen Parteien bis zur Bundestagswahl 1953 (1955); Joachim Schultz, Der Funktionar in der Einheitspartei; Hirsch-Weber, Wolfgang, Wähler und Gewählte, Eine Untersuchung der Bundestagswahlen 1953 (1957).Google Scholar

⁹ Beyond the advanced comparative inquiries on political parties, that have made great strides in the last decades, one can now add similar progress reports in the field of comparative bureaucracy and especially in research on pressure group activities. For a small sample of the rich harvest, giving testimony of the concerted efforts on an international plane see Meynaud, Jean “Les groupes d’intérêt et l’administration en France”, Revue Française de science politique, 7:573–609 (Juillet-09 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Breitling, Rupert, Die Verbände in der Bundesrepublik (Meisenheim, 1955)Google Scholar; Eschenburg, Theodor, Herrschaft der Verbände? (Stuttgart, 1955)Google Scholar; Eschenburg, Theodor, Staat und Gesellschaft in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1956)Google Scholar; Kaiser, Joseph, Die Repräsentation organisierter Interessen (Berlin, 1956)Google Scholar; Mackenzie, W. J. M., “Pressure Groups: The Conceptual Framework”, Political Studies, 3:247ff (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finer, S. E., “The Political Power of Private Capital”, Part II, The Sociological Review, 4:5–30 (07 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Federation of British Industries”, Political Studies, 4:61–84 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Beer, Samuel H., “Pressure Groups and Parties in Great Britain”, American Political Science Review, 50: Iff. (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar