Suchergebnisse

This essay first explores how the defining features of comparative-historical analysis (CHA) endow this approach with comparative advantages for substantive research on macro development. It identifies three major traits of CHA that make this tradition an especially powerful approach for the study of development: cased-based research; a focus on context and configurations; and a concern with mechanisms and temporal flow. It then considers what concretely we have learned about the sources of macro development from CHA studies. While some findings are tentative or open to debate, the list of empirical contributions from CHA is quite substantial. Finally, the essay considers some of the frontiers of CHA work on development. Included at this frontier is work on the concept of development itself, displacing the centrality of property institutions with a focus on identity institutions, and moving the focus of analysis from the national level to subnational and supranational levels.

This article discusses process tracing as a methodology for testing hypotheses in the social sciences. With process tracing tests, the analyst combines preexisting generalizations with specific observations from within a single case to make causal inferences about that case. Process tracing tests can be used to help establish that (1) an initial event or process took place, (2) a subsequent outcome also occurred, and (3) the former was a cause of the latter. The article focuses on the logic of different process tracing tests, including hoop tests, smoking gun tests, and straw in the wind tests. New criteria for judging the strength of these tests are developed using ideas concerning the relative importance of necessary and sufficient conditions. Similarities and differences between process tracing and the deductive-nomological model of explanation are explored.

During the twentieth century, the countries of Central America were characterized by remarkably different political regimes: military-authoritarianism in Guatemala and El Salvador, progressive democracy in Costa Rica and traditional-authoritarianism in Honduras and Nicaragua. This article explains these contrasting regime outcomes by exploring the agrarian and state-building reforms pursued by political leaders during the nineteenth– and early twentieth century liberal reform period. Based on differences in the transformation of state and class structures, three types of liberalism are identified: radical liberalism in Guatemala and El Salvador, reformist liberalism in Costa Rica and aborted liberalism in Honduras and Nicaragua. It is argued that these types of liberalism set the Central American countries on contrasting paths of political development, culminating in diverse regime outcomes. ; Durante el siglo XX, los países de América Central se caracterizaron por tener regímenes políticos muy diferentes: el autoritarismo militar en Guatemala y El Salvador; la democracia progresista en Costa Rica y el autoritarismo tradicional en Honduras y Nicaragua. Este artículo explica los resultados de estos distintos regímenes mediante la exploración de las reformas agrarias y de la construcción del Estado llevadas a cabo por los líderes políticos durante el siglo XIX y principios del periodo de reformas liberales del siglo XX. Basándose en las diferencias de la transformación del Estado y de las estructuras de clases, se pueden identificar tres tipos de liberalismo: liberalismo radical en Guatemala y El Salvador; liberalismo reformista en Costa Rica y liberalismo frustrado en Honduras y Nicaragua. Se argumenta que estos tipos de liberalismo condujeron a los países de América Central a caminos contrarios al desarrollo político, culminando así en regímenes con resultados diversos.

This article discusses developments in the field of qualitative methodology since the publication of King, Keohane, and Verba's (KKV's) Designing Social Inquiry. Three areas of the new methodology are examined: (1) process tracing and causal-process observations; (2) methods using set theory and logic; and (3) strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative research. In each of these areas, the article argues, the new literature encompasses KKV's helpful insights while avoiding their most obvious missteps. Discussion focuses especially on contrasts between the kind of observations that are used in qualitative versus quantitative research, differences between regression-oriented approaches and those based on set theory and logic, and new approaches for bringing out complementarities between qualitative and quantitative research. The article concludes by discussing research frontiers in the field of qualitative methodology. Adapted from the source document.

This article discusses developments in the field of qualitative methodology since the publication of King, Keohane, and Verba's (KKV's) Designing Social Inquiry. Three areas of the new methodology are examined: (1) process tracing and causal-process observations; (2) methods using set theory and logic; and (3) strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative research. In each of these areas, the article argues, the new literature encompasses KKV's helpful insights while avoiding their most obvious missteps. Discussion focuses especially on contrasts between the kind of observations that are used in qualitative versus quantitative research, differences between regression-oriented approaches and those based on set theory and logic, and new approaches for bringing out complementarities between qualitative and quantitative research. The article concludes by discussing research frontiers in the field of qualitative methodology.

In comparative research, analysts conceptualize causation in contrasting ways when they pursue explanation in particular cases (case-oriented research) versus large populations (population-oriented research). With case-oriented research, they understand causation in terms of necessary, sufficient, INUS, and SUIN causes. With population-oriented research, by contrast, they understand causation as mean causal effects. This article explores whether it is possible to translate the kind of causal language that is used in case-oriented research into the kind of causal language that is used in population-oriented research (and vice versa). The article suggests that such translation is possible, because certain types of INUS causes manifest themselves as variables that exhibit partial effects when studied in population-oriented research. The article concludes that the conception of causation adopted in case-oriented research is appropriate for the population level, whereas the conception of causation used in population-oriented research is valuable for making predictions in the face of uncertainty.

Leading methods for pursuing qualitative research in the field of comparative politics are discussed. On one hand, qualitative researchers in this field use a variety of methods of theory development: procedures for generating new hypotheses, tools for pursuing conceptual innovation, and techniques for identifying populations of homogeneous cases. On the other hand, they employ both within-case and cross-case methods of theory testing. Within-case methods include techniques for identifying intervening mechanisms and testing multiple observable implications of theories. Cross-case methods include a host of approaches for assessing hypotheses about necessary and sufficient causes. The article discusses the distinctive leverage offered by qualitative research for addressing questions in comparative politics.