Suchergebnisse

This article compares the state of the art of comparative politics in Britain with the US and continental Europe. Three main traditions are distinguished: a narrative single-country tradition, in which comparative politics is understood as the study of foreign countries, a methodology-oriented tradition, which is concerned with the development of the techniques of comparison, and an analytical comparative tradition, which understands comparative politics as a combination of substance and method. It is argued that comparative politics in Britain is dominated by single-country studies, while the methodology-oriented and the analytical comparative traditions are more strongly developed in the US and continental Europe respectively. A comparative analysis of research interests and teaching provision furthermore demonstrates that, in Britain, comparative politics is an underdeveloped sub-field in terms of both teaching and research. This currently results in the need to import comparativists trained outside the British system in order to sustain the discipline. The article concludes by stressing the potential for the development of comparative politics in Britain.

Although scholars tend to downplay the role of religion in political life, the vast majority of people in the world profess a strong allegiance to some spiritual faith. Secularization theory has long held that religion would become irrelevant, leading many comparative scholars to ignore this potentially significant variable. A recent resurgence in religious fundamentalism and "new religious politics" has led more scholars to consider religious actors as important. However, research in this area befalls many of the same problems inherent in earlier secularization theories. A new body of scholarship, known as the "religious economy" school, seeks to address these problems by developing theories built on solid microlevel foundations of human behavior. This line of research holds great promise for the study of religion in comparative politics.

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.