Suchergebnisse

COMPARATIVE POLITICS IS EVERYTHING – OR IT IS NOTHING. Superficially, these appear to be the only logical positions that can be maintained when considering the relationship of comparative politics to the various areas and divisions of the discipline of political science. The now old-fashioned use of the title to indicate either a small number of country studies loosely linked by structural comparison, or a somewhat broader field of institutional comparison, whatever the pedagogic arguments of coherence or convenience, possesses neither logical boundary nor scientific integrity. Yet once that treacherous one step further is taken in the directions of functional comparison, or, further, consideration of the 'comparative method' itself and the distinctions between comparative politics and, say, political theory, political sociology or political analysis disappear completely.

This symposium is the culmination of work that began in October 2007, when fourteen scholars from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States convened at Case Western Reserve University to participate in the research conference Toward a Comparative Politics of Gender: Advancing the Discipline along Interdisciplinary Boundaries. The conference was funded by a Presidential Initiative Grant from the University and further supported by an ACES grant. Dr. Gregory Eastwood made available the Library of the Inamori Center for Ethnics and Excellence for our conference meetings. Many thanks to Linda Gilmore, Tonae Bolton-Dove, Gail Papay, Shelley White, and Sharon Skowronski for their expert administrative support. Professors Dorothy Miller (Women's Studies), Rosalind Simson (Philosophy, Law and Women's Studies), and Kelly McMann (Political Science and International Studies) served as discussants of the conference papers. To Theda Skocpol, who presented remarks at the opening dinner of the conference, and to the scholars who participated in the CPG conference and whose contributions are included in this symposium, I offer my deepest appreciation and gratitude.What do we mean by a comparative politics of gender? How would a comparative politics of gender advance our understanding of politics generally? What would it take to develop a gendered comparative political analysis? In the essays that follow, Teri Caraway, Louise Chappell, Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, and Aili Mari Tripp elaborate their understandings of a comparative politics of gender. Five additional essays focus specifically on issues of democratization (Lisa Baldez, Georgina Waylen), political institutions and representation (Mili Caul Kittilson, Mona Lena Krook), and comparative sex equality policies (Mala Htun and Laurel Weldon). In this introductory essay, I discuss what I mean by "gender" in the context of comparative politics. Briefly enumerating the advantages of comparative politics as a subfield for a gendered analysis of political phenomena, I discuss how a comparative politics of gender can serve to advance our understanding of politics generally, and I provide an example of subfield research—the study of political violence—where gender as a metaconcept may be particularly useful. I conclude by considering what it would mean to our study of gender and of comparative politics to place gender as a central concept in comparative political research and to move to a comparative politics of gender.

A review essay on books by (1) Robert H. Bates, Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, & Barry R. Weingast, Analytic Narratives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 1998); (2) Robert H. Bates, Open-Economy Politics: The Political Economy of the World Coffee Trade (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 1997); & (3) Lee J. Alston, Thrainn Eggertsson, & Douglass C. North (Eds), Empirical Studies in Institutional Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1996). Rational choice & formal theory have gained increasing prominence in comparative politics. Grounded in deductive logic, this analytic turn has often been perceived to be at odds with historical & case-oriented methodologies. The innovation of the three books under review lies in their claim that rigorous analytic techniques are in fact complementary to historical & case-oriented approaches. This review evaluates the strengths & weaknesses of this new approach & assesses its implications for the future of comparative politics. While this new approach falls short of the claims it makes regarding causal validity & generalizability, the authors of these books should be commended for their willingness to engage important criticisms of rational choice theory & their determination to comprehend significant historical episodes. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

This article has two main aims: (1) to examine how, in the context of 'globalization', transnational, international & domestic processes & practices interact; & (2) to consider what this implies for the study of comparative politics. Given the widely differing political, economic, technological & cultural characteristics of the world's 190-plus states, it is hardly surprising that the impact of international & transnational actors is likely to differ from country to country. In other words, while all states' domestic arrangements will, to some degree, be affected by the impact of international & transnational actors, the impact will vary from country to country. References. Adapted from the source document.