1932

Abstract

This article reviews the changing status of single-country research in comparative politics, a field defined by the concept of comparison. An analysis of single-country research published in top general interest and comparative politics journals reveals that single-country research has evolved from an emphasis on description and theory generation to an emphasis on hypothesis testing and research design. This change is a result of shifting preferences for internal versus external validity combined with the quantitative and causal inference revolutions in the social sciences. A consequence of this shift is a change in substantive focus from macropolitical phenomena to micro-level processes, with consequences for the ability of comparative politics to address many substantive political phenomena that have long been at the center of the field.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314
2019-05-11
2024-04-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/22/1/annurev-polisci-051017-113314.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahram AI, Kollner P, Sil R 2018. Comparative Area Studies: Methodological Rationales and Cross-Regional Applications New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Angrist JD, Pischke J-S 2010. The credibility revolution in empirical economics: how better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. J. Econ. Perspect. 24:3–30
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronow PM, Samii C 2016. Does regression produce representative estimates of causal effects?. Am. J. Political Sci. 60:250–67
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates RH 1996. Letter from the president: area studies and the discipline. APSA-CP Newsl. APSA Organ. Sect. Comp. Politics 7:1–2
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berman S 1997. Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics 49:401–29
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonvecchi A, Simison E 2017. Legislative institutions and performance in authoritarian regimes. Comp. Politics 49:521–44
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Briggs R 2017. Explaining case selection in African politics research. J. Contemp. Afr. Stud. 35:565–72
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Calvo E, Micozzi JP 2005. The governor's backyard: a seat-vote model of electoral reform for subnational multiparty races. J. Politics 67:1050–74
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cammett M 2020. Positive deviance cases: their value for development research, policy and practice. The Case for Case Studies: Methods and Applications in International Development J Widner, M Woolcock, D Ortega Nieto New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chandra K 2015. Redefining the relationship with the field: why graduate students should avoid the two to four week model of fieldwork. Comp. Politics Newsl. 25:7–9
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cirone A, Van Coppenolle B 2018. Cabinets, committees, and careers: the causal effect of committee service. J. Politics 80:3948–63
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Collier D, Mahoney J 1996. Insights and pitfalls: selection bias in qualitative research. World Politics 49:56–91
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cruz C, Labonne J, Querubin P 2017. Politician family networks and electoral outcomes: evidence from the Philippines. Am. Econ. Rev. 107:103006–37
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahlberg S, Holmberg S, Rothstein B, Pachon NA, Svensson R 2018. The quality of government basic dataset Dataset, Qual. Gov. Inst., Univ. Gothenburg, Swed., updated Jan. http://www.qog.pol.gu.se
  15. Dube O, Naidu S 2015. Bases, bullets, and ballots: the effect of US military aid on political conflict in Colombia. J. Politics 77:249–67
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dunning T 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  17. Dunning T, Grossman G, Humphreys M, Hyde S, McIntosh C, Nellis G 2019. Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning: Lessons from Metaketa I New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
  18. Eckstein H 1975. Case studies and theory in political science. Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 1: Political Science: Scope and Theory FI Greenstein, NW Polsby 94–137 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Feenstra RC, Inklaar R, Timmer MP 2015. The next generation of the Penn World Table. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:3150–82
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Geddes B 1990. How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics. Political Anal 2:131–50
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Geddes B 2015. Training for both skills and substance. Comp. Politics Newsl. 25:9–11
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gehlbach S 2015. The fallacy of multiple methods. Comp. Politics Newsl. 25:11–12
    [Google Scholar]
  23. George A, Bennett A 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  24. Gerring J 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  25. Gerring J 2012. Mere description. Br. J. Political Sci. 42:721–46
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerring J, McDermott R 2007. An experimental template for case study research. Am. J. Political Sci. 51:688–701
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gervasoni C 2010. A rentier theory of subnational regimes: fiscal federalism, democracy, and authoritarianism in the Argentine provinces. World Politics 62:302–40
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hainmueller J, Hangartner D 2013. Who gets a Swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:159–87
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Huang H 2015. Propaganda as signaling. Comp. Politics 47:419–37
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackman RW 1985. Cross-national statistical research and the study of comparative politics. Am. J. Political Sci. 29:161–82
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Klein RA, Ratliff KA, Vianello M, Adams RB, Bahník Š et al. 2014. Investigating variation in replicability: a “many labs” replication project. Soc. Psychol. 45:142–52
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Laitin DD 2003. Comparative politics: the state of the subdiscipline. Political Science: The State of the Discipline H Milner, I Katznelson 630–59 New York: W.W. Norton
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Levy JS 2008. Case studies: types, designs, and logics of inference. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 25:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lieberman ES 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99:435–52
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lyall J 2010. Are coethnics more effective counterinsurgents? Evidence from the Second Chechen War. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Malesky EJ 2008. Battling onward: the debate over field research in developmental economics and its implications for comparative politics. Qual. Methods 6:17–21
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Munck GL, Snyder R 2007. Debating the direction of comparative politics: an analysis of leading journals. Comp. Political Stud. 40:5–31
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Obermeier K, Pepinsky TB 2018. Dataset on methodology in comparative politics Dataset, Version 1.0, Harvard Dataverse Cambridge, MA: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UCBNEH
    [Crossref]
  39. Paler L 2013. Keeping the public purse: an experiment in windfalls, taxes, and the incentives to restrain government. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:706–25
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Parkinson SE 2013. Organizing rebellion: rethinking high-risk mobilization and social networks in war. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:418–32
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pepinsky TB 2014. Context and method in Southeast Asian politics. Pac. Aff. 87:441–61
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schedler A, Mudde C 2010. Data usage in quantitative comparative politics. Political Res. Q. 63:417–33
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Shair-Rosenfield S 2012. The alternative incumbency effect: electing women legislators in Indonesia. Elect. Stud. 31:576–87
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Snyder R 2001. Scaling down: the subnational comparative method. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 36:93–110
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Stokes SC, Dunning T, Nazareno M, Brusco V 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  46. Szanton DL 2002. The Politics of Knowledge: Area Studies and the Disciplines Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  47. Thelen K, Mahoney J 2015. Comparative-historical analysis in contemporary political science. Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis J Mahoney, K Thelen 3–36 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error