Gaining by Shedding Case Selection Strictures
Advice on case selection often emphasizes selecting on some set of similar traits for controlled comparison—but without attention to regional contexts. This chapter highlights the benefits of unconventional cross-regional comparisons within the framework of comparative area studies (CAS), at least when analyzing the impact of natural resource booms on political institutions. Prevalent views on the resource curse see commodity booms as usually enervating institutions. However, a cross-regional comparison of African and Latin American cases can be employed to generate an alternative argument. Where resource booms simultaneously benefit exporters within and outside of the ruling coalition, threatened coalition insiders have responded with institutional fortification. This is true of the period of “dual enrichment” in Argentina (1852–86). In contrast, booms that exclusively benefit exporters within or outside of the ruling coalition do not create such existential threats and allow institutions to remain weak. This is evident in Colombia (1880–1905) and Ghana (1945–66).