Political development and democratic theory: rethinking comparative politics

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (07) ◽  
pp. 42-4269-42-4269
2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (39) ◽  
pp. 139-152
Author(s):  
Natália Nóbrega de Mello

O tema do artigo são teorias sobre o desenvolvimento político dos países pobres produzidas nos Estados Unidos que baseiam suas práticas científicas (a investigação, a classificação e a seleção de temas) em uma determinada representação do que definiria esses países. O artigo possui como questão de fundo a compreensão da passagem de uma representação desenvolvimentista e econômica para uma visão mais centrada na estabilidade e na ordem durante a década de 1960. Para tanto, debruça-se, primeiramente, sobre a série Studies in Political Development, do Committe on Comparative Politics. Com esse objeto é possível abarcar de forma privilegiada as transformações pela qual a teoria clássica teve que passar para abarcar o novo tema da instabilidade. Por fim, a análise das obras clássicas de Huntington indica quais são as características da nova representação que emerge. Dois aspectos-chave são investigados: (i) a representação dos países pobres e a relação que se estabelece entre a teoria do desenvolvimento político, a teoria do desenvolvimento econômico e a teoria da modernização; (ii) o significado de desenvolvimento político. A análise das obras indica que, por meio da inserção do tema da instabilidade, a teoria do desenvolvimento político se consolida como campo de estudos relevante e autônomo, uma vez que tal tema permitiu conceituar o seu objeto - desenvolvimento político - e argumentar que ele não poderia ser inteiramente reduzido à modernização social ou econômica.


2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lily L. Tsai

What do comparativists have to gain by reading recent work on China? In this article, I focus specifically on the ways in which scholarship on China can contribute to the task of theory building in comparative politics. I identify two areas that could reap particularly high benefits from considering scholarship on China—comparative political development and the political behavior of development—and I discuss some of the specific contributions that China scholarship can make to building comparative theory in these areas.


1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel A. Almond

A MOOD OF DISILLUSIONMENT APPEARS TO BE SWEEPING THE FIELD of comparative politics and political development. This comes after almost two decades of rather impressive accomplishment, both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. From small beginnings in the first years after the second world war, there is now a quite impressive literature in this field. Each area of the world has something like a ‘five-foot shelf’ of monographic studies of political processes, patterns and developmental tendencies. Some of these shelves are smaller than others. The Latin American shelf, for example, has lagged in growth but is in process of rapid improvement. The Middle Eastern shelf leaves much to be desired, but even here there are signs of stirring and of potential productivity. In addition to these ‘area shelves’ which show increasing signs of cumulativeness, of drawing on each other for perspective and for hypotheses, there is a ‘super shelf’ of comparative and theoretical studies which draws upon the area shelves and which contributes frameworks, approaches and hypotheses for monographic studies.


1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. Finer

THIS ARTICLE IS A TEXTUAL EXAMINATION OF ALMOND'S CONCEPT OF the ‘political system’, as adumbrated in his Politics of the Developing Areas and developed in his latest book, Comparative Politics. It is concerned only with this concept; others, such as his notion of ‘political development’ have been left aside.There is at least one contribution which Almond has made to which I wish to pay full tribute: that is, his checklist of ‘functions’ which, it is alleged, all governed societies carry out, and by reference to which they can be compared. Almond's ‘functions’ are not logically necessary ones; they are simply a convenient checklist which he has derived from the data. This does not make them any the less useful. I would agree with Professor W. J. M. Mackenzie's estimate, ‘In fact Almond attempted the right thing in possibly the wrong way – but no one has yet improved on his analysis of the elements of the polity’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 788-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Didi Kuo

Is America in a period of democratic decline? I argue that there is an urgent need to consider the United States in comparative perspective, and that doing so is necessary to contextualize and understand the quality of American democracy. I describe two approaches to comparing the United States: the first shows how the United States stacks up to other countries, while the second uses the theories and tools of comparative politics to examine relationships between institutions, actors, and democratic outcomes. I then draw on research in three literatures—clientelism and corruption, capitalism and redistribution, and race and ethnic politics and American Political Development—to lay out a research agenda for closing the gap between the subfields of American and comparative politics. In doing so, I also argue for richer engagement between academics and the public sphere, as opportunities for scholars to provide commentary and analysis about contemporary politics continue to expand.


2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 880-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Hagopian

This article reviews four decades of scholarship on political development. It contends that the theoretical ambitions of the early political development literature to frame the comparative inquiry of politics and political change in less developed countries were undermined by intellectual challenges to the paradigms of modernization and structural functionalism and that the literature’s teleological dimension was contradicted by real-world events. Nonetheless, in subsequent decades, the field made great advances in the study of political institutions, democratic stability and breakdown, state structures, civil society, and the uneven character of political development itself. The article argues that amid manifold evidence of plural forms of political development and decay at the century’s end, the field should avoid relapses into neomodernization theory and instead focus on such issues as state reform, democratic governance, political representation and accountability, and the organization of civil societies. Such an expansive and fluid research agenda will enable the field of political development to generate important theoretical advances in comparative politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document