IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v3y2000i2p141-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review on the Methodological Arguments in the Study of Comparative Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Mun Hee Kang

Abstract

This paper seeks to explain three distinctive trends of methodological arguments in the contemporary study of comparative politics, which are positivists, realists, and statists. On these three approaches, there is no consensus among scholars about which one is the most appropriate to the comparative study of different nation-states. The purpose of this paper is to identify the strength and weakness in the conflicting arguments found in three approaches. This involves an overall analysis of the various ontological perspectives, different problem perceptions, and future alternatives. In this comparative review, this paper also attempts to present inherent problems in each trend.

Suggested Citation

  • Mun Hee Kang, 2000. "A Review on the Methodological Arguments in the Study of Comparative Politics," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 3(2), pages 141-177, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:3:y:2000:i:2:p:141-177
    DOI: 10.1177/223386590000300208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/223386590000300208
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/223386590000300208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Easton, David, 1969. "The New Revolution in Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(4), pages 1051-1061, December.
    2. Lijphart, Arend, 1971. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 682-693, September.
    3. Almond, Gabriel A., 1988. "The Return to the State," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 853-874, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachel M. Gisselquist, 2018. "Legal empowerment and group-based inequality," WIDER Working Paper Series 039, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Jennifer Robinson, 2011. "Cities in a World of Cities: The Comparative Gesture," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    5. Gisselquist, Rachel M., 2020. "How the cases you choose affect the answers you get, revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. Dishil Shrimankar, 2023. "Comparative Assessments of Indian Democracy," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 134-139, June.
    7. Vik, Jostein, 2020. "The agricultural policy trilemma: On the wicked nature of agricultural policy making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Andrew Murray Faure, 1994. "Some Methodological Problems in Comparative Politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 307-322, July.
    9. Jaap Woldendorp & Hans Keman, 2010. "Dynamic institutional analysis: measuring corporatist intermediation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 259-275, February.
    10. Kristin Bergtora Sandvik & Ingunn Bjørhaug & Astrid Espegren & Adèle Garnier, 2023. "Protecting skilled Afghan women: Brain save and the politics of vulnerability," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(1), pages 5-15, February.
    11. Bryan K. Ritchie, 2010. "Systemic Vulnerability and Sustainable Economic Growth," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13731.
    12. Daniel J. Kriek, 1995. "David Easton and the Analysis of Political Structure," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(1), pages 29-39, January.
    13. Virginie Boutueil & Thomas Quillerier & Anna Voskoboynikova, 2019. "Benefits and Pitfalls of Deregulating Taxi Markets: Can Contrasted Case Studies Help Inform the Debate?," Post-Print hal-02422160, HAL.
    14. Cacace, Mirella & Ettelt, Stefanie & Mays, Nicholas & Nolte, Ellen, 2013. "Assessing quality in cross-country comparisons of health systems and policies: Towards a set of generic quality criteria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 156-162.
    15. George Kent, 1971. "Discussion and Reviews : The application of peace studies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(1), pages 47-53, March.
    16. Klára Báliková & Natacha Jesus-Silva & Noémia Bessa Vilela & Michaela Korená Hillayová & Jaroslav Šálka, 2023. "The forest land tax systems in Slovakia and Portugal," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(10), pages 427-437.
    17. Arts, Bas & Brockhaus, Maria & Giessen, Lukas & McDermott, Constance L., 2024. "The performance of global forest governance: Three contrasting perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Hervé Dumez & Alain Jeunemaître, 2005. "La démarche narrative en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(4), pages 983-1005.
    19. Huiqi Yan & Jeroen van der Heijden & Benjamin van Rooij, 2017. "Symmetric and asymmetric motivations for compliance and violation: A crisp set qualitative comparative analysis of Chinese farmers," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 64-80, March.
    20. Pointvogl, Andreas, 2009. "Perceptions, realities, concession--What is driving the integration of European energy policies?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5704-5716, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:3:y:2000:i:2:p:141-177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.