Dietrich Rueschemeyer

Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences

1. Comparative-historical analysis: achievements and agendas James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer Part I. Accumulation of Research: 2. Comparative-historical analysis and knowledge accumulation in the study of revolutions Jack A. Goldstone 3. What we know about the development of social policy: comparative and historical research in comparative and historical perspective Edwin Amenta 4. Knowledge accumulation in comparative-historical research: the case of democracy and authoritarianism James Mahoney Part II. Analytic Tools: 5. Big, slow-moving, and ... invisible: macro-social processes in the study of comparative politics Paul Pierson 6. How institutions evolve: insights from comparative-historical analysis Kathleen Thelen 7. Uses of network tools in comparative-historical research Roger V. Gould 8. Periodization and preferences: reflections on purposive action in comparative-historical social science Ira Katznelson Part III: Issues of Method: 9. Can one or a few cases yield gains? Dietrich Rueschemeyer 10. Strategies of causal assessment in comparative-historical analysis James Mahoney 11. Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative politics 12. Doubly engaged social science: the promise of comparative-historical analysis Theda Skocpol.

Bringing the State Back In: The State and Economic Transformation: Toward an Analysis of the Conditions Underlying Effective Intervention

The paper presents a synthesis of key sociological insights regarding conditions underlining an effective state intervention into economy. It is focused on two main factors including the common coordinated bureaucracy and relative autonomy of the state from ruling class’s interests. The success of state intervention can be guaranteed neither by effective bureaucracy nor by the state autonomy. However comparative historical studies give an opportunity to reveal conditions under which these factors facilitate the state policy or put barriers to its implementation.

States, social knowledge, and the origins of modern social policies

Preface 1 Knowledge about What? Policy Intellectuals and the New Liberalism 2 Social Knowledge, Social Risk, and the Politics of Industrial Accidents in Germany and France 3 Social Science and the Building of the Early Welfare State: Toward a Comparison of Statist and Non-Statist Western Societies 4 The Verein fur Sozialpolitik and the Fabian Society: A Study in the Sociology of Policy-Relevant Knowledge 5 Progressive Reformers, Unemployment, and the Transformation of Social Inquiry in Britain and the United States, 1880s-1920s 6 Social Knowledge and the Generation of Child Welfare Policy in the United States and Canada 7 International Modeling, States, and Statistics: Scandinavians Social Security Solutions in the 1890s 8 Social Knowledge and the State in the Industrial Relations of Japan (1882-1940) and Great Britain (1870-1914) Conclusion Notes on the Contributors Index

COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Comparative historical analysis has a long and distinguished history in the social sciences. Those whom we now regard as the founders of modern social science, from Adam Smith to Alexis de Tocqueville to Karl Marx, all pursued comparative historical analysis as a central mode of investigation. In doing so, they continued a tradition of research that had dominated social thought for centuries. Even when social science began to organize itself into separate disciplines in the early twentieth century, comparative and historical investigation maintained a leading position, figuring prominently in the research of such eminent scholars as Otto Hintze, Max Weber, and Marc Bloch. Only by the mid-twentieth century did other approaches to social knowledge partially eclipse comparative historical research, going so far as to threaten its permanent decline. After some period of neglect, however, recent decades have witnessed a dramatic reemergence of the comparative historical tradition. Although important problems of analytic procedure and methodology remain, this mode of investigation has reasserted itself at the center of todays social sciences. The revival of comparative historical analysis shows few signs of losing momentum. In the last decade alone, dozens of major new books from this perspective have been published, including many prize-winning analyses. These works focus on a wide range of topics, but they are united by a commitment to offering historically grounded explanations of large-scale and substantively important outcomes.

Structural Differentiation, Efficiency and Power

The theory of structural differentiation, long a major conceptual tool of the study of social change, is critically reviewed. The link between differentiation and efficiency advantages involves a number of unsolved problems. In addition, past differentiation theory paid too little attention to actual processes of differentiation theory as well as de-differentiation. Both sets of problems can be tackled better if power constellations and power interests are systematically introduced into the analysis of differentiation and de-differentiation.

Different Methods - Contradictory Results? Research on Development and Democracy

During the past three decades, research on the conditions of democracy and its relation to capitalist development has proceeded in two different methodological modes: quantitative cross-national research stands side by side with qualitative comparative historical studies. The results of these two modes of research diverge as much as their methods. This paper describes the two research traditions, reflects on their methodological choices, and proposes ways in which

On Durkheim's Explanation of Division of Labor

Durkheims explanation of the division of labor is shown to be faulty in several major respects. While his metatheoretical critique of utilitarian social theory, which was closely intertwined with his analysis of the division of labor, is still persuasive, his causal explanation of the division of labor is questionable wherever it modifies the earlier body of thought. Ironically, it was his metatheoretical concerns expressed in the critique of utilitarian social theory that flawed his contributions to a causal explanation of social differentiation.

State and Market in Development: Synergy or Rivalry?

The State and the Market in Development, the Editors. Part 1 Alternative Views of the Problem: Varieties of Policy in Third World, G.Ohlin Against Minimalism, P.Streeten Some Thoughts on Plan and Market in the Aftermath of State Socialism in Eastern Europe, A.Nove. Part 2 State Action and the World Economy in Comparative Perspective: A Theory of Government Intervention in Late Industrialization, A.Amsden The Role of Government and Markets in the Comparative Development Experience, G.Ranis International Aspects of the Role of Government in Economic Development, H.Bruton The Effect of Government Intervention on Growth and Equity - Lessons from South Asia, G.F.Papanek. Part 3 The Political Economy of Systemic and Policy Choice: State, Cooperative, and Market - Reflections on Chinese Development Trajectories, M.Selden The Logic and Unfulfilled Promise of Privatisation in Developing Countries, T.J.Biersteker The State in the Initiation and Consolidation of Market-oriented Reform, S.Haggard and R.Kaufman.

A neo-utilitarian theory of class?

Aage Sorensen aims to develop a structural theory of inequality that isequal in format and comprehensiveness to Marx’s theory of class yetavoids the flaws of that theory, which derive from its grounding in thepremises of classical economics. Applying neo-utilitarian theory to classanalysis, Sorensen argues that access to enduring rents can inform a newconceptualization of “class as exploitation” and thereby put the sociologi-cal enterprise of class analysis on a sounder basis. The need for such con-ceptual reformulation grows out of the marginalist turn in economic the-ory and the related demise of the labor theory of value as well as, Sorensensuggests, the failure of subsequent class analysts to invent alternative the-ories of structural inequality in which exploitation generates antagonisticinterests. Although many scholars—Marxist and non-Marxist—have pro-posed alternative class schemes, nearly all of these are based on an under-standing of “class as life conditions.” According to Sorensen, class as lifeconditions—defined by the total wealth controlled by similarly situatedactors—does not necessarily create antagonistic interests and thus pro-vides a poor foundation for understanding how class position generatesmobilization and conflict.We agree that the labor theory of value of classical economics is indefen-sible, leaving Marxist theory without its primary basis for identifying classexploitation.

KNOWLEDGE ACCUMULATION IN COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Surprisingly little attention has been devoted to thinking about knowledge accumulation in the social sciences. Although many social scientists agree that a basic purpose of their research is to produce cumulative knowledge about the world, they do not often reflect on the nature of such accumulation and how it takes place. Currently, we lack a clear answer to questions such as: What constitutes knowledge accumulation in the social sciences? How can it be measured and compared across different scholarly research programs? What promotes or inhibits knowledge accumulation in the social sciences? One might be inclined to see these questions as raising epistemological issues that cannot be resolved across disparate scholarly communities. However, I shall argue in this essay that most social scientists in fact agree on how to answer these questions, at least implicitly and in broad terms. In attempting to outline this shared position, I seek to initiate a larger discussion about how to study knowledge accumulation in social science analysis. My immediate goal is to assess the extent of knowledge accumulation that has taken place in the field of comparative historical analysis, a research area that is sometimes criticized as having failed to achieve cumulative knowledge. I limit my discussion to studies of the origins of democratic and authoritarian national regimes.