Comparative Politics: Some Points for Discussion

Kersbergen, Kees van

doi:10.1057/eps.2009.45

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Are, say, Denmark and Norway really that different from, say, the Netherlands and Austria that we need to put them in different types? Or, alternatively, are we not too exclusively focusing on problems of variation, while the most intriguing empirical puzzles concern similarity (Van Kersbergen, 2010), such as the negligible differences between the left and the right when it comes to health-care politics (Jensen, 2014)? Before coming back to these issues in the article's conclusion, we first explain why the confusion in the welfare regime literature between typologies and ideal types has been conducive to normal science.…”

Section: Normal Science In the Welfare Regime Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Three worlds’ typology: Moving beyond normal science?

Kersbergen

Vis²

2015

Journal of European Social Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no doubt that Esping-Andersen's three worlds' typology has been extremely valuable.However, the literature inspired by it shows signs of Kuhnian normal science, which is impairing empirical and theoretical progress. We explain normal science, demonstrate that it characterizes recent empirical regime studies and ask why this has come about. We show that the welfare regime literature has a tendency to confuse the terms 'typology' and 'ideal-types'. This has prevented the emergence of anomalies that are needed for progress. We argue that normal science is fostered by the combination of researchers' tendency to prefer certainty (e.g. to address solvable research problems) and the environmental pressures they face (especially the 'publish or perish' culture and the need to frame research problems in terms of variation rather than similarity). In the discussion section, we suggest several routes by which the welfare state literature can move beyond normal science.

show abstract

Section: Normal Science In the Welfare Regime Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Three worlds’ typology: Moving beyond normal science?

Kersbergen

Vis²

2015

Journal of European Social Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the pressure to deal with problems of variation only is such that such puzzles of similarity can no longer be raised legitimately, then this is a tragedy for comparative politics. (emphasis added) 74 Precisely the same objection can be raised with regard to explaining the topic of regulatory failure. In short, what is a more important puzzle to explain-the fact of minor variations in financial reforms between countries, or the fact that financial reforms across all countries have been watered down and defeated and, most importantly, have not addressed the most obvious vulnerabilities in the system?…”

Section: The Functional Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Power without the Structure: A Class-Centered Challenge to New Structural Power Formulations

Kalaitzake

2022

Politics & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues for the utility in conceiving of two distinctive approaches to the structural power of finance—New Structural Power (NSP) and Traditional Structural Power (TSP). While both are crucial to political economy scholarship, this article highlights the intellectual trade-off that is inherent to the adoption of one perspective over the other, and it stresses the explanatory advantages of the TSP perspective specifically. First, it shows how the TSP framework can facilitate an understanding of when policymaker ideas do and do not matter in the exercise of structural power, retaining the concept of “automaticity” in structural power operations. Second, it demonstrates how each framework is custom-built to explain substantively different aspects of the policy process, with TSP research aimed at system-oriented limitation mechanisms and NSP research aimed at agent-oriented selection mechanisms. Third, it contends that TSP formulations must be embedded within a model of (contradictory) functional explanation, which is the best way to gain empirical traction on the most important macrostructural developments in contemporary finance-led capitalism. Methodologically, this implies an agenda of “explanation through commonalities” rather than the NSP-favored “explanation through variation.”

show abstract

“…L et me start out by saying that I am grateful that Gerald Schneider and Markus Haverland have taken the trouble to respond to Daniele Caramani's and my articles on Comparative Politics (Caramani, 2010;Van Kersbergen, 2010). Both responses offer a rich variety of issues for further discussion and I can only hope that other people will be motivated to join us in our exchange of ideas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Rejoinder to Schneider and Haverland

Kersbergen

2010

Eur Polit Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their response to my discussion paper, Gerald Schneider and Markus Haverland focus on the issue of variation versus similarity. Schneider insists that I wish to move comparative politics towards similarity analyses only. This is not the case. Yes, variation is important. But there are similarity puzzles that merit attention. We should keep open the possibility of similarity analysis as a legitimate option for research. I agree with Haverland's helpful point that variation is not the only route to explanation.

show abstract

Comparative Politics: Some Points for Discussion

Cited by 10 publications

References 31 publications

Three worlds’ typology: Moving beyond normal science?

Three worlds’ typology: Moving beyond normal science?

Structural Power without the Structure: A Class-Centered Challenge to New Structural Power Formulations

A Rejoinder to Schneider and Haverland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About