Suchergebnisse

This assessment of research on contemporary democratic politics in Latin America is organized around the distinction between institutional & alternative approaches. Initially it considers institutionalism on its own terms &, through an assessment of the debate about the institutional causes of gridlock, draws attention to key strengths of this literature. Thereafter, this article adopts a broader perspective that exposes some limitations but also other strengths of institutional analyses & considers the possibility of combining insights developed from institutional & alternative theoretical perspectives. The suggested terms of integration are as follows. With regard to causal theorizing, institutionalists need to borrow ideas from a broader literature on political regimes, especially regarding the causes of transitions to, & the breakdown of, democracy. With regard to descriptive theorizing, in contrast, students of the quality of democracy need to incorporate the contributions of institutionalists, especially regarding principal-agent relationships among citizens, policymakers, & policy administrators. Throughout this review, various pointed suggestions to advance research are offered. 1 Table, 1 Figure, 110 References. Adapted from the source document.

El presente artículo estudia la transición a una política basada en las masas en América Latina como un modo de comenzar a abordar la falta de teorización sobre los casos no europeos de democratización y democracia anteriores a 1974. El mismo ofrece un modelo de coyunturas críticas y trayectorias dependientes para el análisis de regímenes, y avanza la hipótesis de que los países latinoamericanos experimentaron una transición de la política oligárquica a una basada en las masas que representó una coyuntura crítica común, aunque las diferentes modalidades de transición a una tal política pusieron a los países en trayectorias diferentes, caracterizadas por dinámicas de régimen distintivas. Más en concreto, las diferentes modalidades de transición a una política basada en las masas, determinadas por el poder económico y político de la vieja élite social, desataron mecanismos diversos que determinaron tanto el tipo de régimen que surgió como la estabilidad de tales regímenes. Esta hipótesis se pone a prueba mediante un análisis comparativo sistemático de cinco casos: Argentina, México, Brasil, Colombia y Uruguay.

This review article assesses the accomplishments and limitations of the best of recent research on democratization and democracy in Europe, South America, and post-Soviet Eurasia with regard to the challenge of theory building. Concerning the dependent variables of this literature, the article argues that the concepts of democratic transition, democratic consolidation, and democratic quality, as currently conceptualized, do not provide a clear focus for causal theorizing. It recommends, rather, that the proper subject matter of regime analysis should be the origins and stability of regime types and suggests how the semantic field of democracy studies could be clarified through a focus on the concepts of democratic transition and democratic stability. Relatedly, it argues that democracy scholars have made unwarranted use of aggregate and dichotomous measures and advocates instead the use of more disaggregate and nuanced measures. Concerning causal theories, the article shows that researchers have identified a range of potential explanatory factors and proposed suggestive complex causal models. Nonetheless, it also argues that democracy scholars have rarely formulated clearly specified general causal models and identifies some key pitfalls to be avoided as scholars tackle two key tasks: the development of thick and general theory and the definition of causal models. The conclusion raises the need to place theory building in context and argues that scholars must also turn their attention to the demanding challenges of data generation and causal assessment.

In an effort to take stock of the claims put forth by advocates of game theory, this article offers an assessment that considers game theory both as a set of theoretical principles that extends rational choice theory to interdependent decision making and as a type of formal methodology. Some important strengths of game theory are identified, such as its emphasis on actors and strategic choices and its ability to generate predictions in a logically rigorous and internally consistent manner. But many shortcomings are also discussed. One shortcoming is that the effort to develop a theory of action falls short, both in the sense of failing to provide a full explanation of actions and in the sense of not applying to domains of great significance. A second shortcoming is the failure of the procedures used in formal modeling to offer guidance pertaining to a critical step in the process of modeling: the conceptualization of the model. Thus, the challenge facing scholars in comparative politics is to consider the new perspectives offered by game theory and draw upon its strengths, but to do so without losing sight of a series of old concerns in the social sciences that game theory is not suited to tackle.