Harold Innis and Comparative Politics: A Critical Assessment

Extract

In recent decades, the field of comparative politics generally has retreated from grand explanatory models and narrowed its scope and research ambitions (Katznelson, 1997; Lichbach, 1997). This is particularly evident in the structural–historical approach as well as in the increasingly influential rational choice and postmodern approaches to comparative research (Kohli et al., 1995: 2; Lijphart, 1970: 682–93; Skocpol and Summers, 1980: 174–97). The 1995 World Politics Symposium, at which leading comparativists gathered to discuss “The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics” was clear evidence of this trend. Many analysts deemed the construction of theory, or the “messy centre” in comparative politics, problematic and some realized the attractiveness of alternative approaches (Kohli et al., 1995). As Katznelson noted of recent comparative scholarship, “compared to the work of their predecessors… scholars in comparative politics have shortened their time horizons, contracted their regime questions, and narrowed the range of considered outcomes” (Katznelson, 1997).