Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:28:13.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perspectives about the Difference in the Relevance of American and European Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Bo Rothstein
Bo Rothstein*
Affiliation:
Oxford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium: The Discipline of Political Science in Europe: How Different Is It from Political Science in North America?
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 834 - 838
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahlers, Anna L. and Schubert, Gunter. 2011. “‘Adaptive Authoritarianism’ in Contemporary China: Identifying Zones of Legitimacy Building.” In Reviving Legitimacy: Lessons for and from China, eds. Zhenglai, Deng and Guo, Sujian, 61–82. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Bastow, Simon, Dunleavy, Patrick, and Tinkler, Jane. 2014. The Impact of the Social Sciences: How Academics and their Research Make a Difference. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmgren, Ainur and Götz, Norbert. 2013. “Power Investigation: The Political Culture of Nordic Self-Understanding. Special Issue.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 21 (3): 383–40.Google Scholar
Gilley, Bruce. 2009. The Right to Rule: How States Win and Lose Legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gjefsen, Torbjorn. 2012. “Sources of Legitimacy: Quality of Government and Electoral Democracy.” MA Thesis., Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 2014a. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. First ed. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 2014b. “States and Democracy.” Democratization 21 (7): 1326–40.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Stefan and Holmberg, Sören. 2014. “Democracy and Bureaucracy: How their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction.” West European Politics 37 (3): 515–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Sören and Rothstein, Bo. 2014. “Correlates of The Level of Democracy.” Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg. QoG Working Paper 2014: 18.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Sören and Rothstein, Bo., eds. 2012. Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kristof, Nicholas. 2014. “Professors, We Need You!” The New York Times, February 15.Google Scholar
Linde, Jonas and Dahlberg, Stefan. 2016. Democratic Legitimacy & Quality of Government: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2015. Why Elections Fail. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierre, Jon, ed. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo. 1998. Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Bo. 2005. Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo. 2011. The Quality of Government: Corruption, Social Trust and Inequality in a Comparative Perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo. 2014. “What is the Opposite of Corruption?” Third World Quarterly 35 (5): 737–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Bo. 2015a. “The Chinese Paradox of High Growth and Low Quality of Government: The Cadre Organization Meets Max Weber.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 28 (4): 533–48.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo. 2015b. “Guilty as Charged? Human Well-Being and the Unsung Relevance of Political Science.” In The Relevance of Political Science, eds. Stoker, Gerry, Guy Peters, B., and Pierre, Jon, 101–123. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo and Holmberg, Sören. 2014. “Correlates of Corruption.” Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg. QoG Working Paper 2014: 17.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Bo and Tannenberg, Marcus. 2015. Making Development Work: The Quality of Government Approach. Stockholm: Swedish Government Expert Group for Aid Studies.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 2011. “Quality of Life: India vs. China.” New York Review of Books 58 (8): 44–7.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stoker, Gerry, Guy Peters, B., and Pierre, Jon, eds. 2015. The Relevance of Political Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svallfors, Stefan. 2013. “Government Quality, Egalitarianism, and Attitudes to Taxes and Social Spending: a European Comparison.” European Political Science Review 5 (3): 363–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Jonathan. 2011. Ethics and Public Policy: A Philosophical Inquiry. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar