Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:35:54.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical Decay and Theoretical Development: The Resurgence of Institutional Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Karen L. Remmer
Karen L. Remmer
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Get access

Abstract

Research on the less industrialized regions of the world has undergone major changes in terms of theoretical rigor, methodological sophistication, and the diversification of analytical approaches since the publication of Samuel P. Huntingdon's essay, “Political Development and Political Decay,” in World Politics in 1965. Yet more than three decades later, comparativists are rediscovering political institutions, highlighting the originality of Huntington's scholarly contribution. The resurgence of institutional analysis has redirected attention to the potential variability of political outcomes in the face of sweeping global currents, generated important theoretical insights, and created new bases for dialogue across disparate research traditions. Nevertheless, the horizons of institutional research need to be broadened to address the challenges posed by international influences, two-way interactions between politics and society, and institutional fluidity.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 50 , Issue 1: Special Issue , October 1997 , pp. 34 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1997

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

1 Huntington, Samuel P., “Political Development and Political Decay,” World Politics 17 (April 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Kornhauser, William, The Politics of Mass Society (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1959).Google Scholar

3 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).Google Scholar In a coauthored essay on political development that appeared some years later, Huntington and Jorge I. Domínguez observed that “It was … once argued that political development should be defined as political institutionalization. On subsequent reflection, however, there did not seem to be much to be gained by trying to identify one rather diffuse, controversial, and value-laden concept (like political development) with a somewhat more specific, analytical, and value-free concept (like institutionalization).” Huntington, and Dominguez, , “Political Development,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 3 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), 47.Google Scholar

4 This concept is drawn from Neumann, Sigmund, “Comparative Politics: A Half-Century Appraisal,” in Cantori, Louis J. and Ziegler, Andrew H. Jr., eds., Comparative Politics in the Post-Behavimal Era (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1988), 17.Google Scholar

5 See, for example, Duff, Ernest and McCamant, John, Violence and Repression in Latin America: A Quantitative and Historical Analysis (New York: Free Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Feierabend, Ivo K. Feierabend, Rosalind L., and Robert, Ted Gurr, eds., Anger, Violence and Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973)Google Scholar; Robert Gurr, Ted, Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Hibbs, Douglas A., Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Causal Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973)Google Scholar; Putnam, Robert D., “Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin American Politics,” World Politics 20 (October 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welch, Claude E. Jr. and Smith, Arthur K., Military Role and Rule (North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1974).Google Scholar

6 Seminal works in this vein include Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Hoeber Rudolph, Susanne, The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Bendix, Reinhaid, “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 9 (April 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eisenstadt, S. N., Tradition, Change, and Modernity (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973)Google Scholar; Gusfield, Joseph R., “Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change,” American Journal of Sociology 72 (January 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moore, Barrington, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966).Google Scholar

7 Influential contributions include Gerschenkron, A., Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Prebisch, Raúl, “Development Problems of the Peripheral Countries and the Terms of Trade,” in Theberge, J. D., ed., Towards a Dynamic Development Policy in Latin America (New York: United Nations, 1963)Google Scholar; de Schweinitz, Karl, Industrialization and Democracy: Economic Necessities and Political Possibilities (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).Google Scholar

8 Seminal works include Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965)Google Scholar; Inkeles, Alex, “Making Men Modern: On the Causes and Consequences of Individual Change in Six Developing Countries,” American Journal of Sociology 75 (September 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inkeles, Alex and Smith, David H., Becoming Modern (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lerner, Daniel, The Passing of Traditional Society (New York: Free Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Martin Lipset, Seymour, “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,” American Political Science Review 53 (March 1959)Google Scholar; Pye, Lucien W. and Verba, Sidney, eds., Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Véliz, Claudio, The Centralist Tradition of Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiarda, Howard, Politics and Social Change in Latin America: The Distinct Tradition (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Whitaker, C. S. Jr., The Politics of Tradition: Continuity and Change in Northern Nigeria, 1946–1966 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Holt, Clair, ed., Culture and Politics in Indonesia (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

10 Apter, David E., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Almond, Gabriel and Coleman, James S., eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Lerner, Daniel, The Passing of Traditional Society (New York: Free Press, 1958).Google Scholar

11 Examples include Binder, Leonard, Iran: Political Development in a Changing Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Hyden, Goran, Political Development in Rural Tanzania (Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1969)Google Scholar; Sathyamurthy, T. V., The Political Development of Tanganyika (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Von Vorys, Karl, Political Development in Pakistan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edward Ward, Robert and Burks, Ardath W., Political Development in Modern Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; and Ward, Robert E. and Rustow, Dankwart A., eds., Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Seminal works include Henrique Cardoso, Fernando and Faletto, Enzo, Dependency and Development in Latin America, trans. Marjory Mattingly Urquidi (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Gunder Frank, Andre, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Leys, Colin, Underdevelopment in Kenya: The Political Economy of Colonialism (London: Heinemann, 1974)Google Scholar; dos Santos, Theotonio, “The Structure of Dependence,” American Economic Review 60 (May 1970)Google Scholar; Sunkel, Osvaldo, “National Development Policy and External Dependence in Latin America,” Journal of Development Studies 6 (October 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Related writings include Amin, Samir, Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974)Google Scholar; and Emmanuel, Arghiri, Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972).Google Scholar For scholarly overviews of the literature, see Caporaso, James A., “Dependency Theory: Continuities and Discontinuities in Development Studies,” International Organization 34 (Autumn 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kay, Cristobal, Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment (London: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar; O'Brien, Philip J., “A Critique of Latin American Theories of Dependency,” in Oxaal, Ivan et al., eds., Beyond the Sociology of Development (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975)Google Scholar; Packenham, Robert A., The Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics in Development Studies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Palma, Gabriel, “Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment?” World Development 6 (July—August 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roxborough, Ian, “Unity and Diversity in Latin American History, Journal of Latin American Studies 16 (May 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Tony, “The Underdevelopment of the Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory,” World Politics 31 (January 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 O'Donnell, Guillermo, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973)Google Scholar; idem, “Reflections on the Patterns of Change in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State,” Latin American Research Review 13, no. 2 (1978).Google Scholar For an overview and critique of the model, see Collier, David, ed., The New Authoritarianism in Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar For extensions of the model to other regions, see Baeg Im, Huag, “The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea,” World Politics 39 (January 1987)Google Scholar; Crowther, William, “Philippine Authoritarianism and the International Economy,” Comparative Politics 18 (April 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Almond, Gabriel A., “The Development of Political Development,” in Weiner, Myron and Huntington, Samuel P., eds., Understanding Political Development (Boston: Little, Brown, 1987), 451, 454.Google Scholar

15 Henrique Cardoso, Fernando, “The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the United States,” Latin American Research Review 12, no. 3 (1977), 15.Google Scholar

16 Wiarda, Howard J., Corporatism and National Development in Latin America (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Malloy, James M., ed., Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Paul Erickson, Kenneth, The Brazilian Corporative State and Working-Class Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Schmitter, Philippe C., Interest Conflict and Political Change in Brazil (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Stepan, Alfred, The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Wiarda, Howard J., “Toward a Framework for the Study of Political Change in the Iberic-Latin Tradition: The Corporative Model,” World Politics 25 (January 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chaplin, David, ed. Peruvian Nationalism; A Corporatist Revolution (New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Books, 1976)Google Scholar; Pike, Frederick B. and Stritch, Thomas, eds., The New Corporatism: Social-Political Structures in the Iberian World (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Shaw, T. M., “Beyond Neocolonialism: Varieties of Corporatism in Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies 20 (June 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See, in particular, Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, Peter B. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anglade, Christian and Fortin, Carlos, eds., The State and Capital Accumulation in Latin America, 2 vols. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Ben-Dor, Gabriel, State and Conflict in the Middle East. The Emergence of the Postcolonial State (New York: Praeger, 1983).Google Scholar Other relevant examples include Moreira Alves, Maria Helena, State and Opposition in Military Brazil (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Anderson, Lisa, The State and Social Transformation in Tunisia and Libya, 1830–1980 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Bennett, Douglas C. and Sharpe, Kenneth E., Transnational Corporations versus the State: The Political Economy of the Mexican Auto Industry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Callaghy, Thomas M., The State-Society Struggle: Zaire in Comparative Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Ergas, Zaki, ed., The African State in Transition (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gold, Thomas B., State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1986)Google Scholar; Grindle, Merilee S., State and Countryside: Development Policy and Agrarian Politics in Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Hamilton, Nora, The Limits of State Autonomy: Post-Revolutionary Mexico (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Migdal, Joel S., Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Nee, Victor and Mozingb, David, eds., State and Society in Contemporary China (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Niblock, Tim, ed., Iraq: The Contemporary State (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Edo Nyang'oro, Julius, The State and Capitalist Development in Africa: Declining Political Economies (New York: Praeger, 1989)Google Scholar; Rothchild, Donald and Chazan, Naomi, eds., The Precarious Balance: The State and Society in Africa (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Rouquié, Alain, The Military and the State in Latin America, trans. Sigmund, Paul E. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).Google Scholar

19 See Crystal, Jill, “Authoritarianism and Its Adversaries in the Arab World,” World Politics 46 (January 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 See Remmer, Karen L., “New Theoretical Perspectives on Democratization,” Comparative Politics 27 (October 1995).Google Scholar See also Starr, Paul, “The New Life of the Liberal State: Privatization and the Restructuring of State-Society Relations,” in Suleiman, Ezra N. and Waterbury, John, eds., The Political Economy of Public Sector Reform and Privatization (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990).Google Scholar

21 Olson, Mancur Jr., “Some Social and Political Implications of Economic Development,” World Politics 17 (April 1965), 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Pye, Lucien W., “Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism,” Atnerican Political Science Review 84 (March 1990), 7.Google Scholar According to Pye, “Modernization theory predicted that such developments as economic growth, the spread of science and technology, the acceleration and spread of communications, and the establishment of education systems would all contribute to political change.”

23 See, for example, Migdal (fn. 18); Dix, Robert, “Democratization and the Institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties,” Comparative Political Studies 24 (January 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackman, Robert W., Power Without Force: The Political Capacity of Nation-States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mainwaring, Scott and Scully, Timothy R., eds., Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

24 Shonfield, Andrew, Modern Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).Google Scholar See, for example, Zysman, John, Governments, Markets, and Growth: Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

25 For an overview of this literature, see Meier, Gerald M., ed., Politics and Policy Making in Developing Countries: Perspectives on the New Political Economy (San Francisco: International Center for Growth, 1991).Google Scholar

26 For an overview of these trends, see Goldthorpe, John H., ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Rogowski, Ronald, “Comparative Politics,” in Finifter, Ada W., ed., Political Science. The State of the Discipline II (Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association, 1993).Google Scholar

27 Seminal studies include Garrett, Geoffrey and Lange, Peter, “The Politics of Growth,” Journal of Politics 47 (August 1985)Google Scholar; Gourevitch, Peter A., Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to Economic Crises (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Hall, Peter A., Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter J., Corporatism and Change. Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics of Industry (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; idem, Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Olson, Mancur Jr., The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Zysman (fn. 24).

28 Stallings, Barbara, ed., Global Change, Regional Response: The New International Context of Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 For further elaboration of these contrasts, see Werlin, Herbert H., “Ghana and South Korea: Explaining Development Disparities—An Essay in Honor of Carl Rosberg,” Journal ofAsian and African Studies 29 (July-October, 1994).Google Scholar It may be noted that in a 1987 essay on political change, Huntington cited the same comparison in support of a cultural interpretation of development outcomes. Samuel P. Huntington, “The Goals of Development,” in Weiner and Huntington (fn. 14), 25.

30 See World Bank, World Tables 1993 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1993).Google Scholar

31 See Bräutigam, Deborah A., “What Can We Learn from Taiwan? Political Economy, Industrial Policy, and Adjustment,” Journal of Modern African Studies 32, no. 1 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deyo, Frederic C., ed., The Political Economy of New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Gereffi, Gary and Wyman, Donald L., eds., Manufacturing Miracles: Paths of Industrialization in Latin American and East Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wade, Robert, “East Asia's Economic Success: Conflicting Perspectives, Partial Insights, and Shaky Evidence,” World Politics 44 (January 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, Gordon, ed., Developmental States in East Asia (London: Macmillan, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Bates, Robert H., Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Beikeley: University of California Press, 1981), 3.Google Scholar

33 Frieden, Jeffry A., Debt, Development, and Democracy. Modern Political Economy and Latin America, 1965–1985 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

34 Huntington (fh.l), 415; Geddes, Barbara, Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).Google Scholar

35 Maxfield, Sylvia, Governing Capital: International Finance and Mexican Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

36 Evans, Peter, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert R., eds., The Politics of Economic Adjustment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Haggard, Stephan, Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in Newly Industrializing Countries (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Williamson, John, ed., The Political Economy of Policy Reform (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1994).Google Scholar

37 Katzenstein, Peter, ed., Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978).Google Scholar

38 See, for example, Ames, Barry, “Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress,” Journal of Politics 57 (May 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comisso, Ellen, “Legacies of the Put or New Institutions? The Struggle over Restitution in Hungary,” Comparative Political Studies 28 (July 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geddes, Barbara, “A Comparative Perspective on the Leninist Legacy in Eastern Europe,” Comparative Political Studies 28 (July 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Linz, Juan and Valenzuela, Arturo, eds., The Failure of Presidential Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Lijphart, Arend, ed., Parliamentary versus Presidential Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Lijphart, Arend and Waisman, Carlos H., eds., Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1996)Google Scholar; Soberg Shugart, Matthew and Carey, John M., Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 See March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review 78 (September 1984)Google Scholar; Jordan, Grant, “Policy Community Realism versus ‘New’ Institutionalist Ambiguity,” Political Studies 38 (September 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J., eds., The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).Google Scholar Important examples of work carried out within the framework of different institutionalist traditions include Steinmo, Sven Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weaver, R. Kent and Rockman, Bert A., eds., Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993)Google Scholar; Katzenstein (fn. 37); Krasner, S. D., Defending the National Interest Raw Materials, Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; North, Douglass C., Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levi, Margaret, Of Rule and Revenue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).Google Scholar

40 See, for example, Ames, Barry, Political Survival: Politicians and Public Policy in Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Wade, Larry L. and Jin Kang, Sung, “The Democratic Breakout in South Korea: An Informal Game-Theoretic Account,” Asian Perspective 17 (Fall-Winter 1993)Google Scholar; Bates (fn. 32).

41 See, for example, Haggard (fh. 36); Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert R., The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Banuri, Tariq, ed., Economic Liberalization: No Panacea—The Experiences of Latin America and Asia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).Google Scholar

42 For overviews of the democratization literature, see Levine, Daniel H., “Paradigm Lost: Dependency to Democracy,” World Politics 40 (April 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Remmer, Karen L., “New Wine or Old Bottlenecks? The Study of Latin American Democracy,” Comparative Politics 23 (July 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 See, for example, Bratton, Michael and van de Walle, Nicolas, “Neopatrimonial Regimes and Political Transitions in Africa,” World Politics 46 (July 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Remmer, Karen L., Military Rule in Latin America (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989)Google Scholar; Roeder, Philip G., Red Sunset: The Failure of Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Zhang, Baohui, “Corporatism, Totalitarianism, and Transitions to Democracy,” Comparative Political Studies 27 (April 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 See, in particular, Przeworski, Adam, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Barbara Stallings, “International Influence on Economic Policy: Debt, Stabilization, and Structural Reform,” in Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 36), 43.

46 I have drawn these terms from Pontusson's, Jonus insightful review essay, “From Comparative Public Policy to Political Economy: Putting Political Institutions in Their Place and Taking Interests Seriously,” Comparative Political Studies 28 (April 1995), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 See Stallings (fn. 28).

48 See, for example, Remmer, Karen L., “The Process of Democratization in Latin America,” Studio in Comparative International Development 27 (Winter 1992—93).Google Scholar

49 Keohane, Robert O., “The World Political Economy and the Crisis of Embedded Liberalism,” in Goldthorpe, John H., ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 15.Google Scholar

50 See Tsebelis, George, “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Paliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism,” British Journal of Political Science 25 (July 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Geddes (fh. 38).

52 Brysk, Alison, The Politics of Human Rights in Argentina (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Sikkink, Kathryn, “Human Rights Issue-Networks in Latin America,” International Organization 47 (Summer 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Pontusson (fh. 46),144.

54 See, for example, Killick, Tony, “Relevance, Meaning and Determinants of Flexibility,” in Killick, , ed., The Flexible Economy: Causes and Consequences of the Adaptability of National Economies (London: Routledge, 1995).Google Scholar He observes: “There is near unanimity that relative state autonomy is one of the factors mat has worked to the advantage of the East Asian ‘miracle’ economies” (p. 4).

55 See, for example, Nelson, Joan M., Economic Crisis and Policy Choice: The Politics of Adjustment in the Timd World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Haggard, Stephan Cooper, Richard N., and Moon, Chung-in, “Policy Reform in Korea,” in Bates, Robert H. and Krueger, Anne O., eds., Political and Economic Interactions in Economic Policy Reform (London: Blackwell, 1993)Google Scholar; Picard, Louis A. and Garrity, Michele, eds., Policy Reform for Sustainable Development in Africa: The Institutional Imperative (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1994).Google Scholar

56 See, for example, Stephan Haggard and Robert R. Kaufman, “The Political Economy of Inflation: ind Stabilization in Middle-Income Countries,” in Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 36.).

57 For a notable exception that explores the complex interplay between economic and political liberalization with specific reference to the transformation of state structures, see Jayasuriya, Kanishka, “Political Economy of Democratisation in East Asia,” Asian Perspective 18 (Fall-Winter 1994).Google Scholar

58 See Remmer (fn. 43).

59 See Bates and Krueger (fn. 55).

60 Herbst, Jeffrey, State Politics in Zimbabwe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 249.Google Scholar

61 For a cogent critique of this tendency based upon research into automobile industrialization efforts in five countries in East and Southeast Asia, see Doner, Richard F., “Limits of State Strength: Toward an Institutionalist View of Economic Development,” World Politics 44 (April 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 According to Haggard and Kaufman, for example, “reform initiatives are more likely where and when political institutions insulate politicians and their technocratic allies from particular interest group constraints, at least in the short run.” Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 36), 19. They develop the same argument in The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions: “The sucessful initiation of reform depends on rulers who have personal control over economic decision-making, the security to recruit and back a cohesive ‘reform team,’ and the political authority to override bureaucratic and political opposition to policy change.” Haggard and Kaufman (fh. 41), 9. See also Grindle, Merilee S. and Thomas, John W., Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; John Waterbury, “The Heart of the Matter? Public Enterprise and the Adjustment Process,” in Haggard and Kaufman (fn. 36); Callaghy, Thomas M., “Political Passions and Economic Interests: Economic Reform and Political Structure in Africa,” in Callaghy, Thomas M. and Ravenhill, John, eds., Hemmed In: Responses to Africa's Decline (New Yoik: Columbia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; idem, “Lost Between State and Market: The Politics of Economic Adjustment in Ghana, Zambia, and Nigeria,” in Nelson (fn. 55).

63 Geddes (fh. 42).

64 See, for example, LaPalombara, Joseph, “Bureaucracy and Political Development: Notes, Queries, and Dilemmas,” in LaPalombara, , ed., Bureaucracy and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who, like Huntington, suggested that it would be worth sacrificing speed in economic development to achieve political goals.

65 Huntington (fn. 1), 413.

66 March and Olsen (fn. 39), 747.

67 Riker, William H., “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions,” American Political Science Review 74 (June 1980), 444–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar