Area Study Merging with Cross-National Approach

Area Study meeting with Cross-National ApproachOverviewAre res publica studies and a cross-national glide pathing really that different or they cast more in common than we might expect? I think it is the latter, having three workplace(ip) correspondentities. First, these studies make believe increasingly integrated to seek domineering explanations that cut finished regions, which had been thought to be fundamentally different or exceptional (such(prenominal) as Latin America). As such, the second likeness is that they stick in addition puzzle to sh be rough roles, such as confirming a surmisal. Third, the intensify of mingled method approach that mint combine bowl ponder and cross-national approaches save illuminates non nevertheless the second similarity further besides a common and ultimate goal shared by the devil approaches, which to flourish our knowledge.At the same time, how they go ab prohibited contend similar roles and accomplishing the shared goal remains as a study difference. In other words, to answer the second question, each approach is better suit than another(prenominal) to answer especial(a) types of questions. Area studies that are often in qualitative nature ask for conditions necessary or sufficient for particular out numerates to occur, while cross-national approach that tend to be in vicenary in nature is often suited for asking the average execution of an independent variable on such government issues.Similarities Area Study Merging with Cross-National ApproachOnce again, I think empyrean studies and a cross-national approach have summate much closer to each other, having three major similarities. The first major similarity is that both studies seem to have want imperious explanations that cut by regions. While it is straightforward that a cross-national approach seeks such accounts, I argue that this similarity has emerged due to a change in seeing what sweep study should be.Fundamentally, com monwealth study is a study that focuses on particular areas or regions of the world. In the mid(prenominal) twentieth century, an area study approach had particularly been utilise as a cookie cutter strategy. That is, it snips out regions or areas that do not conform to accepted ideas or particularly the iodins that are studied through the scope of ethnocentrism (Wiarda 1993, 16). Thus, the study is driven by the ideawhat works in one context may not work in another and utilized to understand not just deviant or outlier but exceptional cases (Wiarda 2005, 2). For instance, ODonnells area studies on Argentina and brazil-nut tree (1973 1976) caught grater attention in the 1970s he challenged Lipsets modernisation scheme (1959 1960) that came out a decade ago based on western sandwich states as a widely accepted idea displaying the positive kin amongst economic development and rustic. Contrarily to Lipset, ODonnell showed that a offset of modernization actually yielded a burea ucratic-authoritarian regime in the richest countries in the region. dependency theorists, such as Frank (1969) and Dos Santos (1971) also elevated the magnificence of area studies by arguing that Latin American economies would not keep abreast the path of western sandwich states because the region was exploited as satellite economies by the West and ended up contributing to the Western modernization. Recently, Mainwaring and Perez-Linan (2003) empirically exhibit a non-linear relationship mingled with economic development and democracy in Latin America they concluded that Latin American exceptionalism existed in the mid to late 20th century because of typical economic policies (ISI) and a have-to doe with between semi semipolitical elites.Regardless of Mainwaring and Prez-Linans work, however, I see area study to increasingly become a lesson-drawing approach (Wiarda 2005). Instead of pointing out regional distinction and exception as an end goal, these differences are used as lessons for building a mega-theory or producing systematic accounts regarding comparative degree politics. This is in part because of the rise of other area studies focusing on the shopping centre East and East Asia, which show their paths towards democracy that are distinct from both Western states and Latin America. These studies, therefore, diminish Latin America exceptionalism. In addition, area studies, namely of ODonnells (1973 1976) have come under much attack for being ad hoc explanations, since Latin American turned to re- democratise in the 1980s. All of these f meanss have then called for a more systematic investigation for providing an account, which identifies common and different conditions contributing to such outcomes (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006).For instance, Acemoglu and Robinson (2006) recognized Lipsets modernization theory as one of four paths, quite than the only path, and sought conditions that make democratization likely, using the cases of Argentina, S ingapore, and South Africa.ODonnells later work with Schmitter (1986) on Latin America also merged with Przeworski (1991) and Haggard and Kaufman (1995), which utilized cases from various regions, such as the Philippines, South Africa, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Nepal. These studies have then provided a powerful account, declare oneselfing the entrance and exit or authoritarianism to depend on a strategic bargaining between political (military) and economic elites in the wake of economic downturns.Hence, the first major similarity is, once again, a tendency of both area studies and cross-national approaches to seek systematic accounts that cut through regions. While cross-national approach is essentially thought to have such a goal, area studies have come to understand the admit of the goal, while no single region seems to stand as merely exceptional or can be isolated from the rest of the world.As such, the second similarity is that they have also come to share around roles. When area studies, at least some parts of the studies, have come close to cross-national approach theoretically, these studies can play a similar uninflected role as well, namely the role in confirming a theory.The theory of political activism may be a good exemplar. chiefly based on Western states, including the United States, empirical cross-ational studies have suggested that well-established democracies have increasingly faced a legitimacy crisis or increase in democratic deficits (Norris 2011, 3-5). Using a wide range of indicators such as a declining civic engagement or voter turnout (Teixiera 1992 Putnam 2000), declining caller loyalties (Aldrich 1995 Dalton et al. 1984), and surveys, they show dissatisfaction and decrease in confidence in national governments (Norris 2011). As such, Fung and Drakeley (2013) conducted an area study focusing on East Asia, ranging from South Korea to Indonesia and Cambodia, and confirm that even in transnational democracies face similar challeng es with old democracies or what Norris (2011) calls democratic deficits. The area study shows that East Asian states are remarkably similar with Western democracies in a sense that democratic regime may be flawed but not broken.In turn, cross-national studies can also confirm a theory based on area studies. For instance, Lipsets modernization theory on the basis on Western Europe has been reinforced with a growing number of empirical cross-national studies (Boix and Stokes 2003 Epstein et al 2006), although debatable (e.g. Przeworski and Limongi 1997 Kennedy 2010 Teorell 2010). Geddes (2003, 351-365) explicitly stated the literature on modernization theory has become much more persuasive because large-n studies have begun to play a greater role in the comparative development fields.Third, the rise of mixed method approach that can combine area study and cross-national approaches further illuminates not only the second point but also a common and ultimate goal shared by the two appro aches, which to expand our knowledge. For instance, Liberman (2005) recently suggested a mixed-method approach, called nested abbreviation, which is a seek design employing both a Large-N statistical analysis and small-N case studies for in-depth investigation. In particular, this approach advocates the use of a large-N analysis as a guide to draw a posterior small-case N analysis for two different purposes a sample-building tool for exam an outlier case and a model-testing tool for confirming an online case. Coppedge (2002) is a good example of the nested analysis he developed a large-N study to determine the subscribe of an area study on Venezuela, which appeared to have a large wad of residuals since the 1990s. Fish (2005) also employed a mixed approach, which conducted a large-n analysis and the Russian case study.Similarly, King et al (1994) and Brady et al (2006) also suggest a mixed approach, which, though unlike Liberman, utilizes area studies to draw a large-n analys is. For instance, Krieckhaus (2006) briefly reviewed areas of Latin America, East Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa to argue distinctive effects of democratic governance on economic growth. This area study thus confirms not only a null relationship between the two variables in cross-national studies but also the positive and forbid relationships that appear when empirical analyses are conducted separately.In short, these mixed approaches show that area studies and cross-national studies can reinforce their finding or give a sensible reason for each to be conducted and ultimately, these mutual roles highlight the most important similarity both studies sum to enhance our knowledge in comparative politics (Walt 1999).Different Questions and ApproachesAt the same time, how they go about playing similar roles and accomplishing the shared goal remains as a major difference. In particular, area studies are usually qualitative in nature, with some exceptions (e.g. Mainwaring and Prez-Pinan 2 003).This means that, as I mentioned sometimes, area studies are a small-n or case study, which intensively examine particular returns with careful attention to historic and cultural contexts. King et al (1994) similarly argue that a small-n study is better at conducting a descriptive inference, which is the process of concord an observed phenomenon on the basis of a set of observations (55).As such, area studies are particularly suited for asking two questions. The first one is, what are conditions necessary or sufficient for a particular event to arise? Returning to the works by ODonnell and Schmitter (1986), Przeworski (1991), and Haggard and Kaufman (1995), they essentially found economic downturn and authoritarian bargaining between political and economic elites as significant and interactive conditions that change the likelihood of a regime change. Acemoglu and Robinson (2006) as well as Boix (2003) also constructed a model where the level of income inequality and capital m obility to interactively alter the probability of democratization, as they contribute to power relations between political elites and mass citizens.Area studies are also suited for questions that identify important actors. The identification of domestic actors is crucial because they, according to Mahoney (2011, 115), createstructures, which in turn shape subsequent actor behaviors, which in turn lead to the development of institutional geomorphologic patterns It is also important, as Walt (1999, 12) points out that the main task of political science research is to produce useful knowledge about human social behavior. As such, the above studies are also praised for identifying important actors, such as political elites, business actors, and military, which are black boxed (Rueschemeyr et al. 1992, 29) in Lipsets modernization theory and subsequent empirical studies that focus on the relationship between economic development and democracy (e.g. Prezeworksi and LImongi 1997 Epstein et al 2006 Boix and Stokes 2003 Kennedy 2010 Teorell 2010). Ziblatt (2006322) commented, their accounts improve upon the agentless structural functionalism silent in modernization theory by reasserting the primacy of collective actors resources, preferences, and strategies. Teorell (2010, 151) also argues, The learn theoretical virtue of this novel approach is that it integrates the previous traditions by providing structural conditions explaining preference and actions of ordinary citizens, in turn affecting the strategic choices do by political elites.In turn, cross-national studies are naturally equipped with a larger sample size and conducted through statistical or quantifiable analyses. As such, they are better suited for asking, what is the average effect on an independent variable on the same or similar outcome seen across the world? (Mahoney 2011 King et al 1994). Put differently, King et al (1994) argues that, while area studies tend to be good at descriptive inference, l arge-n studies are better suited for causal inferencethat isto deliver the causal status of each potential linkage in such a posited mechanism the investigator would have to define and then melodic theme the causal effect underlying it (86). For instance, Boix and Stokes (2003, 531), building on Lipset, specifically concluded, A simulation of the results shows that for low and medium levels of development, the probability of a transition to democracy grows by about 2 percent for each $1,000 increase in per capita income. Similarly, Kennedy (2010, 797) notes a 1% increase in per-capita GDP above the country mean increases the probability of democratic transition. These specific numbers would not come out of area studies for instance, although Haggard and Kaufman (1992) identified economic downturn as a crucial condition for a regime change, they do not specify exactly how bad the economic situation has to be it was rather relative judgment in comparing cases.