Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method

  • Richard Snyder


Subnational units of analysis play an increasingly important role in comparative politics. Although many recent studies of topics such as ethnic conflict, economic policy reform, and democratization rely on comparisons across subnational political units, insufficient attention has been devoted to the methodological issues that arise in the comparative analysis of these units. To help fill this gap, this article explores how subnational comparisons can expand and strengthen the methodological repertoire available to social science researchers. First, because a focus on subnational units is an important tool for increasing the number of observations and for making controlled comparisons, it helps mitigate some of the characteristic limitations of a small-N research design. Second, a focus on subnational units strengthens the capacity of comparativists to accurately code cases and thus make valid causal inferences. Finally, subnational comparisons better equip researchers to handle the spatially uneven nature of major processes of political and economic transformation.


Economic Reform Comparative International Development American Political Science Review Comparative Politics National Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alt, James E. and Robert C. Lowry. 1994. “Divided Government and Budget Deficits: Evidence from the States.”American Political Science Review 88 (December): 811–28.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Jeffrey J. 1992.The Territorial Imperative: Pluralism, Corporatism, and Economic Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anselin, Luc. 1988.Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, Robert H. 1997.Open-Economy Politics: The Political Economy of the World Coffee Trade. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collier, David and Robert Adcock. 1999. “Democracy and Dichotomies: A Pragmatic Approach to Choices about Concepts.”Annual Review of Political Science 2: 537–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collier, David and Steven Levitsky. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.”World Politics 49 (April): 430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collier, David and James E. Mahon, Jr. 1993. “Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis.”American Political Science Review 87 (December): 845–55.Google Scholar
  8. Collier, Ruth Berins and David Collier. 1991.Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Córdoba, José. 1994. “Mexico.” InThe Political Economy of Policy Reform, ed. J. Williamson. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  10. Di Tella, Torcuato S. 1965. “Populism and Reform in Latin America.” InObstacles to Change in Latin America, ed. C. Véliz. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. — 1968. “The Working Class in Politics.” InLatin America and the Caribbean—A Handbook, ed. C. Véliz. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  12. Eagles, Munroe. 1995. “Spatial and Contextual Models in Political Research: An Introduction.” InSpatial and Contextual Models in Political Research, ed. M. Eagles. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, Peter. 1995.Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Firmin-Sellers, Kathryn. 2000. “Institutions, Context, and Outcomes: Explaining French and British Rule in West Africa.”Comparative Politics 32 (April): 253–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishman, Robert M. 1993. “Divergent Paths: Labor Politics in Barcelona and Madrid”. InPolitics, Society, and Democracy: The Case of Spain, ed. R. Gunther. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, Jonathan. 1993.The Politics of Food in Mexico: State Power and Social Mobilization. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. —. 1994. “Latin America's Emerging Local Politics.”Journal of Democracy 5 (April): 105–16.Google Scholar
  18. —. 1996. “How does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico.”World Development 24: 1089–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaines, Brian J. 1999. “Duverger's Law and the Meaning of Canadian Exceptionalism.”Comparative Political Studies 32 (October): 835–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerschenkron, Alexander. 1962.Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, Edward L. 1997. “The Populist Road to Market Reform: Policy and Electoral Coalitions in Mexico and Argentina.”World Politics 49 (April): 339–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson, Edward L. and Ernesto Calvo. 2000. “Federalism and Low-Maintenance Constituencies: Territorial Dimensions of Economic Reform in Argentina”.Studies in Comparative International Development 35, 3 (Fall).Google Scholar
  23. Grofman, Bernard. 1995. “New Methods for Valid Ecological Inference.” InSpatial and Contextual Models in Political Research, ed. M. Eagles. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  24. Hagopian, Frances. 1996.Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heller, Patrick. 2000. “Degrees of Democracy: Some Comparative Lessons from India.”World Politics 52 (July): 484–519.Google Scholar
  26. Herrigel, Gary. 1996.Industrial Constructions: The Sources of German Industrial Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jones Luong, Pauline. 2002.Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Karl, Terry Lynn. 1997.The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Katz, Jonathan N. and Gary King. 1999. “A Statistical Model for Multiparty Electoral Data.”American Political Science Review 93 (March): 15–32.Google Scholar
  30. Kenworthy, Eldon. 1973. “The Function of the Little Known Case in Theory Formation, or What Peronism Wasn't.”Comparative Politics 6 (October): 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kesselman, Mark and Donald Rosenthal. 1974.Local Power and Comparative Politics. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. King, Gary. 1997.A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994.Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kohli, Atul. 1987.The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. —. 1990.Democracy and Discontent: India's Growing Crisis of Governability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kurtz, Marcus J. 1999. “Free Markets and Democratic Consolidation in Chile: The National Politics of Rural Transformation.”Politics and Society 27. 2 (June): 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.”American Political Science Review 65: 682–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. —. 1975. “The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research.”Comparative Political Studies 8 (July): 158–77.Google Scholar
  39. Linz, Juan J. 1986.Conflicto en Euskadi. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
  40. Linz, Juan J. and Amando de Miguel. 1966. “Within-Nation Differences and Comparisons: The Eight Spains.” InComparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research, ed. R. L. Merritt and S. Rokkan. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1950.Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.”American Political Science Review 53 (March): 69–105.Google Scholar
  43. Locke, Richard M. 1995.Remaking the Italian Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Locke, Richard M. and Wade Jacoby. 1997. “The Dilemmas of Diffusion: Social Embeddedness and the Problems of Institutional Change in Eastern Germany.”Politics and Society 25 (March): 34–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowry, Robert C., James E. Alt, and Karen E. Ferree. 1998. “Fiscal Policy Outcomes and Electoral Accountability in American States.”American Political Science Review 92 (December): 759–74.Google Scholar
  46. Migdal, Joel S., Atul Kohli, and Vivienne Shue, eds. 1994.State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miles, William. 1994.Hausaland Divided. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Montero, Alfred P. 2000. “Delegative Dilemmas and Horizontal Logics: Subnational Industrial Policy in Brazil and Spain.” Paper presented at the Third Meeting of International Working Group on Subnational Economic Governance in Latin America and Southern Europe. San Juan Puerto Rico, August 26–28.Google Scholar
  49. Munck, Gerardo. 1998. “Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis.”Studies in Comparative International Development 33 (Fall): 18–45.Google Scholar
  50. Naroll, Raoul. 1961. “Two Solutions to Galton's Problem.”Philosophy of Science 28 (January): 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. —. 1966. “Scientific Comparative Politics and International Relations.” InApproaches to Comparative and International Politics, ed. R. Farrell. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Nelson, Joan M. 1990. “Introduction: The Politics of Economic Adjustment in Developing Nations.” InEconomic Crisis and Policy Choice: The Politics of Adjustment in the Third World, ed. J. Nelson. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. O'Donnell, Guillermo. 1973.Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  54. —. 1999.Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  55. Paige, Jeffrey M. 1997.Conffee and Power: Revolution and the Rise of Democracy in Central America. Cambridge: Harvard Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  56. Peters, B. Guy. 1998.Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Portes, Alejandro. 1983. “The Informal Sector: Definition, Controversy, and Relation to National Development.”Review 7 (Summer): 151–74.Google Scholar
  58. Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970.The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  59. Putnam, Robert D., with Robert Leonardi and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. 1993.Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Remmer, Karen L. and Erik Wibbels. 2000. “The Subnational Politics of Economic Adjustment: Provincial Politics and Fiscal Performance in Argentina.”Comparative Political Studies 33 (May): 419–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roberts, Kenneth. 1995. “Neoliberalism and the Transformation of Populism in Latin America: The Peruvian Case.”World Politics 48 (October): 82–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robinson, William S. 1950. “Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Indiviaduals.”American Sociological Review 15 (June): 351–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rokkan, Stein. 1970.Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  64. Rubin, Jeffrey W. 1997.Decentering the Regime: Ethnicity, Radicalism, and Democracy in Juchitán, Mexico. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rustow, Dankwart A. 1968. “Modernization and Comparative Politics: Prospects in Research and Theory.”Comparative Politics 1 (October): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Samuels, David J. 1998. “Careerism and its Consequences: Federalism, Elections, and Policy-Making in Brazil,” Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  67. Samuels, David J. and Richard, Snyder. 2001. “The Value, of a Vote: Malapportionment in Comparative Perspective.”British Journal of Political Science 31, 4 (October).Google Scholar
  68. Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Research.”American Political Science Review 64: 1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sartori, Giovanni, ed. 1984.Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Snyder, Richard. 1999a. “After Neoliberalism: The Politics of Reregulation in Mexico.”World Politics 51 (January): 173–204.Google Scholar
  71. —. 1999b. “After the State Withdraws: Neoliberalism and Subnational Authoritarian Regimes in Mexico.” inSubnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico, ed. W. Cornelius, T. Eisenstadt, and J. Hindley. La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  72. —. 2001.Politics after Neoliberalism: Reregulation in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Snyder, Richard and David Samuels. 2001. “Devaluing the Vote in Latin America.”Journal of Democracy 12 (January): 146–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stavenhagen, Rodolfo. 1968. “Seven Fallacies About Latin America.” InLatin America: Reform or Revolution? eds. J. Petras and M. Zeitlin. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications.Google Scholar
  75. Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn. 1997.Local Heroes: The Political Economy of Russian Regional Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tarrow, Sidney G. 1967.Peasant Communism in Southern Italy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tarrow, Sidney. 1976.From Center to Periphery: Alternative Models of National-Local Policy Impact and an Application to France and Italy. Ithaca, NY: Western Societies Program, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  78. Tendler, Judith. 1997.Good Government in the Tropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Tendler, Judith (with Rodrigo, Serrano). 1999. “The Rise of Social Funds: What are They a Model Of?” Prepared for The MIT/UNDP Decentralization Project, Management Development and Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme, New York.Google Scholar
  80. Tilly, Charles. 1964.The Vendée. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Varshney, Ashutosh. 2001.Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Weyland, Kurt. 1996. “Neopopulism and Neoliberalism in Latin America: Unexpected Affinities.”Studies in Comparative International Development 31 (Fall): 3–31.Google Scholar
  83. Weyland, Kurt. 1999. “Neoliberal Populism in Latin America and Eastern Europe.”Comparative Politics 31 (July): 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Snyder

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations