Advertisement

Fallstudien und Process Tracing in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft

  • Wolfgang Muno
Chapter
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Process Tracing hat sich in den letzten Jahren als zentraler methodischer Ansatz zur Durchführung von Fallstudien herauskristallisiert. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird zunächst auf Fallstudien allgemein und ihr Bezug zur vergleichende Methode eingegangen. Dann wird Process Tracing als methodischer Ansatz vorgestellt. Beispiele von Process Tracing in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft und der Analyse Europäischer Integration illustrieren die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten.

Schlüsselwörter

Fallstudien Vergleichende Methoden Process Tracing 

Literatur

  1. Aldrich, John, und Kenneth Shepsle. 2000. Explaining institutional change: Soaking, poking, and modeling in the U.S. Congress. In Congress on display, congress at work, Hrsg. William T. Bianco, 23–45. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, Robert. 1998. The International Coffee Organization: An international institution. In Analytic narratives, Hrsg. Robert Bates et al., 194–230. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bates, Robert et al. 1998: Analytic Narratives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, Robert, et al. 2000a. Analytic narratives revisited. Social Science History 24:685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, Robert, et al. 2000b. The analytic narrative project. American Political Science Review 94: 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beach, Derek, und Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2013. Process tracing methods. Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, Andrew. 2010. Process tracing and causal inference. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards. Hrsg. Henry Brady und David Collier, 2. Aufl., 207–220. Lanham: Rowman & 310 Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, Andrew, und Jeffrey Checkel. 2012. Process tracing: From philosophical roots to best practices. Simons Papers in Security and Development No. 21. Vancouver: School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Andrew, und Jeffrey Checkel. 2015. Process tracing: From metaphor to analytical tool. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, Andrew, und Alexander George. 1998. An alliance of statistical and case study methods: Research on the interdemocratic peace. APSA-CP Newsletter 9(1): 6–9.Google Scholar
  11. Blatter, Joachim, und Markus Haverland. 2012. Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier, David. Hrsg. 1979. The new authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Collier, David. 2011. Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science and Politics 44(4): 823–830.Google Scholar
  14. Collier, Ruth Berins, und David Collier. 1991. Shaping the political arena. Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eckstein, Harry. 1966. Division and cohesion in democracy. A study of Norway. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eckstein, Harry. 1992. Case study and theory in political science. In Regarding politics. Essays on political theory, stability and change, Hrsg. Eckstein Harry, 117–176. Berkeley: Berkeley University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Elster, Jon. 2000. Rational choice history: A case of excessive ambition. American Political Science Review 94: 685–695.Google Scholar
  18. Fenno, Richard. 1977. U.S. house members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review 71(3): 883–917.Google Scholar
  19. Fenno, Richard. 1986. Observation, context, and sequence in the study of politics. American Political Science Review 80(1): 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fenno, Richard. 2003. Going home: Black representatives and their constituents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  22. George, Alexander, und Andrew Bennett. 2004. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gerring, John. 2007. Case study research. Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greif, Avner. 1998. Self-enforcing political systems and economic growth: Late medieval genoa. In Analytic narratives, Hrsg. Robert Bates et al., 23–63. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hague, Rod, et al. 1998. Comparative government and politics. An introduction. 4. Aufl. Houndsmill: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  26. Jahn, Detlef. 2006. Einführung in die vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Landman, Todd. 2008. Issues and methods in comparative politics. An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 1985. Der Staat in Lateinamerika. Die Staatskonzeption von Guillermo O´Donnell. Saarbrücken/Fort Lauderdale. Verlag für Entwicklungspolitik.Google Scholar
  29. Lauth, Hans-Joachim, Gert Pickel, und Susanne Pickel et al. 2013. Vergleich politischer Systeme: Eine Einführung. Paderborn Schöningh.Google Scholar
  30. Levi, Margaret. 1998. Conscription: The price of citizenship. In Analytic narratives, Hrsg. Robert Bates et al., 109–147. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Levi, Margaret. 2002. Modelling complex historical processes with analytic narratives. In Akteure-Mechanismen-Modelle. Zur Theoriefähigkeit makro-sozialer Analysen, Hrsg. Renate Mayntz, 108–127. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  32. Lijphart, Arend. 1968. The politics of accommodation. Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: Berkeley University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65:687–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies. Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of democracy. Government form and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mahoney, James. 2000. Rational choice theory and the comparative method: An emerging synthesis? Studies in Comparative International Development 35:83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merkel, Wolfgang, et al. 2003. Defekte Demokratien: Theorien und Probleme, Bd. 1. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merkel, Wolfgang, et al. 2006. Defekte Demokratie, Regionalanalysen, Grauzonen, Bd. 2. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  39. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The choice for Europe. Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Munck, Gerardo. 2001. Game theory and comparative politics: New perspectives and old concerns. World Politics 53:173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muno, Wolfgang. 2009. Fallstudien und die vergleichende Methode. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, Hrsg. Susanne Pickel et al., 19–36. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1973. Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism. Berkeley: Berkeley University Press.Google Scholar
  43. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy 7(4): 112–126.Google Scholar
  44. Parsons, Craig. 2003. A certain idea of Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Peters, Guy B. 1998. Comparative politics. New York: Theory and Methods.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pierson, Paul. 1996. The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist perspective. Comparative Political Studies 29:123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ragin, Charles. 1992. Introduction: Cases of „what is a case?“. In What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, Hrsg. Charles Ragin und Howard Becker, 1–18. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ragin, Charles. 2000. Fuzzy-set social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rohlfing, Ingo. 2012. Case studies and causal inference: An integrative framework. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rokkan, Stein, und Henry Valen. 1964. Regional contrasts in Norwegian politics. In Cleavages, ideologies and party systems: Contributions to comparative political sociology, Hrsg. Erik Allardt und Yrjö Littunen, 162–238. Helsinki: Academic Bookstore.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent. 1998. The political economy of absolutism reconsidered. In Analytic narratives, Hrsg. Robert Bates et al., 64–108. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sartori, Giovanni. 1994. Compare why and how. Comparing, miscomparing and the comparative method. In How to compare nations. Concepts, strategies, substance, Hrsg. Mattei Dogan und Ali Kazancigil, 14–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2006. Prozessanalyse. In Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Neuere qualitative und quantitative AnalyseverfahrenJoachim Behnke et al. Hrsg., 263–272. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  54. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2015. Efficient process tracing: Analyzing the causal mechanisms of European integration. In Process tracing. From metaphor to analytical tool, Hrsg. Andrew Bennett und Jeffrey Checkel, 98–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shetvtsova, Lilia. 2004. The limits of bureaucratic authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 15(3): 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skocpol, Theda. 2000. Theory tackles history. Social Science History 24(4): 669–676.Google Scholar
  57. Lipset, Syemour Martin, und Stein Rokkan. 1967. Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives, Hrsg. Seymour Martin Lipset und Rokkan Stein, 1–64. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  58. Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Verba, Sidney. 1967. Some dilemmas in comparative research. World Politics 20(1): 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weingast, Barry. 1998. Political stability and civil war: Institutions, commitment, and American democracy. In Analytic narratives, Hrsg. Robert Bates et al., 148–193. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zagare, Frank. 2009. Explaining the 1914 war in Europe: An analytic narrative. Journal of Theoretical Politics 21(1): 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zagare, Frank. 2011. The games of July: Explaining the great war. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Privatdozent, Lehrstuhl für Internationale PolitikInstitut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität MainzMainzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations