Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Comparative Political Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bunce, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparative Democratization

Big and Bounded Generalizations

Valerie Bunce

Cornell University

Comparative studies of democratization have produced two types of generalizations: those having nearly universal application and those applying to a range of countries within a region. In the first category are such arguments as the role of high levels of economic development in guaranteeing democratic sustainability, the centrality of political elites in establishing and terminating democracy, and deficits in rule of law and state capacity as the primary challenge to the quality and survival of new democracies. In the second category are contrasts between recent democratization in post-Socialist Europe versus Latin America and southern Europe—for example, in the relationship between democratization and economic reform and in the costs and benefits for democratic consolidation of breaking quickly versus slowly with the authoritarian past. The two sets of conclusions have important methodological implications for how comparativists understand generalizability and the emphasis placed on historical versus proximate causation.

Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 33, No. 6-7, 703-734 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/001041400003300602
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
R. F. Tusalem
The Role of Protestantism in Democratic Consolidation Among Transitional States
Comparative Political Studies, July 1, 2009; 42(7): 882 - 915.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
J. Gans-Morse and S. Nichter
Economic Reforms and Democracy: Evidence of a J-Curve in Latin America
Comparative Political Studies, October 1, 2008; 41(10): 1398 - 1426.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science polHome page
D. C. Shin and B.-K. Jhee
How Does Democratic Regime Change Affect Mass Political Ideology? A Case Study of South Korea in Comparative Perspective
International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science pol, October 1, 2005; 26(4): 381 - 396.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
M. Levi
The Economic Turn in Comparative Politics
Comparative Political Studies, September 1, 2000; 33(6-7): 822 - 844.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
F. Hagopian
Political Development, Revisited
Comparative Political Studies, September 1, 2000; 33(6-7): 880 - 911.
[Abstract] [PDF]