ARTICLE

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler Abstract The subject matter of Comparative Politics is fundamentally in flux due to changing forms of statehood and of policy-making practices within complex governance processes. Apart from changes inherent within the field of Political Science, this is also having significant effects upon the research process. We will therefore discuss related methodological and theoretical challenges, as well as possible solutions, such as multi-level analysis and diffusion research. After briefly outlining research-relevant subject areas, we will conclude by addressing two elements of a progressive research strategy, namely an orientation towards governance and a stronger cooperation of inter- as well as intra-disciplinary aspects. Key terms transformation of Political Science • statehood • multi-level analysis • diffu-sion • comparative methods • comparative political theory • governance Introduction We stand at the dawn of the 21st century. This gives rise to the question of what mean-ing such a title, ‘Comparative Politics in the 21st Century’, should have. This paper cannot give a systematic overview of Political Science for the whole century, nor could one expect a status report on current research. Why then is this question relevant? The essential aim of this article is to demonstrate that the last few decades have seen wide-reaching changes in the context and with it the subject matter of Comparative Politics. This has enormous implications for comparative research itself. Comparative Politics in the 21st Century cannot be identical to that of the 20th century. Simply to continue as before would be to overlook the fundamental difficulties inherent in so doing. This does not mean however that Comparative Politics should be completely reinvented. Continui-ties will remain, and rightly so. However it does mean that given the context of signifi-cant empirical changes, research has to be rethought and deliberated upon. This has, as we shall see, a considerable effect upon research activity. Not only is the area of termi-nology affected, but methodological approaches and theoretical formation equally so.

2 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler Before we investigate these areas individually, we shall briefly outline the significant empirical changes which are poised to reshape Comparative Politics. 1. Empirical changes In the following deliberations, we shall outline, on the basis of known facts, develop-ments also observed by many of our colleagues, either identically to the way in which we observe them, or in a similar way.

It should be assumed that functionally structured governance processes have a growing influence, both quantitatively and qualitatively, over the steering of globalisa-tion processes, for example in trade, finance, capital, communication, mobility, technol-ogy, environment, and law. In order to cover the requirements of coordination, regula-tion and steering, which are emerging with increasing trans-national interdependence, governance structures are developing transversally to the territorially-based form of rule of the nation state, thus modifying territory-specific forms of control, regulation and legitimization as they do so. This takes place in a way which is sensitive to factors such as level of development, societal homogeneity, the performance capability of national, territory-specific governance or cultural profile. However one should not assume a gen-eral trend of denationalisation of OECD societies, no more than one should assume a wider trend of disintegration of the statehood of peripheral societies (cf. Zürn 1998). Not to be underestimated however is the disintegration potential, itself linked to global-isation and provoked by homogenizing forces, and which manifests itself in varying forms of defensive reaction, such as cultural divergence and false perception (Menzel 1998).

The history of the founding of states in the 20th century does however give rise to the assumption that in the 21st century, the number of independent states recognised as sovereign by the international community should continue to rise. In many regions, processes of fragmentation and secession are in evidence. The forces of the territorial status quo will attempt to prevent the breaking away of constituent countries or the break-up of whole confederations, however during phases in which the rule of central government is weakened, it is not improbable that the centrifugal forces observed in Asia, and especially in Africa, will continue to prevail. The number of independent states could increase dramatically, even if every ethnic group does not demand its own state, as in the vision of horror portrayed by Bluntschli (1875), with reference to the some 3,600 known ethnic groups (for a critical view, see Rosecrance and Stein 2006).

Disputes surrounding the organisation of territorial rule cannot be considered as settled. Even the least pessimistic predictions show that with an increasing world popu-lation, economic growth entailing an increasing use of resources, and heavy pressure to conform to the consequences of climate change, continual disagreements over the con-trol of ever more limited and ever more expensive resources (oil, water, fertile land) are predictable (Follath and Jung 2006, Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen, 2007). The shaping of territorial conflict is being modi-fied by the spread of functional forms of rule (i.e. forms of governance). These forms of

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 3 rule can limit the intensity of territorial conflicts, that is to say their level of violence. It can be assumed that the tendency towards large-scale wars between states is diminish-ing, whilst varying forms of so-called “low-intensity wars” are on the increase.1

The change in the territorial status quo, combined with an increase in sovereign states, is closely linked to an ever diminishing steering capability by institutions of cen-tral government in important areas (such as in fiscal and finance policy, or social pol-icy). These find themselves confronted with conflicting demands; on the one hand, the pressure to integrate into world markets and to conform to rapidly changing economic, social and ecological conditions; on the other hand, the pressure to overcome internal tensions brought about by processes of trans-national integration (such as social and cultural tensions, unequal economic and regional development, or disputes over distri-bution). Under favourable economic conditions, such as during periods of prosperity, these can be reconciled. During periods of decline however, states which are socially heterogeneous and weak in terms of their institutional legitimacy, risk breaking up as a result of these contradictions, conflicts, and steering deficits. This is the tendency of peripheral states to fragment territorially.

Furthermore, the steering and coordination of policy-making can only rely upon formal institutions in a limited way, if the ability of these to shape such policy decisions is diminished. This can be due to missing or limited resources, or to the possible exis-tence of antagonistic informal institutions. Even in established democracies, the signifi-cance of informal policy has continually been observed (especially in the study of Great Britain). In these cases, it could be assumed that this will integrate itself into a function-ing, formal system of institutions, both blending with and perhaps even promoting each other, whilst through informal practices bypassing the barriers of formal rulings, them-selves at times difficult to negotiate. In the course of recent developments however, it can be observed in many democracies that the formative power of formal institutions is present only partially, debilitated by antagonistic informal institutions, and thus the existence of both democracy and the rule of law cannot always be said to be fully in place (Lauth 2000; Helmke/Levitsky 2004).

States confront the unavoidable integration into World Society and the ever in-creasing pressure to conform and modernise with their own specific mixes of confor-mity and reform strategies. This does not only concern OECD states. Even states such as North Korea or Burma are able to uncouple themselves only in a very limited way from the world market due to highly dynamic, technical and economic development processes. Such strategies include the abandonment of state activities through privatiza-tion, the transfer of central government responsibilities to regional or to supranational institutions, routinization of policy decisions or the founding of Quangos, or quasi-state NGOs. Neo-liberal tendencies take many forms, according to whether they are imple-mented in authoritarian (cf. Gat 2007, 64), coordinated or in uncoordinated capitalist systems.

However neither the states of the centre (of the OECD community), nor emerging states nor even peripheral states can escape the pressure to change the structures of the 1 Being ever more difficult to win, and involving increasing costs and high risks for the invading power, wars are expected to become exceptional events (cf. Kaldor 2001, Jung et al. 2003).

4 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler state. This is known as the ‘modernisation of statehood’ (Coriat et al. 2006). It should not be assumed that this will lead to a general loss of the steering capability of states, as the latter possess high levels of potential in terms of adjustment and reform (Behrens 2005). Apart from these, several strategies (some opposed to each other), aimed at reor-ganising statehood as well as at maintaining the capacity to act on a policy-administrative level are also available to them. These include: the build-up, extension and modification of central government’s capacity to act,

notably in emerging countries, but also in highly developed states, through its sci-entification, by appointing political advisors, research departments, monitoring, technical risk assessment, revalidation of the civil service, appointing teams of ana-lytical and planning staff, all with the aim of transforming, in as sustainable a man-ner as possible, all types of technical, economic, health and social risks into politi-cally manageable ones. We can call this the tendency of the state to self-modernise;

the increased establishment and extension of coordinating institutions, of which the majority are intergovernmental, but also supranational as well as trans-national, which produce (Zangl and Zürn 2004) and agree upon action-guiding norms for their member states (as well as for the other members of the international commu-nity), monitor the application of these, without possessing the ability to collectively sanction deviant behaviour, barring certain exceptions. We can call this the ten-dency to denationalise the production of norms;

the development of local (sub-central) government’s capacity to act, in order to satisfy general expectation levels adequately; growing demands for the supply of basic services, jobs and public safety, which in many areas of the world are becom-ing ever more difficult to fulfil (e.g. due to increasingly scarce and ever more ex-pensive resources). State borders also lose significance through the founding of re-gions which transcend national borders (e.g. Euregios). We can call this the ten-dency to localise and regionalise;

the extension, supported by the market, of the generation and guarantee of public services (such as drinking water, education and health) through institutionalised markets, controlled and regulated by the state. The trade in emission rights is an example. We can call this the tendency to liberalise and steer using the market and competition;

the renewed establishment of territorially defined security zones to control as effec-tively as possible migration, terrorist and criminal activity, the proliferation of weapons, especially of weapons of mass destruction, or of new diseases (such as BSE, AIDS, or bird flu). At the same time, the susceptibility of former world pow-ers (USA, Russia) as well as of new, emerging ones, already predominant on a re-gional level (such as China, India, Brazil, or Iran) to engage in renewed armaments races for conventional, but also for atomic weapons systems. We can call this the multi-polarisation tendency;

due to the high costs and low chances of success in modernising and bringing pea-ce to societies through armed intervention from abroad, the propensity in democ-ratic states to resort to drastic measures in order to bring about regime change, to force peace or to carry out crisis prevention should now have surpassed its high-point. Protectorates (such as Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo or Iraq),

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 5

will remain exceptions, even when the conditions of society and state in many re-gions of the underdeveloped world, notably in sub-Saharan Africa, are becoming ever more precarious, despite the Millenium Development Goals. Numerous in-struments of indirect rule and intervention, from the services of private security or-ganisations to all kinds of covert missions through to positive and negative sanc-tions, should prove themselves to be more useful in terms of power politics.

to overcome increasing pressures posed by problems of development, of the envi-ronment, migration, social marginalisation and exclusion, crime and violence, civil society, which organises itself trans-nationally as well as nationally, could make a significant contribution. As to whether the available potential can mobilise itself however, depends not least upon state support and protection guarantees. To re-lieve themselves of the burden, developed states increasingly use the services of civil society to bring relief in humanitarian or other catastrophes and simultane-ously, to secure political legitimacy. Civil society, as a subsystem of the state in transformation, could be obliged to take over mobilising, modernising, integrative as well as charitable and preventive state responsibilities itself, thus removing re-sponsibility for these from the state. Empirical indications abound that a trans-national civil society is in the making, already playing a significant role in func-tional institutions of international governance.

It can thus be reckoned that in the 21st century, within the context of the structural trans-formation of world society (with the spread of scientific, technical civilisation and the increasing integration and interdependence between countries), as well as looming structural changes (such as climate change, the crisis of the progress paradigm and the incompatibility of traditional and post-modern lifestyles), political institutions will be put under enormous pressure to govern effectively and at the same time, to secure insti-tutions’ own interests, as well as those of established elites.

These considerable changes within the subject matter of Comparative Politics sig-nal new directions in thematic profile and research. Alongside it, Political Science is also on the move. Here, let us highlight three aspects: (1) International cooperation is becoming stronger. This is illustrated by the develop-ment of the ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research). There is also interna-tional research cooperation, which likewise has increased sharply within the EU - due also to suitably supported incentive structures - and research visits, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries. Increased presence at international conferences and congresses as well as in international journals serves equally as an illustration of this development. (2) Increasing cooperation and mutual awareness has led to certain homogenizing ef-fects in day to day academic research, which have also recently manifested themselves in the worldwide establishment of BA and MA programmes. For Political Science, these tendencies mean a further professionalisation in the area of research development, as well as in the use of methods and theories. (3) Not only the new uncertainties and changes, as outlined above, but also the concep-tion of governance itself has ultimately led to an increased scientific advisory require-

6 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler ment, which is most visible during election campaigns, in Public Management and in foreign and security policy, and which is often based upon comparative findings. 2. Consequences for Comparative Politics The discussed change in the subject matter of Comparative Politics and in everyday academic practice has considerable effects upon the future formulation of comparative research. The most important of these are discussed below. 2.1 Terms, categories and typologies In how far does existing terminology adequately encompass the changes in empirical reality? Do terms and categories require new definitions? Let us consider Sartori’s ques-tion of how far ‘concepts can travel’, without causing ‘conceptual stretching’ (Sartori 1970). For example, terms and conceptions of state and civil society, democracy and the rule of law originated and evolved in the occident. Does an imperialist attitude underlie their application to ‘unknown’ contexts, or can they be applied without any difficulty? We must differentiate between two aspects: (1) Within an empirical application, it is possible that these terms are confronted with findings which do not correspond to the sum of experiences encountered hitherto. Cor-respondingly, it is possible that in certain African, Latin American or Asian countries, the search for civil society according to the western understanding of the term would provide only little empirical gain. It therefore makes no sense to extend our understand-ing of the term simply to include a large mass of empirical findings. This is the case for example, when violent actors are counted within a civil society. In so doing, the empiri-cal findings are indeed more comprehensive, however there is a clear case of conceptual stretching. The original concept is no longer recognizable and becomes distorted. The development of sub-terms and regular and lesser sub-types provides an adequate oppor-tunity to apply the term to contexts which are not entirely suitable. Applied to democra-cies, this could mean the application of terms such as ‘deficient’ and ‘working’ democ-racies. In the area of systems of government, the fact that many presidential systems of government are taking on parliamentary characteristics at an increasing rate, and thus no longer correspond suitably to the existing understanding of the term, has resulted in the formulation of a new subtype, that of ‘parliamentary presidential systems’ (Kropp/Lauth 2007).

Furthermore, when applying a concept to an unknown context, it is vital to proceed in terms which are sensitive to the context. When searching for civil society actors, it would be insufficient to look only within the spectrum of those who are formally regis-tered or at least formally constituted. This would mean excluding a wide spectrum of actors, who are constituted informally, but who across the board correspond to the char-acteristics of civil society. In such cases, in which only formal institutions are investi-gated, we speak of there being a western bias.

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 7 (2) Besides empirical implications, we must also consider normative and/or theoretical consequences. In this way, the inappropriate application of a concept in an unknown context can lead to the original concept being called into question and rethought. The result can be the further refinement of the concept (such as the relationship between state and democracy) or its change. For example, problems encountered when commu-nicating an understanding of development through modernisation theory have modified the core idea of development and, amongst other things, integrated the aspect of sus-tainability within the framework of a global order.2 A term introduced within a western context can however encounter differing interpretations in other regions. An acceptance of democracy can be observed worldwide, however perceptions thereof can differ con-siderably. This is also observed within the western hemisphere itself. As however, com-parative research must insist upon a term, which has the same meaning across all com-parisons, it is bound to an argumentative justification of the chosen understanding of the term in question. The boundary between it and political philosophy becomes blurred.

In the formation of categories and types, and in their application, more allowance has been made up to now for the empirical fact that often, the effect of formal institu-tions is only gradual. Consequently, it is a matter of the difficult mediation between gradual findings and relatively rigid typological classifications. As failing to use typolo-gies in Comparative Politics would prove to be virtually counter-productive, it is vital to find methodological solutions. One suggestion would be to apply subtypes, as described above (Collier/Levitsky 1997; Lauth 2003), whereby we must then consider the task of determining thresholds in order to define various subtypes. Data and data collection The expansion of this research field means an increased requirement for research mate-rial. However, despite the global flood of information, much information relevant to Comparative Politics is insufficiently available. Either rudimentary information is avail-able in unsystematic form (as in the area of informal institutions), or existing data, in view of its validity, requires careful review and restructuring so that it may be used appropriately. Even then however, its significance is often limited. Finally, much infor-mation has initially to be collected by means of qualitative research. When doing so, it is beneficial to employ the collection methods of related disciplines such as Sociology and Ethnology.3 Particularly in the field of Area Studies, there is a special interest in acquiring data, in order to improve the body of knowledge available in that field. In order to be able to satisfy research requirements, an exchange concerning suitable re-search strategies is vital. Within the area of data collection, acquisition and evaluation, the necessity for research cooperation is evident. Maximising the body of empirical data and knowledge is an on-going task in Comparative Politics. 2 It is quite another case when terms completely lose their empirical base. For the proper application of a term to be possible, one requires either a change in the definition, so that the term may be preserved, or a new term which better corresponds to the empirical data. 3 A representative overview of this now complex field is offered by the online journal “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung FQS” (http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm). For survey research, the journal “Survey Research Methods” by ESRA offers a useful insight (http//w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/index).

8 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler 2.2 Methods As already mentioned, comparative methods make up the core identity of Comparative Politics, which equally, however, is defined and refined by the focus on political sub-jects. We make a conscious effort to speak in the plural, as various comparative meth-ods must be considered. Let us differentiate between two strands: (1) Studies designed to investigate similarities and differences in the systematic analysis of dependent variables. The core elements of these go back to John Stuart Mill’s Method of Difference. Even single case studies can be classified under this strand, pro-vided that they are embedded in the corresponding theoretical contexts. In Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), these approaches have experienced systematic develop-ment (Ragin 1987, 2000), whilst the most recent development of the fuzzy set QCA is capable of overcoming the rigidity of binary codification. (2) The other strand of comparative methods is based upon statistics and works with individual and/or aggregate data. With the help of different techniques, it attempts to define more precisely the relationship between dependent and independent variables through quantification. In contrast to Mills’ methods, a higher number of cases is re-quired. The question of which of these methods is most suitable for investigating the subject areas discussed above is largely irrelevant. Each has its advantages and disadvantages which require no further discussion here. The choice of method depends upon the cogni-tive interest and the number of empirical cases linked thereto. Pragmatic considerations, such as research resources and data, equally play an important role. A methodological purism would be the wrong way to approach the various (and complex) states of re-search properly. Research designs are recommended which combine the comparative techniques of the first strand with those of the second. In certain combinations of cases, these should not only be organised along complementary but also along competitive lines. In this way, the benefit of various methodological approaches in tangible cases would become clearer. Finally, let us reiterate that to the suggestion of combining methods, the combining of quantitative and qualitative methods is also linked, in the way these exist in triangulation techniques (Pickel 2003). In a nutshell, in order to be able to identify and apply comparative strategies suitable to specific cases, comparative research requires more than the comprehensive methodological knowledge as known hitherto (see also Jahn’s plea, Jahn 2006a). At the same time, it should also be noted that methodological debates are not conducted as an end in themselves, but rather to increase the cognitive benefit of nomothetically aligned comparative political research.

The relevance of the methodological foundation of research is all the more impor-tant when we consider the changes in the focus of that research. In the classical version of Comparative Government, the cognitive focus was on the nation state. This research perspective shifted quite some time ago, with sub-national units, such as regions (Put-nam 1993) and local government (Gabriel et al. 2000), as well as supranational units (such as the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, NATO and the Warsaw Pact) being included in

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 9 comparisons. Furthermore, comparisons refer rather seldom to the entire political sys-tem, but instead highlight and investigate specific characteristics and/or actors thereof (such as performance, policy areas, parties and elections, parliaments, centres of gov-ernment, civil society and political culture). At least the reference to area(s) of politics has to be preserved. However even this ordered system must take note of transforma-tions in the area of empirical references, transformations which we conceptualize under the heading “Beyond methodological nationalism” (Beck 1997, 115). In doing so, we are aware that this new term is somewhat confusing in its connotation, as it deals with the unit of analysis of the state, and not that of the nation (or nationalism). Beyond methodological nationalism Political Science, especially its comparative variant, will have to learn to see in relative terms the nation state as the dominant reference point of political analysis, and to extend or to replace it with other points of reference. An increasing number of states today have a very low capacity to act as a state, suffering from political fragmentation, insufficient administrative resources, civil war or even state collapse. The construction known as the nation state is conceived primarily from statistical ‘yearbooks’. In these, we must differ-entiate between data produced internally and that produced externally, although the effect of both is very similar; in other words, states appear to be relatively homogenous constructs, although it is known that they are not. In many regions, the indices of ine-quality as published through international statistics (UN organisations) or mortality statistics, not being collected systematically, are at best good estimates, reflecting trends and relationships (Menzel 2001). In fact, we continue to have very little reliable infor-mation concerning many countries in Africa, Asia and also Latin America.4 The same can be said of political structures and policy-making processes, particularly in rural areas, in inaccessible regions and in expanding shanty towns.

However, even in developed areas of world society, nation state-centred political analyses risk underestimating or even effacing important political changes. As a reac-tion to the challenges posed by economic and technical globalisation, by ecological boundaries, by demographic change, by nuclear (self) destruction or by ‘new’ risks (such as terrorism, disease or migration), the modern OECD state is also in transforma-tion. The states of the European Union are firmly integrated within a supranational gov-ernance structure (Mayone 2006; Meimeth and Schild, 2002; Zielonka 2006; Jørgensen and Knudsen 2006). Nonetheless, the concept of the post-nation state being reduced to a mere toothless, de-legitimized political system, or ‘ex-Leviathan’, due on the one hand to the institutionalisation, seen in many policy areas, of largely denationalised forms of governance (known as tendencies of de-territorialisation and dislimitation of policy) on the one hand, and to the transfer of powers to lower or higher levels of political action on the other (regionalization and supranationalization of nation state powers) can be taken as wildly exaggerated. However despite the presumably high durability of territo-rially defined fields of responsibility of central government, and with it that of power 4 The problem of international statistics is also manifested by recent German history, when it became clear how unreliable data concerning the true condition of the GDR was.

10 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler and of rule which requires legitimization, the number of policy items at sub-national and supranational level, as well as in extrapolated (functional) policy areas with multi-level governance has increased noticeably. For Comparative Politics, this transformation of ‘modern’ statehood is a formidable challenge. It remains to be investigated in which places, in which forms, and with what success relevant policy decisions are made; where, how and by which actors political rule is exercised. At this point, two methodo-logical considerations are indispensable, namely multi-level analysis and diffusion. Multi-level analysis The internal differentiation of Political Science has been slow to react to the transforma-tions taking place in organisational forms of policy-making over recent decades in the context of multi-level linking (cf. Benz 2003).5 At the same time, the multi-level prob-lem is spreading over all areas of policy, thereby creating a new perspective as (to ex-press it somewhat bluntly, and leaving aside country and policy area-specific differ-ences), interior policy is no longer being conducted internally, nor is foreign policy externally.

The multi-level structure leads to interesting methodological-analytical problems. Countries differ according to whether, how and within which international regulation structure they are integrated.6 Regional systems of integration establish and stabilise differences both between regional integration systems (such as EU-ASEAN relations and relations between EU states and ASEAN states), as well as within them, as results of Europeanization research demonstrate. Functionally aligned multi-level systems reinforce – at least frequently – this ‘trend’ towards the stabilizing of differences. For example, the non-proliferation agreement differentiates not only between countries who are signatories and those who are not (the atomic weapons states India and Israel), but also amongst the agreement’s signatories between the accepted ‘haves’, the new ‘haves’ (Pakistan), and the have-nots’, as well as between those who have signed additional protocols for stricter rules of transparency and those who have not (such as Iran). To quote a further example, even the Kyoto Agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gases which are harmful to the climate divides the world into groups of countries, and within the group of industrialized countries specific, individualised rights are granted, in order to take the high degree of variation between individual countries into account. If we then include within these deliberations countries’ specialisation strategies which react, be it actively or passively, to the challenges of the rapidly changing international division of labour, then there is evidence to suggest that the differences existing be-tween countries around the world in terms of policy steering and societal control are not lessening, but are reproducing themselves in specific forms. The same can be said of forms of rule and governance.

5 For further detail, cf. the article by Knodt and Stoiber in this issue. 6 If we consider Germany and the USA merely on a national level, a comparison of efficiency and environ-mental policy proves largely inconclusive. It becomes essential to include the EU level as well as that of the individual states.

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 11 Diffusion Growing international cooperation within the globalization process does not only point to the task of multi-level analysis, but also to the necessity of considering factors which lie outside units of analysis. Today, Galton’s problem, as it was termed early on, needs to be considered more than ever. If we observe trans-national influences and mutual learning across national borders, then comparative construction and evaluation must take this into account. This means that in democratization processes for example, we cannot simply search for causal factors within a national context, as many theories in transformation research suggest, but we must also include international diffusion effects (Erdmann/Kneuer 2008). In this way, the momentum of democratization through inter-national communication (such as mass media or the internet), migration or secondary socialization can take place. Such phenomena can also be seen in various policy areas such as in environmental policy and in the development of the welfare state (Jahn 2006b)7.

However the diffusion process discussed here must not lead us to abandon com-parative country research. In fact, it is essential that when modulating the research con-cept, we take account of external effects appropriately, so that if we cannot solve Gal-ton’s Problem, at least we may defuse it. Possibilities present themselves through re-course to a most different cases design or through the inclusion of corresponding control variables in statistical methods. In the same way as in the discussion concerning multi-level structures, it is thus a matter of having an adequate methodological response to the changing empirical situation. 2.3 Theory construction One aspect which is firmly gaining ground in the solving of methodological questions is the theoretical conception of comparative study. Using this approach, not only are the core independent and dependent variables defined, but the context is also shaped. The latter of these is decisive when applying a most different cases design or a most similar cases design. At the same time, the typological choice, itself closely related to theory, allows us to define to what degree investigations must be specified. Despite numerous efforts made over recent years, also in German-speaking countries, the body of com-parative political theory still shows itself to be in deficit in many areas (Berg-Schlosser/Müller-Rommel 1997; Helms/Jun 2004; Lauth 2006). A glance at available theories also illustrates the possibilities of and limits to causal statements.

If the supposition of mono-causal factors in social relationships shows itself gener-ally to be unsatisfactory, then with real changes, the possibility of more complex causes increases even more. This leads to a paradox, which is set to occupy the development of Comparative Politics for some time to come - namely, that although increasing com-plexity renders theory formation difficult, the need for theoretical results - for theories - is growing. This need exists not only from a scientific point of view, but also through 7 A representative overview of different aspects of diffusion research is given by the various articles in Holzinger et al. 2007.

12 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler demands for relevance to current practice. Here also, the scientific foundation must be considered carefully, so as not to offer false responses to false problems.

From this perspective of requirements in the area of Comparative Politics, the tasks arise of taking stock and of systematising existing theories, as well as pieces of theories. Useful approaches exist in the area of Policy (Sabatier 1999); in Politics and Polities, greater efforts are required, even though bases for theoretical approaches exist (Chilcote 1994; Keman 2002; Geddes 2003; Munck/Snyder 2007). Other theories are more closely related thematically and overlap the politics triad (namely democracy and trans-formation theory cf. Merkel 1999; Schmidt 2006). This review looks significantly at medium-range theories and at well founded empirical hypotheses. One possibility of a general structuring of the body of theory is offered by Lichbach and Zuckermann (1997), referring to the central terms of structure, rationality and culture. The review of the body of theory by means of specific themes (welfare state, transformation, elections, etc.) or through orientation towards the politics triad (Polity, Politics and Policy), offers a further option. In our classification strategy, we must consider that in these areas, we are also confronted with those dimensions as chosen by Lichbach and Zuckermann, albeit in a different combination. Consequently, we should consider a double classifica-tion system. This would seem an expedient step, in order subsequently to discuss the question of theories’ complementary characteristics.

The complementarity of theories in Comparative Politics cannot be taken for granted, as a simple glance at the two theoretical ‘waves’ shows, with which Compara-tive Politics has been confronted in recent decades. In the 1960s, Behavioralism re-shaped the political debate; since the late 1980s, the Rational Choice approach has taken over. The transformation of institutional approaches reflects clearly this develop-ment. Although practically superseded in their classical form by the behavioralist revo-lution, with the neo-institutionalists they returned to the fore, inter alia in connection with rational choice models. At the same time, it is equally evident that the theoretical landscape has remained pluralist, as a simple glance at sociological and historical insti-tutionalism shows (Kaiser 2007). The complexity and extrapolation of the theoretical debate points to the necessity of linking Comparative Politics in more closely with Po-litical Theory (cf. Holmes 2003). In the same way as in the discussion concerning meth-ods, we must be careful not to lose sight of the subject focus of Comparative Politics. In this area, we are not concerned with debating theoretical principles, but with developing empirically well founded, medium-range theories dealing with certain political aspects. Alongside the outlined classification strategy, the empirical testing of theories would be a further step towards proving their plausibility and usefulness. Here also, the need for research is considerable. 3. Selected research questions In the following, we will direct our attention to important contexts which provide the incentive for a change in research perspective in Comparative politics. To begin with, we shall look at three not entirely new areas of analysis.

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 13 Comparative social policy could look more intensively into the problem of divi-

sions within society, a problem accentuated by globalisation, namely the forever growing disparity between that segment of society which profits from the integra-tion of world markets and that which suffers from economic, social and political disintegration. How is the way of dealing with the cleavages in societies consti-tuted as nation states, organised politically ? Do new configurations of parties and ‘reform’ policies arise from this context ?

Comparative research into violence, armed conflict and the causes thereof still does not command the attention it deserves. Current military and other violent conflicts are frequently related to globalisation processes, which in the developing zones of world society limit many states’ capacity to act. The systematic investigation of these is essential, so that we may find more effective approaches for their pacifica-tion. Much speculation is taking place concerning the logic of new wars (Kaldor 2001; Münkler 2002), however well-founded, empirical studies (for example in connection with Lebanon, Pakistan, or Darfour), are in short supply. This deficit has however been recognized recently in the area of peace studies (cf. Jahn et al. 2005). In this context, constructivist and theoretical approaches are gaining in im-portance.

As far as the analysis of the consequences in terms of power and rule of ‘external-ised’ centres of decision-making in individual policy areas is concerned, compara-tive policy regime research is still in its infancy. The democracy and legitimacy de-ficits of international and supranational levels of policy action are indeed the sub-ject of multi-faceted debate, however for all the efforts of the currently flourishing field of Europeanisation research, we know relatively little about the consequences of outsourcing decision-making powers and structures for the organization of pol-icy areas on the one hand and for the stability of governments and nation state-centred democracy on the other. What effects does the externalisation - relieving the state - of important areas of action and the subsequent perception of these by private, intergovernmental and supranational actors and networks have upon the performance and legitimacy of democratic policy and steering systems? What ac-tions and events occur nationally when international actors fail, such as the de-politicised network of central banks in managing crises (such as the current mort-gage bank crisis)?

In general terms, the investigation of the performance and innovative capacity of the state forms an ongoing area of research. The field is gaining in relevance, not only within the context of the reshaping of OECD states (Peters 2001), but also with regard to the exigencies of environmental protection (sustainable development) and also when identifying the development capability of states in other regions. Similarly, the devel-opment of democracy – of its quality and consolidation – remains on the research agenda, although we should not lose sight of the ‘authoritarian rest’, nor of hybrid re-gimes.

A further important question concerns the changing role of the dimension of time for policy. In view of time pressures when dealing with risks, how does the meaning of the time factor, as a political structure of regulation for the handling of public issues, change? As to date, this has hardly been recognised by Comparative Politics as a re-

14 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler search question, we shall in the following outline related problems in somewhat more detail. What constitutes the term ‘time’ in modern thinking is an understanding of time, which is shaped by enlightened thought. This contemporary perspective is opposed to the theological or metaphysical understanding of the definite character of time (escha-tology) and postulates the basic openness of the future as being of a social and thus in principle controllable construction of society (Nowotny/Gibbons 2001).

Political action and time stand in close relation to each other; for political action is temporalized even in its most minute detail. Time can be interpreted as a regulation structure in which every form of political rule takes place. Time constitutes the context for action within which form, content and process of policy unfold. Within a political understanding of time, we can speak of a ‘time regime’ in two respects; first, in terms of steering and coordination, the political subsystem of society has its own specific time dimension (Riescher 1994). This includes short time periods, such as election cycles, just as much as it does a continuity, in terms of time, of levels of expectation within the framework of institutional guarantees; secondly, in its role of a specialised system of functions, which must make and execute binding decisions for society, political deci-sions intervene, based on their steering and coordinating capacity, in the temporal ar-rangement of remaining subsystems (such as work times, public holidays and feast days).

The relentless speed of innovation (for example through the internet and converg-ing technologies), environmental risks (climate change, or epidemics), as well as the ‘war on terror’, all serve as aspects of a development which is bringing about changes in the dimension of time. The meaning of this for Political Science is that, in view of catas-trophes which have already occurred, as well as limited resources, the future is drawing ever nearer to the present, thus time risks forfeiting its ‘open’ character. The future is shrinking to a ‘stretched present’ (Nowotny 1993). The question of how policy reacts to the new challenges requires investigation. Can a new political handling of towards scarce time assist in bringing risks under control?

Even this short, cursory overview demonstrates that Comparative Politics will not lack relevant themes and questions. In fact, it is expected that these will gain in rele-vance. 4. Research perspectives 4.1 Governance as a framework for the restructuring of theoretical approaches Alongside the intensive theoretical review itself, theory formation could be promoted by addressing suitable conceptual frameworks. An example would be the actor-centric institutional approach (Scharpf 2000) or the Veto Player Theorem (Tsebelis 2002), albeit conceived for a narrower thematic application. A further suggestion would be the governance approach (Benz et al. 2007), which could prove to bear fruit for Compara-tive Politics, although – or perhaps also because – this is not a new theoretical approach, but ‘simply’ a refocusing of the analysis perspective. The refocusing of the analysis

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 15 perspective of areas of Political Science, as it is expressed within the governance ap-proach, is not an abrupt process, but more an evolutionary one, driven by changes in political reality on the one hand, and by a changing view of these on the other. The transformation of statehood, characterized within the state’s domain of rule by a dimin-ishing relevance of hierarchical decisions and in the international ‘rule-free’ domain by an increase in institutions to address the growing interdependence between states and societies, can be adequately understood using the governance concept, as previous stud-ies in this area have shown. The concept is of sufficient scope and flexibility to encom-pass all variants of political steering, i.e. the coordination of collective actors, made possible through institutionalization (cf. the articles in Benz et al. 2007).

Despite certain continuities, the governance approach differs significantly from earlier steering concepts, especially not from those of policy area analysis: The steering concept within governance research is not organized hierarchically.

Steering is understood to be the institutionalized coordination of problem-solving. With this expansion of the steering term, markets, networks and international re-gimes also come within its scope, and are correspondingly referred to as forms of governance.

Governance structures are the result of policy institutionalization processes, and are thus emerging patterns of order. Numerous actors take part in their political forma-tion. Their ideas, values and interests define the governance structure, each in dif-fering intensity, as well as the way in which it makes possible and channels collec-tive action.

Apart from the development of governance structures, we are also interested in how they work and perform. The focus, or governance perspective, is upon their institutional arrangement. This can be either hierarchical or decentralized, so that directed, collective action may be possible. The similarity of the governance analy-sis to the actor-centric institutionalism of Mayntz and Scharpf is evident. The dif-ference between both analysis approaches is especially clear in that the governance approach is integrated within a steering perspective, which is interested in over-coming policy problems, for example the provision of scarce and disputed public resources.

If it is therefore correct for the investigation of institutionalized forms of coordination of policy action, and their performance in policy problem solving, to form the focal point of Political Science’s analysis of governance, then for Comparative Politics, a rich field of activity will unfold. In the process, multi-level coordination should claim the fullest attention. As already intimated above, the establishment of a large number of govern-ance structures with global, regional or bilateral competence points to the development of a largely functionally conceived, new supranational steering level. With this, multi-level coordination – its success or failure – is becoming an ever-present problem for Political Science, of which the handling necessitates the closest cooperation from all of its sub-disciplines.

Even if the governance approach is susceptible to a technocratic management bias (with regard to problem solving, performance capability, effectiveness and efficiency of

16 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler governance), it can be used critically. Ultimately, it depends upon which political or normative aims are being pursued. Even if the pursuance of such aims is not part of the primary task of Comparative Politics, it is insufficient to employ comparative research merely to explain what already exists. It is also (and in practical terms always) about overcoming social problems through policy. In a globalised world, the important task of intercultural understanding also presents itself. This refers not only to the methodologi-cal and theoretical discussion as mentioned above, but also aims at a task of translation, addressing itself to political actors and society. This is not about a culturalist-led, meth-odological and theoretical relativism, but about the task of cultural understanding.

4.2 Consequences for the organisation of research This study has served to underline the relevance of methods and theory for Comparative Politics. What is evident is that the methodological body of research is far more devel-oped than the theoretical. Whilst methodological questions seek to expand knowledge and use instruments appropriately, on the theoretical level, it is initially a matter of or-ganizing existing theoretical findings more systematically than before, and of reviewing these in the light of future research. At the same time, strands of theory can be borrowed from related disciplines. More important still however is the integration within Political Science itself. In particular, the necessary argumentative justification of terms, measures and concepts suggests a close cooperation with Political Theory and Political Philoso-phy. If in addition, the set aims of political action as regards effectiveness and efficiency are to be thematically organised, then this argumentative accountability applies just as much.

Partial cooperation with the area of International Relations could also prove bene-ficial, as considerations in the areas of multi-level analysis and diffusion research have demonstrated. Moreover, many questions of International Politics are anchored within Comparative Politics. Prime examples are themes concerning the external promotion of democracy and the rule of law, as well as the realization of the Millennium Develop-ment Goals for developing countries. It is precisely this use of external means which requires sufficient knowledge about internal effect mechanisms, so as to avoid non-intended consequences. Comparative Politics can make this knowledge available. At the same time, it relies upon interdisciplinary cooperation. If however, we consider the insufficient realization of this so often expressed need, for which differing factors are to blame, considerable scepticism arises concerning such interdisciplinary research strate-gies. Despite this, we should not immediately shelve any interdisciplinary undertaking. A glance at recent developments shows that selective cooperation, dealing specifically with participants’ requirements, proves most effective, whether it be reflection upon data or upon methods. Thus selective interdisciplinary cooperation shows itself to be a pragmatic way forward.

In general, the international scientific community is presently showing a tendency towards extrapolation and specialization. In contrast, any suggestion aiming at a com-prehensive and integrated research strategy seems a rather outdated venture, in particu-lar with a view to the 21st century. However, to simply perceive both poles as mutually

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 17 exclusive would be a mistaken perception of our suggestion. In fact, we are suggesting their connection. Extrapolation and specialization are indeed essential, but the embed-ding of these in overlapping research contexts equally so. This often overburdens the capacity of a single researcher. Therefore the solution can only lie in the establishment of institutional research contexts, to which individual researchers bring their own spe-cific abilities, as well as in the integration of research, able to react flexibly to require-ments. So that it may respond to current questions in cooperation and on a continuing basis, overcome existing cleavages, comparative research is based upon individual openness (Caporaso 2000)8. The fact that many German institutes of Political Science can only deliver the necessary competence in a very limited way is due mainly to insuf-ficient staffing levels, which lie far behind in comparison with corresponding institutes in Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian countries. Action is required here, as gaps can only be filled in a limited way with third-party funding projects and cooperation across insti-tutes, although these steps are meaningful. Comparative Politics in the 21st century is a collective venture, driven not least, and not insignificantly, by communication within the scientific community. Bibliography Beck, Ulrich. 1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Edition Zweite Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Behrens, Maria (ed.). 2005. Globalisierung als politische Herausforderung. Global Governance zwischen

Utopie und Realität. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Benz, Arthur, Susanne Lütz, Uwe Schimank und Georg Simonis (eds.). 2007. Handbuch Governance. Wies-

baden: VS-Verlag. Benz, Arthur. 2003. Konstruktive Vetospieler in Mehrebenensystemen. In: Mayntz, Renate und Wolfgang

Streeck eds.). Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie: Innovationen und Blockaden (Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung, Bd. 45). Frankfurt a.M., New York: Campus-Verlag. 205-236.

Berg-Schlosser, Dirk und Ferdinand Müller-Rommel (eds.). 1997. Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. 3. Auflage. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

Bluntschli, Johann Caspar. 1875. Lehre vom modernen Staat. Stuttgart: Cotta. Caporaso, James. 2000. Comparative Politics: Diversity and Coherence. In: Comparative Political Studies 33

(6-7). 699-702. Chilcote, Ronald H. 1994. Theories of Comparative Politics. The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered, Boul-

der (org. 1981). Collier, David and James E. Mahoney, Jr. 1993. Conceptual Stretching Revisited: Adapting Categories. In:

Comparative Analysis (APSR, vol. 87, no. 4). 845-855. Collier, David and Steven Levitsky. 1997. Democracy with Adjectives. Conceptual Innovation in Compara-

tive Research. In: World Politics (April). 430-451. Coriat, Benjamin, Pascal Petit, and Geneviève Schneider (eds.). 2006. The Hardship of Nations. Exploring the

Paths of Modern Capitalism. Cheltenham, Northampton: Elgar. Erdmann, Gero und Marianne Kneuer (eds.). 2008. Externe Faktoren der Demokratisierung. Baden-Baden:

Nomos Felder, Michael. 2001. Die Transformation von Staatlichkeit. Europäisierung und Bürokratisierung in der

Organisationsgesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

8 This is also true of regional cooperation and at the same time, of the perception of Comparative Politics in other countries through North American research (Munck 2006). The IPSA and its Research Committees represent a good forum for integration. Helpful in theoretical and methodological understanding in the area of comparative studies is the Committee on Concepts and Methods: http://www.concepts-methods.org/.

18 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler Follath, Erich und Alexander Jung (eds.). 2006. Der neue Kalte Krieg. Kampf um die Rohstoffe. München:

DVA. Gabriel, Oscar W., Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot and Hank V. Savitch. (eds.) 2000. Urban Democracy.

Opladen. Leske + Budrich Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles. Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative

Politics. University of Michigan Press. Gut, Azar. 2007. The Reform of Authoritarian Powers. In: Foreign Affairs (86/4). 59-70. Hall, Peter and Rosemary C. R. Taylor. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. In:

Political Studies (44). 936-57. Helmke, Gretchen and Steven Levitsky. 2004. Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research

Agenda. In: Perspectives on Politics (2, 4). 725-740. Helms, Ludger und Uwe Jun (eds.). 2004. Politische Theorie und Regierungslehre. Eine Einführung in die

politikwissenschaftliche Institutionenforschung. Frankfurt/Main: Campus. Holmes, Jennifer S. 2003. New Approaches to Comparative Politics: Insights from Political Theory (Global

Encounters). Lexington Books. Holzinger, Katharina; Jörgens, Helge und Christoph Knill (eds.) 2007. Transfer, Diffusion und Konvergenz

von Politiken, PVS Sonderheft 38, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag Jahn, Detlef. 2006. Einführung in die Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Jahn, Detlef. 2006. Globalization a „Galton’s Problem“: The Missing Link in the Analysis of the Diffusion

Patterns in Welfare State Development. In: International Organization 60 (2). 401-431. Jahn, Egbert, Sabine Fischer und Astrid Sahm (eds.). 2005. Die Zukunft des Friedens, Bd. 2, Die Friedens-

und Konfliktforschung aus der Perspektive der jüngeren Generationen, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Tonny Brems Knudsen (eds.). 2006. International Relations in Europe. Traditions,

perspectives and destinations. London, New York: Routledge. Jung, Dietrich, Klaus Schlichte und Jens Siegelberg. 2003. Kriege in der Weltgesellschaft. Strukturgeschicht-

liche Erklärung Kriegerischer Gewalt (1945 – 2002). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kaiser, André. 2007. Neuere Beiträge zur empirischen Institutionenanalyse: Von der Gegenstands- zur Prob-

lemorientierung. In: PVS 48 (1). 119-135. Kaldor, Mary. 2001. New Types of Conflict. In: Stanley, Ruth (eds.). Gewalt und Konflikt in einer globalis-

ierten Welt. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. 24 – 50. Keman, Hans (eds.) 2002. Comparative Democratic Politics: A Guide to Contemporary Theory and Research.

London u.a. Sage. Kropp, Sabine und Hans-Joachim Lauth (Hrsg.). 2007. Gewaltenteilung und Demokratie. Konzepte und

Probleme der „Horizontal Accountability“ im interregionalen Vergleich. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Lauth, Hans-Joachim (ed.). 2006. Vergleichende Regierungslehre. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2000. Informal Institutions and Democracy, in: Democratization 7, (4). 21-50. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2003. Typologien in der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft: Überlegungen zum Korre-

spondenzproblem. In: Pickel, Gert, Susanne Pickel, Detlef Jahn und Hans-Joachim Lauth (eds.).Vergleichende politikwissenschaftliche Methoden – Neue Entwicklungen und Diskussionen. Wiesbaden. VS-Verlag. 37-58.

Lichbach, Mark I. and Alan S. Zuckerman. 1997. Comparative Politics. Rationality, Culture and Structure. New York, NY: Cambridge UP.

Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. In: American Political Science Review 65 (3). 682-693.

Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.

Mahoney, James. 2007. Debating the State of Comparative Politics: Views From Qualitative Research. In: Comparative Political Studies (40). 32-38.

Mayone, José M. 2006. The New World Architecture. The Role of the European Union in the Making of Global Governance. New Brunswick, London: Transaction.

Meimeth, Michael und Joachim Schild (eds.). 2002. Die Zukunft von Nationalstaaten in der europäischen Integration. Deutsche und französische Perspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Menzel, Ulrich. 1998. Globalisierung versus Fragmentierung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Menzel, Ulrich. 2001. Das Ende der einen Welt oder die weißen Flecken auf der Landkarte nehmen wieder zu.

In: Oberreuter, Heinrich und Michael Piazolo (eds.). Global denken. Die Rolle des Staates in der inter-nationalen Politik zwischen Kontinuität und Wandel. München: Olzog. 180-194.

Merkel, Wolfgang. 1999. Systemtransformation. Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transforma-tionsforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Comparative Politics in the 21st Century 19 Munck, Gerardo L. 2006. The Past and Present of Comparative Politics. In: USC Working Papers (330). Munck, Gerardo L. and Richard Snyder (eds.). 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics.

Johns Hopkins University Press. Munck, Gerardo L. and Richard Snyder. 2007. Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis

of Leading Journals. In: Comparative Political Studies (40). 5-31. Münkler, Herfried. 2002. Die neuen Kriege. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Novotny, Helga, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in

an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press. Nowotny, Helga. 1993. Eigenzeit. Entstehung und Strukturierung eines Zeitgefühls. Frankfurt am Main:

Suhrkamp. Peters, Guy B. 1998. Comparative Politics. Theory and Methods. Basingstoke, London. Peters, B. Guy. 2001. The Future of Governing. 2nd revised edition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Pickel, Susanne, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth und Detlef Jahn (eds.). 2003. Vergleichende politikwissen-

schafte Methoden. Neue Entwicklungen und Diskussion. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York, NY: Wiley. Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. Ragin, Charles, C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.

Berkeley. University of California Press Ragin, Charles, C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, London. University of Chicago Press Riescher, Gisela. 1994. Zeit und Politik. Zur institutionellen Bedeutung von Zeitstrukturen in parlamenta-

rischen und präsidentiellen Regierungssystemen. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Rosecrance, Richard N. and Arthur A. Stein (eds.). 2006. No More States? Globalization, National Self-

determination and Terrorism. Lanham u.a.: Rowman. Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.). 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder. Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. In: American Political Science

Review (64). 1033-53. Scharpf, Fritz W. 2000. Interaktionsformen. Akteurszentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung.

Opladen. Leske + Budrich. Schmidt, Manfred G. 2006. Demokratietheorien. Eine Einführung, 3rd edition, Wiesbaden, Vs Verlag. Stiftung Entwicklung und Frieden. 2006. Global Governance für Entwicklung und Frieden. Perspektiven nach

einem Jahrzehnt. Bonn: Dietz. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen. 2007. Welt im Wandel –

Sicherheitsrisiko Klimawandel, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Zangl, Bernhard und Michael Zürn (eds.). 2004. Verrechtlichung – Baustein für Global Governance? EINE

Welt-Texte der Stiftung Entwicklung und Frieden. Bonn: Dietz. Zielonka, Jan. 2006. Europe as Empire. The Nature of the Enlarged European Union. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press. Zürn, Michael. 1998. Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Globalisierung und Denationalisierung als Chan-

ce. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Prof. Dr. Georg Simonis ( ) Institute of Political Science University of Hagen ESG, Universitätsstr. 41 D-58084 Hagen georg.simonis@fernuni-hagen.de

20 Georg Simonis • Hans-Joachim Lauth • Stephan Bröchler Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Lauth Institute of Political Science University of Hagen ESG, Universitätsstr. 41 D-58084 Hagen Hans-Joachim.Lauth@fernuni-hagen.de PD Dr. Stephan Bröchler Institute of Political Science University of Hagen ESG, Universitätsstr. 41 D-58084 Hagen stephan.broechler@FernUni-Hagen.de