Comparative Politics: Explaining Democratic Systems

Books

Edited by: Judith Bara & Mark Pennington

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Excerpts of Reviews

    ‘What is distinctive about this authoritative and comprehensive book on comparative politics is the way in which it is underpinned throughout by a theoretical analysis centred on a new institutionalist approach.’

    Professor Wyn Grant, University of Warwick

    Comparative Politics takes a fresh and original approach to the field … it examines the role of structures, rules and norms in regulating the individual and collective behaviour of political actors. Each chapter provides a critical bibliography and key questions which will be particularly useful for students approaching Comparative Politics for the first time. Altogether this is a comprehensive and useful read which I warmly recommend.’

    Ian Budge, Professor Emiritus Professor of Government, University of Essex

    ‘This is a most useful book. Teachers of comparative politics often scramble around, with out-of-date textbooks and photocopies of more or less compatible articles. Here is a new book that gives an up-to-date, comprehensive and systematic introduction to the major strands of institutional thought and applies these to the major institutions, processes and policy areas. It will be a great help for many of us, academics and students alike.’

    Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, Professor of Comparative Politics, University of Copenhagen

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Preface

    The original proposal for this text evolved from the development of a new comparative politics course that the editors have convened in recent years at Queen Mary, University of London. Besides being designed to provide students with access to descriptive material with regard to political institutions and processes in a number of different countries, the course explicitly seeks to introduce three major theoretical paradigms that have sought to explain the operation of institutions in democratic states and to facilitate comparison across different political systems.

    While we were able to recommend appropriate texts that have provided good descriptive material about a variety of different countries and introduction to methodologies used in comparative analysis, none were able to offer adequate discussion of competing theoretical perspectives at an appropriate level. We felt strongly that since a strategic objective was to enable explanation of political institutions, actors or behaviour within a comparative framework, we required an appropriate text to support this. Furthermore, we were keen to expose students to different general explanatory models in order to develop analytic and critical skills.

    This book is thus primarily a text designed to introduce first-year undergraduate students to three major theoretical institutional frameworks and research paradigms in contemporary political science. As such, it is suitable both for first-year courses in comparative government and politics and introductory courses in concepts and methods of political science. Its core objectives are:

    • To provide a readable introduction to modern comparative political analysis on the basis of ‘new institutionalist’ theoretical frameworks. The emphasis will be on different approaches to the task of explaining the similarities and differences in institutions and their effects on political and governmental practices in modern representative democracies. Thus it can be used as a basis for the examination and explanation of political institutions in one state or in several.
    • To equip students with an appreciation of comparative research methods in political science.
    • To outline key institutional features (electoral systems, territorial and functional divisions, and so forth) of government and politics in a selection of modern states.
    • To examine the role of some of the major actors (voters, interest groups, leaders) in modern states.

    Several authors have undertaken the development of the book, the majority of whom teach in the Department of Politics at Queen Mary. Those based elsewhere have had varying connections with the Department or have developed their own teaching and research along similar lines.

    But this book is not simply based on cherry-picking appropriate elements of a particular course. It owes much to a number of other people who have provided invaluable input into the curriculum at different junctures, notably Adrian Blau, Pilar Domingo, John Meadowcroft and Wayne Parsons, whose contribution we appreciate. We are also grateful for the support of the Department and for the constructive suggestions and comments made by our seminar teachers and, of course, our students.

    Finally, we would like to thank our publishers, Lucy Robinson and David Mainwaring and their team at SAGE Publications for their encouragement, assistance and professionalism — and above all for their patience — in guiding this project to completion.

    JudithBara and MarkPenningtonLondon, June 2008

    Contributors

    Judith Bara is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary, University of London and Research Fellow in Government at the University of Essex.

    David S. Bell is Professor of French Government and Politics and Head of Social Studies and Law at the University of Leeds.

    Jocelyn A.J. Evans is Professor of Politics at the University of Salford.

    Catherine Needham is Lecturer Politics at Queen Mary, University of London.

    Brendan O'Duffy is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary, University of London.

    Mark Pennington is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary, University of London.

    David Robertson is Professor of Politics, University of Oxford and Vice Principal, St Hugh's College, Oxford.

  • Afterword: Comparative Politics and the Three Approaches Revisited

    Introduction

    In summary, we revisit the three theoretically informed approaches to comparative government and politics introduced in Chapter 1 and, with the help of examples drawn from the contributions to the book, we assess whether or not these are useful to our understanding of ways in which modern political institutions and actors operate.

    Summary of Development of Comparative Politics

    As you will recall, comparative politics first became established in Greece around 350 BCE, and is mainly associated with Aristotle's classification system for types of regime – monarchies, tyrannies, aristocracies, monarchies, democracy and mob rule.

    How did he arrive at this system? He basically asked two questions:

    How many rule? One person? A few people? Many people?

    In whose interests? Their own? Or all citizens?

    Much of this type of knowledge became submerged until the Renaissance in the 15th century and especially the Enlightenment in the 18th century. Renewed interest was largely due to the advent of modern theoretical ideas about the state (Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu) and the growing importance of scientific method (Newton, Darwin).

    The fusion of these two schemes of thought occurred in the 19th century, mainly as a result of the influence of philosophy and social enquiry, pioneered by the first modern political sociologists (Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and the elite theorists, Mosca, Pareto and Michels). What was so different about these thinkers?

    • Systematic, scientific, logical approaches.
    • Explanation guided by theoretical perspectives.
    • Related to the ‘real world’ in that empirical evidence sought to ‘prove’ theories.

    Thus, classifications, reasons for political and social change, the nature of the state and power relations were studied both theoretically and empirically. For the first time, theorists began to look at the ‘big picture’ and compare and contrast examples across time and space. They also often suggested remedies to problems. However, these were often far from objective. Ideologically charged explanations were employed to legitimise or delegitimise actions by one or other of the protagonists in the Cold War. Indeed, the 20th century might be portrayed as a hundred years of dialogue with Marx.

    Even where explanation was not deliberately ideological in orientation, it has tended to be difficult to apply to reality because of the nature of the models used, as is the case with Aristotle's model.

    One issue concerns the fact that there is a lack of agreement about how to examine reality, what to examine and what data or information is the ‘proper’ province of comparative politics. Conversely, such diversity is perhaps what makes the subject really interesting. It is clear that explanatory frameworks based on theoretical-approaches are useful tools in aiding our understanding of the political universe and help us compare and contrast practice in different countries – even if these countries are all agreed to be representative democracies. To be effective such theoretically-based explanatory tools must be able to be used at different levels of activity and be meaningful across time and space. A fruitful place to start looking for such tools is within the tradition of the ‘new institutionalism.’

    The Three Theoretical Explanations Revisited

    Different groups of scholars have adopted specific positions on what they consider to be the ‘best’ theoretical explanation, thus establishing different schools of thought, or perhaps more realistically, different lenses through which the political world can be measured, understood and assessed. Among institutionalists, three of the most useful, as far as comparative analysis is concerned, are the cultural, structural and rational choice approaches. They do not necessarily always explain every single topic fully, and, as we have seen in several contributions to this volume, there are increasing attempts to try and draw on their particular strengths and synthesise these to provide more effective models.

    Our main intentions in writing this book were to:

    • enhance understanding as to how competing schools of thought see political activity;
    • increase appreciation of how these different ways of viewing the world give rise to different types of explanation;
    • provide a basis for the critical awareness of strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches.

    One of the ways in which we understand better the main similarities and differences between these powerful analytic tools is by looking at the essential properties of the three approaches identified, by, inter alia, Lichbach and Zuckerman (1997) as set out in Table A. 1.

    Table A.1 Properties of three explanatory approaches

    Rather than focusing on each approach separately, Table A.1 takes three standard elements associated with any theoretical model – ontology, methodology and epistemology – and examines how these differ, how comparisons are made and what shortcomings might be associated with each approach.

    Ontology

    Ontology relates to the ways in which theoretical perspectives perceive political reality and what basic concepts they use to interpret the world. Thus rational choice theorists would, predictably, use rationality as the basic guiding force for behaviour and focus on explaining why individuals or institutions behave as they do. Thus individuals, for example, would act in a rational manner to maximise their advantage in any given situation and would always behave in the same way when confronted by similar situations. Action is thus deliberate, and decisions whether or not to take action will be governed by perceptions of the utility of expected outcomes for the individual.

    Cultural theorists would regard rules or norms of behaviour as the key guiding principle for action. Because members of different groups would subscribe to a common culture, this would form the source for the basic principles guiding behaviour. Structural institutionalists see the world as a whole entity constructed on the basis of a series of relationships between groups or classes. The dominant group or class would have most influence on prescribing forms of action.

    Methodology

    Methodology is the way in which we go about investigating how political institutions operate across state borders and/or time periods. Rational theorists prefer to use comparative statics. They compare and contrast events or processes as they stand, rather than as series of dynamic developments. They are especially interested in path dependency, an approach developed from behavioural science, which examines consequences of action as a main focus, irrespective of whether or not these were the outcomes actually intended by the actors involved. Another methodology favoured is game theory or other counter-factual type methodology, whereby models are established to predict what might happen if certain input factors were changed. For example, what might have happened in terms of possible regime change in Iraq if the USA government had not invaded in 2003?

    Cultural institutionalists employ methodologies that emphasise the meaning and significance afforded to both action and outcome. They utilise concepts that are highly dependent on cultural norms and values – factors that underpin, as they see it, the identity of individuals, groups and institutions, and thus represent the main influences on both means and ends. Structural theorists take a fairly instrumental approach to methodology, favouring the establishment of social types and explanation of social reality as a process of change over time brought about by changing dynamics in the relationships between these types. Hence, they favour causal relationships between events, groups and institutions.

    Epistemology

    Epistemology relates to how different forms of explanation conceive of the nature of knowledge and specifically how we acquire our knowledge. In a sense this relates to different approaches to a ‘science’ of knowledge. All three theoretical frameworks have different foci in respect of this, and since we are concerned with comparative analysis here, let us look especially at how these relate to comparison.

    Rational choice institutionalists base their approach to knowledge on positivist philosophy, focusing on providing general explanations of political behaviour and action. Cultural institutionalists favour interpretivist approaches, pioneered originally by social anthropologists, which seek to bring about understanding as opposed to explanation, often on the basis of case studies. Structural approaches argue by contrast that what we have in reality is a series of institutions that are the products of historical events. Hence, institutional forms and behaviour are the effects of historical causation.

    Shortcomings

    Throughout this volume we have shown that any one of these approaches in isolation may not always be the most appropriate for enhancing our understanding of political reality or explaining why institutions in any given setting work in the ways that they do. We have also seen that it would often be advantageous for the approaches to combine several of their more powerful features and produce hybrid frameworks based, say, on both cultural and rational elements. It is widely accepted that there have been genuine criticisms levied against each of these approaches and that all have recognizable shortcomings. Table A.1 summarises the most frequent. For example, rational choice approaches are seen as being overly instrumental, mechanical and weak in terms of explaining collective decisions and the outcome of collective action. Conversely, structural approaches are seen as poor in terms of being able to explain individual action, as well as being overly deterministic, so preoccupied as they are with cause and effect. Such approaches are generally criticised for their subjectivity, and hence they are often biased as well as being weak at explaining processes of change.

    Applications

    Discussion of how we use the approaches and assess their value in explaining the nature of specific institutions and actors in the political arena of representative democracies has been the subject matter of this volume. In conclusion, let us revisit a few of these applications in summary form to act as an illustration of the general properties of the three frameworks.

    The Nation-State and Nationalism

    We have seen that there are a number of competing theories that seek to offer explanations of nationalism and the consequent emergence of the modern nation-state and most of them fit quite neatly within our three approaches.

    Cultural explanations, exemplified by the views of Anthony D. Smith, argue that states pre-date the modern era as they depend on ‘ethno-symbolism’ – re-inventions of myths, legends, language and so forth. These of course can also be linked to other cultural factors such as religion and language.

    Related ‘cultural’ arguments take a more hybrid approach (such as Adrian Hastings) and argue that the institutional role of religion underpins cultural attachment to a state, for example, Pakistan or Ireland.

    There are many structural approaches to nationalism and the nation-state, and we have looked at one of the main examples, that of Ernest Gellner, who argued that it was only after the establishment of a modern, industrial system that the nation-state could be realised, based on ‘cultural materialism’. Like Benedict Anderson, he supported the idea that it was largely due to the invention of the printing press and the growth of literacy that people could learn about the benefits accruing to them from developing a self-determined, territorial entity. People could see themselves as part of ‘imagined communities’, sharing values and so on with people they had never met. Even more rooted in the Marxist, structural tradition is Eric Hobsbawm's view that nationalism is part of the class dynamic, as it creates ‘invented traditions’ which can be harnessed by dominant bourgeois interests.

    Rational choice approaches, such as those of Michael Hechter, are probably the least well-supported. These suggest that the development of nationalism is based on the realisation that it provides individuals with ‘selective incentives’.

    More recently we have heard how, in addition to explaining the establishment of nation-states, these three theoretical models assist our understanding of both the break up of nation states, and also federalism.

    Federalism

    Cultural interpretations argue that federalism is more effective in terms of providing for stable political systems if the society concerned represents a single or dominant culture, and especially if they can create a myth of representing a ‘melting pot’, like the USA, where minority interests can be dispersed territorially.

    Structural interpretations focus on the idea that federations are efficient in that they can operate economies of scale and are more likely to be successful if they set up effective mechanisms to regulate disputes between different economic interests.

    Rational choice explanations argue that federations can act as efficient producers and distributors of public goods and can also, if operated properly, enhance individual initiative and preserve individual liberty. This of course is based on the assumption that there is a lack of internal constraint on individuals, especially in terms of freedom of internal movement and commerce.

    Voters and Non-voters

    This is an area of the discipline where there is a great deal of research, predicated on one or other of these explanatory paradigms, and which also encompass explanations of why people might turn out to vote or not. Let us revisit the topics of electoral turnout and voting behaviour.

    Cultural explanations argue that there may be elements of a group's culture which might mitigate against voting or, more likely, that they do not see any candidates/parties which represent their cultural interests, nor a party so inimical that they have to turn out to vote against it. Such cultural explanations suggest that people vote on the basis of pre-developed attitudes developed on the basis of their interpretation of cultural values and norms. Hence a practising Christian in the Netherlands would vote for the Christian Democrats, if religion superseded other interests like class. If the opposite were the case, they would vote for the Dutch Labour Party.

    Structural arguments, from a Marxist-inspired class perspective at least, argue that voting is simply a means of propping up the capitalist class's stranglehold on the state. Other forms of structural institutionalism might argue that the electoral system is inimical to the interests of some individuals, such as some minorities, and thus discourages turn out among those groups.

    Moving to those who do turn out, why do they choose the parties they do? Structural explanations argue that people vote according to attachment to a deep-seated structural factor such as class.

    Rational choice explanations argue that individuals will only vote if they feel that there is something in it for them which maximises their own interests, and if it does not involve extra ‘costs’. Theorists argue that individuals vote for parties purely on the basis of their own, often material interests, and if they can argue rationally that there is a party which represents these interests. This is often labelled ‘pocketbook’ voting as it is usually associated with voter perceptions of which party could maximise their financial interests if elected! This is over-simplistic.

    Political Executives

    Cultural approaches argue that the nature of the executive and its ‘rules’ of procedure are related to cultural variables such as social cleavage or tradition.

    Structural explanations also examine the role of institutions but in terms of the role they play in terms of influencing/undermining freedom of executive action, such as assemblies, bureaucracies, parties. They too tend to concentrate on rules and procedures as foci of attention.

    Rational choice theories concentrate on institutional factors – especially negotiating systems in the process of determining policy. How is the role of the executive maximised? Are policy decisions always rational however?

    Judicial Power

    It was argued earlier (Chapter 7) that in considering theoretical frameworks appropriate to the explanation of judicial power, we might commence by positioning the various approaches favoured by political scientists along a spectrum. One end of the spectrum would be occupied by an approach that is purely legal in outlook and views court decisions as based entirely on legal argument. Such an approach would deny the validity of sociological or even institutional argument. Hence it could be seen as a purely legal model. At the other end we would find an extra legal model, which emphasises the idea that courts are simply one set of political institutions among many and thus behave in exactly the same way as a bureaucracy or executive, in terms of making choices which will enhance or maximise their position. Such ‘extra legal’ models incorporate criteria such as judicial values and socio-political factors in seeking explanations of reality. In reality what we find is a series of interpretations which draw on both these approaches.

    Thus, a rational plus cultural hybrid approach is arguably the strategy most favoured and adopted by political scientists studying judicial power, although it will be identified under a variety of labels, most commonly the attitudinal model. Such frameworks see judges as independent political actors who use their courts to turn their own political preferences into policy. Hence, it is necessary to study judges’ strategy and their methods, for example how they seek to build coalitions to make their views succeed. This type of approach thus combines cultural with rational choice approaches.

    In studying the role of judges and courts comparatively we need to recognise that they are quite different from other political actors since they rely on highly constrained and technical legal argument for their power and influence. Hence it is imperative that due attention is given to the actual legal opinions uttered by courts in any study of the courts. Studies that do not recognise this will fail even to explain what a court has done, let alone why it has done it. As Robertson demonstrates (1998), the political impact of a single decision depends on how the judges really intended it to work, how broadly they intend or expect future courts and administrators to interpret the result, and this can only be known by looking at the reasons they gave for such a decision.

    And Finally

    From these summary examples drawn from among our more detailed arguments in the book we can see clearly how the three theoretically informed explanatory approaches to comparative politics upon which we have focused:

    • are based on clear and contrasting visions of political reality;
    • offer different perspectives on the nature and development of political institutions and behaviour;
    • reflect different views of methods and knowledge;
    • may have shortcomings and cannot always provide answers in all circumstances.

    They are not the only models in comparative politics and are not necessarily appropriate to the study of every single aspect of the discipline, as we have seen, for example, in the case of political leadership. Their strength rests in their ability to provide a series of tools to assist us in our quest for explanation, understanding and meaning in the complex world of 21st-century political reality. They equip us with the ability to investigate this world and understand and explain similarities and differences in both the operation of political institutions and the behaviour of political actors across the increasing number of representative democracies that populate our political universe.

    References

    Aarts, K. and Wessels, B. (2005) ‘Electoral turnout’, in J.Thomassen (ed.), The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 64–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199273219.003.0003
    Adolphus, J. (1802) The History of England: From the Accession of King George the Third to the Conclusion of Peace in 17 83, vol. II. London: T. Cadell, Jun. and W. Davies.
    Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E. and Levinson, D. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers.
    Agassi, J. (1960) ‘Methodological individualism’, British Journal of Sociology, 11 (3): 244–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/586749
    Agassi, J. (1975) ‘Institutional individualism’, British Journal of Sociology, 26 (2): 144–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/589585
    Aglietta, M. (1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation. London: New Left Books.
    Agranoff, R. (2007) ‘Intergovernmental policy management: cooperative practices in federal systems’, in M.Pagano and R.Leonardi (eds), The Dynamics of Federalism in National and Supranational Political Systems. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    Almond, G.A. and Powell, G.B. (1966) Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
    Almond, G. and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Almond, G., Bingham Powell, G., Strom, K. and Dalton, R. (2004) Comparative Politics Today. London: Longman/Pearson.
    Alter, P. (1994) Nationalism. London: Edward Arnold.
    Alston, L., Eggertsson, T. and North, D. (1996) Empirical Studies in Institutional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
    Anduiza Perea, E. (2002) ‘Individual characteristics, institutional incentives and electoral abstention in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, 41 (5): 643–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.2002.41.issue-5
    Anwar, M. (2001) ‘The participation of ethnic minorities in British politics’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27 (3): 533–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136918301200266220
    Apter, D. (1996) ‘Comparative politics, old and new’, in R.Goodin and H-D.Klingemann (ed.), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 372–97.
    Armingeon, K. (2000) ‘Swiss federalism in comparative perspective’, in U.Wachendorfer-Schmidt (ed.), Federalism and Political Performance. London: Routledge and ECPR. pp. 112–29.
    Armstrong, J. (1982) Nations before Nationalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
    Atkinson, M. (1984) Our Masters’ Voices. London: Methuen.
    Atkinson, M. (2004) Lend Me Your Ears. New York: Vermillion (Random House).
    Bailey, F.G. (1998) Humbuggery and Manipulation. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
    Ball, A. and Peters, B.G. (2005) Modern Politics and Government,
    7th edn.
    Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Barber, B. (1998) ‘Participation and Swiss democracy’, Government and Opposition, 23 (1): 31–50.
    Barber, J.D. (1972) The Presidential Character. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Barber, J.D. (1985) The Presidential Character,
    2nd edn
    Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Barth, F. (1959) Political Leadership Amongst Swat Pathans. London: The Athlone Press.
    Bartolini, S. (1984) ‘Institutional constraints and party competition in the French party system’, West European Politics, 7: 103–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402388408424499
    Bates, R. (1991) Beyond the Miracle of the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Becker, G. (1985) ‘Public policies, pressure groups and dead-weight costs’, Journal of Public Economics, 28: 329–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727%2885%2990063-5
    Bellamy, R. (1996) ‘The political form of the constitution: the separation of powers, rights and representative democracy’, Political Studies, 44, 436–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/post.1996.44.issue-3
    Bendix, R.‘Compliant behaviour and individual personality’, The American Journal of Sociology, 58: 292–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ajs.1952.58.issue-3
    Berrington, H. (1971) ‘The fiery chariot: British prime ministers and the search for love’, British Journal of Political Science, 4: 345–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400009595
    Bingham Powell, G. and Whitten, G. (1993) ‘A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context’, American Journal of Political Science, 37 (2): 391–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111378
    Blais, A. (1988) ‘The classification of electoral systems’, European Journal of Political Research, 16: 99–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.1988.16.issue-1
    Blais, A. (2000) To Vote or Not to Vote: The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
    Blais, A. and Carty, R. (1990) ‘Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?’, European Journal of Political Research, 18 (2): 167–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.1990.18.issue-2
    Blalock, H. and Blalock, A. (1970) Introduction to Social Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Blix, H. (2004) Disarming Iraq. London: Bloomsbury.
    Blondel, J. (1980) World Leaders. London: Sage.
    Blondel, J. (1987) Political Leadership. London: Sage.
    Blondel, J. (1995) Comparative Government,
    2nd edn.
    London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Bluth, C. (2004) ‘The British road to war’, International Affairs, 80 (5): 851–72. http://dx.doi.org/0.1111/inta.2004.80.issue-5
    Bluth, C. and Hoggart, P. (2005) ‘Rejoinders’Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7: 588–604.
    Bohm-Bawerk von, E. (1959) Capital and Interest. South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press.
    Boix, C. (1999) ‘Selecting the rules of the game: the choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies’, American Political Science Review, 93 (3): 609–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585577
    Booth, K. (1995) ‘Human wrongs and international relations’, International Affairs, 71 (1): 103–26.
    Börzel, T. (2001) ‘Europeanization and territorial institutional change: toward cooperative regionalism’, in M. GreenCowles, J.Caporaso and T.Riise (eds), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 144–9.
    Bouma, G.D. and Atkinson, G.B.J. (1995) A Handbook for Social Science Research: A Comprehensive and Practical Guide for Students. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
    Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
    Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L. (1993) Democracy and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    BrewsterSmith, M. (1968) A map for the analysis of personality and politics’, Journal of Social Issues, 24 (3): 15–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.1968.24.issue-3
    Bronfenbrenner, U. (1960) ‘Personality and politics’, Journal of Social Issues, 16: 54–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.1960.16.issue-4
    Broughton, D. and Donovan, M. (eds) (1999) Changing Party Systems in Western Europe. London and New York: Pinter.
    Brown, G. (2007) ‘Remarks by the Rt. Honourable Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a seminar on “Britishness” at the Commonwealth Club, London’. Available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/speeches/chancellorexchequer/speech_chx_270207.cfm(accessed 1 February 2008).
    Brubaker, R. (1996) Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558764
    Bryce, J. (1921) Modern Democracies. London: Macmillan.
    Buchanan, J. (1991) Constitutional Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Buchanan, J. and Tullock, G. (1962) The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    Budge, I. (1996) The New Politics of Direct Democracy. Oxford: Polity.
    Budge, I., Klingemann, H-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. and Tanenbaum, E. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Budge, I., Robertson, D. and Hearl, D.J. (eds) (1987) Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analysis of Post-war Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558771
    Bull, P.E. (1988) ‘Interruptions in interviews’, Journal of Language and Society, 7: 35–45.
    Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
    Burns, J.M. (2003) Transformational Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Butterfield, H. (1953) ‘The role of the individual in history 2’, History, 139 (9): 1–17.
    Butterfield, H. (1962) The Statecraft of Machiavelli. London: Collier.
    Byman, D.L. and Pollack, K.M. (2001) ‘Let us now praise great men’, International Security, 25 (4): 107–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/01622880151091916
    Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W.E. and Stokes, D.E. (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
    Carlyle, T. (1993) On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Castles, F.G. (2000) ‘Federalism, fiscal decentralization and economic performance’, in U.Wachendorfer-Schmidt (ed.), Federalism and Political Performance. London: Routledge. pp. 177–95.
    Chapman, G., Fraser, C., Gaber, I. and Kumar, K. (1997) Environmentalism and the Mass Media. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203443514
    Charlton, P. (2003) Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge.
    Chong, D. (1991) Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
    Chong, D. (2002) Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Cigler, C. and Loomis, B. (eds) (2002) Interest Group Politics. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.
    Clarke, H., Stewart, M., Sanders, D. and Whiteley, P. (2004) Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/019924488X.001.0001
    Coleman, J. (1996) The Individual in Political Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Connor, W. (1994) Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Cowie, L.W. and Wolfson, R. (1985) Years of Nationalism: European History 1815–1890. Oxford: Hodder & Stoughton.
    Cox, G. (1997) Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Coyle, M. (1995) The Prince: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    Crewe, I. and Denver, D. (eds) (1985) Electoral Change in Western Democracies. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
    Crick, B. (1964) In Defence of Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Crick, B. (1973) Basic Forms of Government: A Sketch and a Model. London: Macmillan.
    Curtice, J. and Holmberg, S. (2005) ‘Party leaders and party choice’, in J.Thomassen (ed.), The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 235–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199273219.003.0010
    Daguerre, A. (2004) ‘Importing workfare: policy transfer of social and labour market policies from the USA to Britain under new labour’, Social Policy and Administration, 38 (1): 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spol.2004.38.issue-1
    Dahl, R.A. (1960) Who Governs?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Dahl, R.A. (1970) After The Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Dahl, R.A. (1993) ‘Pluralism’, in J.Krieger (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 704–7.
    Dahrendorf, R. (1990) Reflections of the Revolution in Europe. New York: Random House.
    Dalton, R. (1994) The Green Rainbow: Environmental Groups in Western Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Dalton, R.J. (1996) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Western Democracies. London: Chatham House.
    Dalton, R.J. (2002) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies,
    3rd edn.
    New York: Chatham House.
    Dalton, R.J. and Wattenberg, M.P. (2000) Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Dalton, R.J., Flanagan, S. and Beck, P. (1984) Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Denver, D. (2007) Elections and Voters in Britain,
    2nd edn.
    Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Denzin, N. (1970) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.
    Denzin, N. (1997) Interpretative Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the Twenty-First Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    de Tocqueville, A. (1964) Souvenirs. Paris: Oeuvres Complètes. vol. XII. pp. 83–4.
    Deutscher, I. (1954) The Prophet Outcast. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Devine, F. (2002) ‘Qualitative methods’, in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 197–215.
    Dicey, A.V. (1939) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution,
    10th edn.
    London: Macmillan.
    Dolowitz, D., Hulme, R., Nellis, M. and O'Neill, F. (2000) Policy Transfer and British Social Policy: Learning from the USA?Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Dogan, M. and Kazancigil, A. (ed.) (1994) Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
    Douglas, M. (1982) In the Active Voice. London: Routledge.
    Douglas, M. (1987) How Institutions Think. London: Routledge.
    Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
    Dunleavy, P. (1991) Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
    Duverger, M. (1951) Les Partis Politiques. 1976 reprint, Paris: Armand Colin.
    Duverger, M. (1959) Political Parties,
    2nd edn.
    London: Methuen.
    Duverger, M. (1980) A new Political system model: semi-presidential government’, European Journal of Political Research, 8 (2): 165–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.1980.8.issue-2
    Dyson, K., Humphreys, P., Negrine, R. and Simon, J-P. (1988) Broadcasting and News Media Policies in Western Europe. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203194676
    Economist Intelligence Unit (2005) The World in 2005. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.
    Edelman, M. (1964) The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    Edelman, M. (1971) Politics as Symbolic Action. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.
    Edelman, M. (1978) Political Language. New York, London: Academic Press.
    Edelman, M. (1988) Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
    Edinger, L.J. (1964) ‘Political science and political biography’, Journal of Politics, 26: 423–43.
    Edinger, L.J. (ed.) (1967) Political Leadership in Industrial Societies. New York: John Wiley.
    Elazar, D.J. (1984) American Federalism: A View from the States,
    3rd edn.
    New York: Harper & Row.
    Elazar, D.J. (1987) Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    Elgie, R. (1995) Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies. London: Macmillan.
    Elgie, R. (2004) ‘Semi-presidentialism: concepts, consequences and contesting explanations’, Political Studies Review, 2 (3): 314–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psr.2004.2.issue-3
    Elias, N. (1983) The Court Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Eliasoph, N. (2000) Avoiding Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ellis, S.G. (1999) Ireland in the Age of the Tudors 1447–1603: English Expansion and the End of Gaelic Rule. London: Longman.
    Elster, J. (1985) Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Enelow, J. and Hinich, M. (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Erk, J. (2008) Explaining Federalism: State, Society and Congruence in Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. London: Routledge.
    Evans-Prichard, E. (1940) The Nuers. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
    Eysenck, H.J. (1969) The Psychology of Politics. London: Routledge.
    Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
    Fairclough, N. (2000) New Labour, New Language?London: Routledge.
    Farber, S.M. and Wilson, R.H. (eds) (1963) The Potential of Women. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Farrell, D. (2001) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985) Myths of Gender. New York: Basic Books.
    Femia, J.V. (2004) Machiavelli Revisited. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
    Fielding, N. (1981) The National Front. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Fielding, N. (1993) ‘Qualitative interviewing’, in N.Gilbert (ed.), Researching Social Life. London: Sage. pp. 135–53.
    Finer, S.E. (1970) Comparative Government. London: Allen Lane.
    Finlayson, A. (2002) ‘Elements of a Blairite image of leadership’, Parliamentary Affairs, 55 (3): 586–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/parlij/55.3.586
    Fishkin, J. (1993) Democracy and Deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Foucault, M. (1965) Madness and Civilization. London: Tavistock.
    Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.
    Foucault, M. (1988) ‘The ethic of the care of the self as a practice of freedom’, in J.Bernauer and D.Rasmussen (eds), The Final Foucault. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in G.Burchell, C.Gordon and P.Miller (eds), The Foucault Effect: Essays in Governmentality. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
    Franklin, M. (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616884
    Gallagher, M., Laver, M. and Mair, P. (1992) Representative Government in Western Europe. New York: McGraw Hill.
    Gallagher, M., Laver, M. and Mair, P. (2000) Representative Government in Modern Europe. New York: McGraw Hill.
    Gamson, W.A. (1992) Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Garver, E. (1987) Machiavelli and the History of Prudence. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    George, A.L. (1974) Assessing presidential character’, World Politics, 26 (2): 234–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2009901
    George, A.L. and George, J.L. (1998) Presidential Personality and Performance. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (eds) (1947) From Max Weber. London: Routledge.
    Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Gellner, E. (1996) ‘Do nations have navels: reply to Anthony, D. Smith’, Nations and Nationalism, 2 (3): 366–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8219.1996.tb00003.x
    Gibson, J.L. (1983) ‘From simplicity to complexity: the development of theory in the study of judicial behaviour’, Political Behavior, 5 (1): 7–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989985
    Gibson, J.L. and Caldeira, G.A. (2003) ‘Defenders of democracy? Legitimacy, popular acceptance, and the South African constitutional court’, Journal of Politics, 65 (1): 1–30.
    Gibson, J.L., Caldeira, G.A. and Baird, V.A. (1998) ‘On the legitimacy of national high courts’, American Political Science Review, 92 (2): 343–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585668
    Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: An Introduction to the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums. London: Penguin.
    Goldberg, S. (1993) Why Men Rule. Chicago: Open Court.
    Goldstone, J.A. (1991) Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Goodin, R. (1996) ‘The defense of deadlock’, American Political Science Review, 90: 331–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082888
    Gouldner, A.W. (1965) Studies in Leadership. New York: Russel and Russel.
    Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Graham, J.W. (1995) ‘Leadership, moral development, and citizen behaviour’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (1): 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857271
    Granovetter, M.S. (1985) ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ajs.1985.91.issue-3
    Green, D. and Shapiro, I. (1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Green, P. (1981) The Pursuit of Inequality. Oxford: Robertson.
    Greenstein, F.I. (1967) ‘The impact of personality on politics’, American Political Science Review, 61 (3): 629–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1976084
    Greenstein, F.I. (1975) Personality and Politics. New York: Norton.
    Greenstein, F.I. (1992) ‘Can politics and personality be studied systematically?’, Political Psychology, 13 (1): 105–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3791427
    Greenstein, F.I. (2000a) The Presidential Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Greenstein, F.I. (2000b) ‘The qualities of effective presidents’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30: 178–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psq.2000.30.issue-1
    Guarnieri, C. and Pederzoli, P. (2002) The Power of Judges: A Comparative Study of Courts and Democracy. Oxford Socio-Legal Studies: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298359.001.0001
    Hague, R. and Harrop, M.Comparative Politics: An Introduction,
    7th edn.
    Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Hall, P. (1986) Governing the Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hall, P. and Taylor, R. (1996) ‘Political science and the three institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44 (4): 936–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/post.1996.44.issue-5
    Hamilton, A., Madison, J. and Jay, J. ([1778–8] 1961) The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor.
    Hampshire, S. (ed.) (1991) Public and Private Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hardin, R. (1995) One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Hardin, R. (1996) One for All: The Logic of Group Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Hargrove, E.C. (1998) The President as Leader. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.
    Harrop, M. and Miller, W. (1987) Elections and Voters. A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    Hastings, A. (1997) The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hermann, M.C. (1995) Advice and advisers in the Clinton presidency’, in S.A.Renshon (ed.), The Clinton Presidency. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Hobbes, Thomas ([1660] 1996) Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hobsbawm, E. (1990) Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hoggart, P. (2005) ‘Iraq: Blair's mission impossible’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7 (1): 418–28.
    Hood, C. (2000) The Art of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198297653.001.0001
    Hopkin, J. (2002) ‘Comparative methods’, in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 249–67.
    Horowitz, D. (1990) ‘Comparing democratic systems’, Journal of Democracy, 1 (4): 73–9.
    Hroch, M. (1995) ‘National self-determination from a historical perspective’, in S.Periwal (ed.), Notions of Nationalism. Budapest: Central European University Press. pp. 65–82.
    Hueglin, T.O. and Fenna, A. (2006) Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
    Hutchinson, J. (2005) Nations as Zones of Conflict. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217979
    Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution – Changing Values and Political Styles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (n.d.) ‘Survey on voter turnout’. Available at: http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/index.cfm
    Iremonger, L. (1970) The Fiery Chariot. London: Secker.
    Isaacson, W. (1992) Kissinger. London: Faber and Faber.
    Jasiewicz, J. (2003) ‘Elections and voting behaviour’, in S.White, J.Batt and P.G.Lewis (eds), Developments in Central and East European Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Jay, A. (1987) Management and Machiavelli. London: Hutchinson.
    Jessop, B. (1990) State Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    John, P. (2002) ‘Quantitative methods’, in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 216–30.
    Jones, B.D. (1989) Leadership and Politics. Lawrence KA: University Press of Kansas.
    Jones, G. (1991) ‘West European prime ministers in perspective’, West European Politics, 14: 163–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402389108424850
    Judd, C.M., Smith, E.R. and Kidder, L.H. (1991) Research Methods in Social Relations,
    6th edn.
    Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Company.
    Kagan, S. (1989) The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Kampfner, J. (2004) Blair's Wars. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
    Katz, R. (1997) Democracy and Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195044294.001.0001
    Keating, M. (2001) Plurinational Democracy: Stateless Nations in a Post-Sovereignty Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199240760.001.0001
    Kellerman, B.J. (1984) Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Keman, H. (2000) ‘Federalism and policy performance: a conceptual and empirical enquiry’, in U.Wachendorfer-Schmidt (ed.), Federalism and Political Performance. London: Routledge. pp. 196–227.
    Key Jr, V.O. (1955) A theory of critical elections’, Journal of Politics, 17: 3–18.
    King, A. (1976) ‘Modes of executive-legislative relations: Great Britain, France and West Germany’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1 (1): 11–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439626
    King, A. (1981) ‘How to strengthen legislatures: assuming that we want to’, in N.J.Ornstein (ed.), The Role of the Legislature in Western Democracies. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. pp. 77–89.
    King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Klingemann, H-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J.Budge, I. and McDonald, M.D. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Elections and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD, 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Kornai, J. (1992) The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198287763.001.0001
    Kymlicka, W. (2001) Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199240981.001.0001
    Laitin, D. (2007) Nations, States and Violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228232.001.0001
    Landes, R. (1995) The Canadian Polity in Comparative Perspective. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall.
    Landman, T. (2003) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction,
    2nd edn.
    London: Routledge.
    Landman, T. (2008) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction,
    3rd edn.
    London and New York: Routledge.
    Lane, J-E. and Ersson, S. (1994) Comparative Politics: An Introduction and New Approach. Cambridge: Polity.
    Lane, J-E. and Ersson, S. (1999) The New Institutional Politics. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203264607
    Lane, J-E. and Ersson, S.O. (1997) ‘Is federalism superior?’, in B.Steunenberg and F.van Vught (eds), Political Institutions and Public Policy: Perspectives on European Decision Making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Laver, M. and Schofield, N. (1990) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Lange, B-P. and Ward, D. (eds) (2004) The Media and Elections: A Handbook and Comparative Study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Lasswell, H.D. (1930) Psychopathology and Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
    Lasswell, H. (1948) Power and Personality. New York: Norton.
    Lasswell, H. (1962) Power and Personality. New York: Viking Press.
    Lasswell, H. (1963) The Future of Political Science. New York: Atherton Press.
    Ledeen, M. (1999) Machiavelli on Modern Leadership. New York: Truman Talley Books.
    LeDuc, L., Niemi, R.G. and Norris, P. (eds) (1996) Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. London: Sage.
    Lefever, E.W. (1972) Ethics and World Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
    Leonard, J. (1989) ‘Public vs. private claims’, Political Theory, 12 (4): 491–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591784012004002
    Levin, M. (1987) Feminism and Freedom. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
    Levinson, D.J. (1958) ‘The relevance of personality for political participation’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 22: 3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266756
    Lewontin, R.C., Rose, S. and Kanin, L.J. (1984) Not in Our Genes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Lichbach, M. and Zuckerman, A. (eds) (1999) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative politics and the comparative model’, American Political Science Review, 65: 682–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1955513
    Lijphart, A. (1977) Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273479.001.0001
    Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M. (1991) ‘Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen countries: conceptual and empirical linkages’, British Journal of Political Science, 21: 235–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006128
    Linz, J.J. (1990) ‘The perils of Presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy, 1 (1): 51–69.
    Linz, J.J. (1994) ‘Presidential or parliamentary democracy: does it make a difference?’, in J.J.Linz and A.Valenzuela (eds), The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 3–87.
    Lipset, S. and Rokkan, S. (eds) (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: The Free Press.
    Lister, F.K. (1999) The Early Security Confederations: From the Ancient Greeks to the United Colonies of New England. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
    Lowndes, V. (2002) ‘Institutionalism’, in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 90–108.
    Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    McAlpine, A. (1992) The Servant. London: Faber and Faber.
    McGarry, J. and O'Leary, B. (2006) ‘Federation as a method of ethnic conflict regulation’, in S.Noel (ed.), From Power-Sharing to Democracy: Post-Conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies. London: McGill-Queen's University Press. pp. 263–96.
    McLean, I. (1991) ‘Forms of representation and systems of voting’, in D.Held (ed.), Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 172–97.
    McLean, I. (1996) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Mair, P. and Mudde, C. (1998) ‘The party family and its study’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 211–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.211
    Mainwaring, S. (1993) ‘Presidentialism, multipartism and democracy: the difficult combination’, Comparative Political Studies, 26 (2): 198–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414093026002003
    Mann, M. (1995) ‘A political theory of nationalism and its excesses’, in S.Periwal (ed.), Notions of Nationalism. Budapest: Central European University Press.
    March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.
    March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (2006) ‘Elaborating the “new institutionalism”’, in R.A.W.Rhodes, S.Binder and B.Rockman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–20.
    Marsh, D. and StokerG. (eds) (2002) Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Marx, K. (1906) Capital. Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr and Co.
    Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1969) Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
    May, T. (1997) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Mayhew, D. (1975) Congress: the Electoral Connection. Yale, CT: Yale University Press.
    Merelman, R. (1991) Partial Visions: Culture and Politics in Britain, Canada and the United States. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    Merrill, S. and Grofman, B. (1999) A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605864
    Mezey, M. (1979) Comparative Legislatures. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Milbrath, L. (1965) Political Participation. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
    Miliband, R. (1969) The State in Capitalist Society. London: Wiedenfield and Nicolson.
    Mitra, S. (2000) ‘The nation, state and the federal process in India’, in U.Wachendorfer-Schmidt (ed.), Federalism and Political Performance. London: Routledge. pp. 40–57.
    Moe, T. (1981) ‘Towards a broader view of interest groups’, Journal of Politics, 43: 531–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130382
    Moon, J. (1995) ‘Innovative leadership and political change’, Governance, 8 (1): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gove.1995.8.issue-1
    Morris, C.W. (1949) Signs, Language and Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Nardin, T. (1992) ‘International ethics and international law’, Review of International Studies, 18(1): 19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500118728
    Nardin, T. and Mapel, D. (eds) (1992) Traditions of International Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521768
    Needham, C. (2007) The Reform of Public Services Under New Labour: Narratives of Consumerism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230593169
    Neustadt, R.E. (1990) Presidential Power. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
    Neustadt, R.E. (1994) ‘Virtue and the civil prince’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34 (3): 464–73.
    Niebuhr, R. (1932) Moral Man and Immoral Society. New York: Scribners.
    Niskanen, W. (1995) Bureaucracy and Public Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    Norris, P. (ed.) (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198295685.001.0001
    Norris, P. (2004) Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790980
    North, D. and Thomas, R. (1973) The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819438
    North, D. (1981) Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: WW Norton.
    North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Norton, P. (1990a) ‘Introduction’, in P.Norton (ed.), Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Norton, P. (1990b) ‘Parliaments: a framework for analysis’, in P.Norton (ed.), Parliaments in Western Europe. London: Frank Cass.
    O'Duffy, B. (2007) British-Irish Relations and Northern Ireland: From Violent Politics to Conflict Regulation. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.
    O'Leary, B. (2001) ‘An iron law of nationalism and federation? A (neo-Diceyian) theory of the necessity of a federal Staatsvolk, and of consociational rescue’, Nations and Nationalism, 7 (3): 273–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nana.2001.7.issue-3
    Ollman, B.‘Toward a Marxist interpretation of the US constitution’. Available at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/usconstitution.php (accessed March 2008).
    Olson, D.M. and Mezey, M.L. (1991) ‘Parliaments and public policy’, in D.M.Olson and M.L.Mezey (eds) Legislatures in the Policy Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521621
    Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Olson, M. (1971) The Logic of Collective Action,
    revised edn.
    Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Olson, M. (1982) The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Olson, M. (2000) Power and Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
    Oppenheimer, J. and Young, O.R. (1971) Political Leadership and Collective Goods. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Osborne, D. and Gaebler, E. (1992) Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
    Packenham, R.A. (1970) ‘Legislatures and political development’, in A.Kornberg and L.D.Musolf (eds), Legislatures in Developmental Perspective. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 521–37.
    Padgett, S. (1994) ‘Introduction’, in S.Padgett (ed.), Adenauer to Kohl: The Development of the German Chancellorship. London: Hurst and Co.
    Pagano, M. (2007) ‘The dynamics of federalism in national and supranational political systems’, in M.Pagano and R.Leonardi (eds), The Dynamics of Federalism in National and Supranational Political Systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230625433
    Paige, G.D. (1965) The Scientific Study of Political Leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Panebianco, A. (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Pennings, P., Keman, H. and Kleinnijenhuis, J. (1999) Doing Research in Political Science. London: Sage.
    Peters, B.G. (1996) ‘Political institutions, old and new’, in R.Goodin and H-D.Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 205–20.
    Peters, B.G. (1998) Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. New York: New York University Press.
    Peters, B.G. (2001) The Politics of Bureaucracy. London: Routledge.
    Plekhanov, G. (1940) The Role of the Individual in History. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
    Polsby, N.W. (1975) ‘Legislatures’, in F.I.Greenstein and N.W.Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
    Pondy, L.R. (1978) ‘Leadership is a language game’, in M.McCall and M.Lombardo (eds), Leadership. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 87–99.
    Posner, R. (1992) Sex and Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Posner, R. (1995) Overcoming Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Poulantzas, N. (1975) Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: New Left Books.
    Poulantzas, N. (1978) State, Power, Socialism. London: New Left Books.
    Power, T.J. and Gasiorowski, M.J. (1997) ‘Institutional design and democratic consolidation in the third world’, Comparative Political Studies, 30 (2): 123–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414097030002001
    Protsyk, O. (2006) ‘Intra-executive competition between president and prime minister: patterns of institutional conflict and cooperation under semi-presidentialism’, Political Studies, 54 (2): 219–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/post.2006.54.issue-2
    Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970) The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Rae, D. (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Ramsay, M. (2000) Are Machiavellian tactics still appropriate or defensible in politics?’, in P.Harris, A.Lock and P.Rees (eds), Machiavelli, Marketing and Management. London: Routledge.
    Ramsay, P. (2002) The Just War. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Read, M. and Marsh, D. (2002) ‘Combining quantitative and qualitative methods’, in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds) Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 231–48.
    Rebhorn, W.A. (1988) Foxes and Lions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    Reeve, A. and Ware, A. (1992) Electoral Systems: A Comparative and Theoretical Introduction. London: Routledge.
    Renshon, S.A. (ed.) (1995) The Clinton Presidency. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    RenshonS.A. (1996) The Psychological Assessment of Presidential Candidates. New York: New York University Press.
    Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006) ‘Old institutionalism’, in R.A.W.Rhodes, S.Binder and B.Rockman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 90–108.
    Rhodes, R. and Dunleavy, P. (eds) (1995) Prime Minister, Cabinet and Core Executive. London: Macmillan.
    Riker, W. (1975) ‘Federalism’, in I.F.Greenstein and W. NelsonPolsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science. Vol. 5. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Riker, W. (1982) Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Oxford: Freeman.
    Riker, W. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Riker, W. (1986) ‘Duverger's law revisited’, in B.Grofman and A.Lijphart (eds), Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press. pp. 19–42.
    Robertson, D. (1998) Judicial Discretion in the House of Lords. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Rockman, B.A. (1984) ‘Legislative-executive relations and legislative oversight’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9 (3): 387–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439490
    Roeder, P.G. (2005) ‘Power dividing as an alternative to ethnic power sharing’, in P.G.Roeder and D.Rothchild (eds), Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 51–82.
    Roeder, P.G. and D.Rothchild (2005) Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy After Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    Rogowski, R. (1989) Coalitions and Commerce. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Rokkan, S. (1970) Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    Rootes, C. (ed.) (1999) Environmental Movements: Local, National and Global. London: Frank Cass.
    Rose, R. (1991) ‘Prime ministers in parliamentary democracies’, West European Politics, 14 (2): 9–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402389108424842
    Roseneil, S. (1995) Disarming Patriarchy: Feminism and Political Action at Greenham. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Rosenman, S.I. (1951) Working with Roosevelt. New York: Harper.
    Rost, J.C. (1995) ‘Leadership: a discussion about ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (1): 129–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857276
    Rutherford, B.M. (1966) ‘Psychopathology, decision-making, and political involvement’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19: 387–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002200276601000401
    Rydin, Y. and Pennington, M. (2001) ‘Discourses of the prisoners dilemma: the role of the local press in environmental policy’, Environmental Politics, 10 (3): 48–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714000551
    Sahlins, M. (1993) ‘Poor man, rich man, big man, chief”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 3: 19–63.
    Sanders, D. (2002) ‘Behaviouralism’, in D.Marsh and G.Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 45–64.
    Sanders, D. (2003) ‘Party identification, economic perceptions, and voting in British general elections, 1974–97’, Electoral Studies, 22 (2): 239–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794%2802%2900014-8
    Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2001) ‘The economy and voting’, in P.Norris (ed.), Britain Votes 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 225–38.
    Sandler, T. (2000) Economic Concepts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sartori, G. (1976) Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis, Part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sartori, G. (1986) ‘The influence of electoral systems: faulty laws or faulty method?’, in B.Grofman and A.Liphart (eds), Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press. pp. 43–68.
    Saunders, P. (1991) A Nation of Homeowners. London: Routledge.
    Scharpf, F.W. (1991) Crisis and Choice in European Social Democracy. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
    Schubert, G.A. (1965) The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices, 1946–63. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    Scott, J. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Shapiro, M. (1999) ‘The European court of justice’, in P.Craig and G.De Búrca (eds), The Evolution of E.U. Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 321–47.
    Shapiro, M. and Stone Sweet, A. (2002) On Law, Politics and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199256489.001.0001
    Shepsle, K.A. and Bonchek, M.S. (1997) Analysing Politics: Rationality, Behaviour, and Institutions. New York: W.W. Norton.
    Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983) Oxford: Guild Publishing in association with Oxford University Press.
    Shugart, M.S. and Carey, J.M. (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Siaroff, A. (2003) ‘Comparative presidencies: The inadequacy of the presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary distinction’, European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3): 287–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.2003.42.issue-3
    Sifry, M. and Cerf, C. (eds) (2003) The Iraq War Reader. London: Simon & Schuster International.
    Simon, H. (1957) Models of Man. New York: Wiley.
    Singer, P. (2004) The President of Good and Evil: Taking George W. Bush Seriously. London: Granta Books.
    Sisk, T. and Stefes, C. (2005) ‘Power-sharing as an interim step in peace building: lessons from South Africa’, in P.Roeder and D.Rothchild (eds), Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy After Civil Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 293–318.
    Skocpol, T. (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Skowronek, S. (1999) The Politics Presidents Make. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Smith, A.D. (1998) Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge.
    Smith, M.J. (1998) ‘Reconceptualising the British state: theoretical and empirical challenges to central government’, Public Administration, 76 (1): 45–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00090
    Somers, C. and Somers, F. (2001) Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life. New York: Harcourt.
    Spencer, H. (1969) The Study of Sociology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    Spinrad, W. (1991) ‘Charisma: a blighted concept and an alternative formula’, Political Studies Quarterly, 106 (2): 295–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2152231
    Steinmo, S. (2001) ‘The new institutionalism’, in B.Clark and J.Foweraker (eds), The Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought. London: Routledge.
    Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. and Longstreth, F. (1992) Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511528125
    Stepan, A. (2001) Arguing Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Stepan, A. and Skach, C. (1993) ‘Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: parliamentarism versus presidentialism’, World Politics, 46 (1): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2950664
    Stevens, A. (2003) Government and Politics of France. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Stone Sweet, A. (2000) Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198297718.001.0001
    Stone Sweet, A. and Smithey, S.I. (2001) ‘Governing with judges: constitutional politics in Europe’, International Politics, 38 (2): 283–9.
    Swenson, P. (1991) ‘Bringing capital back in or social democracy reconsidered’, World Politics, 43: 513–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2010535
    Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. (1989) Seats and Votes. The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Tanner, J.R. (1966) English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century, 1603–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Tanzi, V. and Schunecht, L. (2000) Public Spending in the Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625800
    Taylor, C. (1992) ‘The politics of recognition’, in C.Taylor and A.Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism and the ‘Politics of Recognition’. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 25–74.
    Tebble, A. (2006) ‘Exclusion for democracy’, Political Theory, 34 (4): 463–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591706288519
    Theobald, R. (1981) Charisma: A Critical Review. Polytechnic of Central London: Social Science and Business Studies Research Papers No 5.
    Thompson, M., Ellis, R. and Wildavsky, A. (1990) Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.
    Trotsky, L. (1965) The History of the Russian Revolution. Vol. I, trans. M.Eastman. London: Gollancz.
    Tsebelis, G. (1995) ‘Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism’, British Journal of Political Science, 25 (3): 289–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400007225
    Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Tucker, R.C. (1981) Politics as Leadership. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
    Tucker, R.C. (1997) ‘Personality and political leadership’, Political Science Quarterly, 92 (3): 283–94.
    Tulis, J.K. (1987) The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Tullock, G. (1974) The Social Dilemma: The Economics of War and Revolutions. Blacksburg, VA: University Publications.
    Tullock, G., Seldon, A. and Brady, G. (2002) Government: Whose Obedient Servant?London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
    Tully, J. (1995) Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Van de Walle, N. (2001) African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Verba, S. (1961) Small Groups and Political Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Viroli, M. (1998) Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198780885.001.0001
    Volcansek, Mary (2000) Constitutional Politics in Italy. London: Macmillan Press.
    Von Beyme, K. (1985) Political Parties in Western Democracies. Aldershot: Gower.
    Wachendorfer-Schmidt, U. (ed.) (2000) Federalism and Political Performance. London: Routledge.
    Waltzer, M. (1973) ‘Political action: the problem of dirty hands’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2 (2): 160–80.
    Waltzer, M. (1994) Thick and Thin. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
    Ware, A. (1996) Political Parties,
    2nd edn.
    Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Weale, A. (1999) Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Weaver, R.K. and Rockman, B.A. (1993) ‘When and how do institutions matter?’, in R.K.Weaver and B.A.Rockman (eds), Do Institutions Matter?Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. pp. 445–61.
    Weber, M. ([1922] 1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol 2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Weingast, B. (1995) ‘The economic role of political institutions: market-preserving federalism and economic development’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11 (1): 1–31.
    Wheare, K.C. (1963) Federal Government,
    4th edn.
    London: Oxford University Press.
    White, C., Devine, F. and Ritchie, J. (1999) Voter Volatility: A Qualitative Study of Voting Behaviour at the 1997 General Election. London: SCPR.
    White, T.H. (1961) The Making of the President 1960. New York: Athaneum Publishers.
    Whiteley, P., Clarke, H., Sanders, D. and Stewart, M. (2001) ‘Turnout’, in P.Norris (ed.), Britain Votes 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 211–24.
    Whittman, D.G. (1995) The Myth of Democratic Failure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Whittman, D.G. (2004) ‘Group selection and methodological individualism: compatible and complementary’. Advances in Austrian Economics, 7: 221–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134%2804%2907010-3
    Wicksteed, P. (1933) The Common Sense of Political Economy. London: Routledge.
    Wildavsky, A. (1987) ‘Choosing preference by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation’, American Political Science Review, 81:3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1960776
    Wilensky, H. (1975) The Welfare State and Equality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Williams, M. and May, T. (1996) Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Research. London: UCL Press.
    Wittman, D. (1995) The Myth of Democratic Failure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Wirls, S.H. (1994) ‘Machiavelli and Neustadt on virtue and the Civic Prince’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 24 (3): 467–73.
    Wolfe, A. (1977) The Limits of Legitimacy. New York: The Free Press.
    Wolfers, A. (1949) ‘Statesmanship and moral choice’, World Politics, 1 (2): 175–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2008842
    Wolfers, A. (1951) ‘The pole of power and the pole of indifference’, World Politics, 4 (1): 39–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2008900
    Wolfenstein, E.V. (1969) Personality and Politics. Los Angeles: Dickenson Press.
    Woodard, S. (1995) ‘The simple guide to the federal idea’, Ventotene, Federalism and Politics. The Ventotene Papers of the Altiero Spinelli Institute for Federalist Studies: Ventotene.
    Wright, E.O. (1985) Classes. London: Verso.
    Wrong, D.H. (1961) ‘The over-socialized concept of man in modern sociology’, American Sociological Review, 26: 183–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089854
    Yeager, T. (1999) Institutions, Transition Economies and Economic Development. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website