A History and Methodology of Research of the Subnational Topic in Political Science
Articles
Volodymyr Viktorovych Hnatiuk
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5850-5883
Published 2019-12-20
https://doi.org/10.15388/Polit.2019.96.4
PDF
HTML

Keywords

subnational topic
subnational regime
subnational comparative method
metho­dological dichotomy
methodological synthesis
objective and subjective measurements

How to Cite

HnatiukV. V. (2019). A History and Methodology of Research of the Subnational Topic in Political Science. Politologija, 96(4), 92-139. https://doi.org/10.15388/Polit.2019.96.4

Abstract

 Subnational topic has come a long way from its inception fifty years ago to formation of an independent research direction. This period consists of three phases. In the first phase (early 1970’s – mid 90’s) scholars start discussing a topic that was still unexplored at the time and examine it as a fragmentary part of whole studies. The second phase (mid 1990’s – first half of 2010’s) sees changes in methodology: studies become more complex, focused solely on subnational phenomena and are carried out using a special tool – the subnational comparative method. A methodological dichotomy is outlined as a model for the analysis of subnational regimes and their types, as well. Finally, the third (current) phase (mid 2010’s – present) is where the key changes take place: formation of independent research direction, overcoming theoretical constructs (whole-national bias and federal monism) and increase of complexity and depth of political studies. These features are entrenched in the form of methodological synthesis as a modern model for the analysis of subnational regimes and their types. The article focuses on the coverage of the classical and the modern foundations of the subnational comparative method. The author notes that modern methodology juxtaposes with ontology in the context of subnational discourse. However, in the process of studying such issues there is an urgent need to clarify, update and supplement some methodological foundations of the method.

PDF
HTML

References

Agustina Giraudy, “The Politics of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Reproduction in Argentina and Mexico,” Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2:2 (2010), 53-84.
Agustina Giraudy, Democrats and Autocrats: Pathways of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Continuity within Democratic Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
Allyson Benton, “How Does the Decentralization of Political Manipulation Strengthen National Electoral Authoritarian Regimes? Evidence from the Case of Mexico” (paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, August 29-September 1, 2013).
André Borges, “Rethinking State Politics: The Withering of State Dominan Machines in Brazil,” Brazilian Political Science Review, 1:2 (2007), 108-136.
Arend Lijphart, “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method,” American Political Science Review, 65 (1971): 682-693.
Carlos Gervasoni, “Measuring variance in subnational regimes: results from an expert-based operationalization off democracy in the Argentine Provinces,” Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2:2 (2010), 13-52.
Carlos Gervasoni and Marcelo Nazareno, “La relación entre gobernadores y legisladores nacionales: Repensando la ‘conexión subnacional’ del federalismo político argentino,” Política y gobierno, 24:1 (2017), 9-44.
Carlos Gervasoni, “A Rentier Theory of Subnational Democracy: The Politically Regressive Effects of Fiscal Federalism in Argentina” (PhD Thesis at Graduate School of the College of Arts and Letters, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 2011).
Carlos Gervasoni, “A Rentier Theory of Subnational Regimes: Fiscal Federalism, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Argentine Provinces,” World Politics, 62:2 (2010), 302-340.
Carlos Gervasoni, “Subnational Democracy in (Cross-National) Comparative Perspective: Objective Measures with Application to Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Uruguay and the United States” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2012).
Caroline C. Beer, “Institutional Change in Mexico: Politics after One-Party Rule,” Latin American Research Review, 37:3 (2002), 149-161.
Eaton Kent and Juan Diego Prieto, “Subnational Authoritarianism and Democratization in Colombia: Divergent Paths in Cesar and Magdalena,” in Violence in Latin America and the Caribbean Subnational Structures, Institutions, and Clientelistic Networks, ed. Tina Hilgers and Laura Macdonald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 153-172.
Eaton Kent, “Disciplining Regions: Subnational Contention in Neoliberal Peru,” Territory, Politics, Governance, 3:2 (2015), 124-146.
Eaton Kent, Territory and Ideology in Latin America: Policy Conflicts between National and Subnational Governments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).
Edward L. Gibson, “Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Democratic Countries,” World Politics, 58:1 (2005), 101-132.
Edward L. Gibson, “Politics of the Periphery: An Introduction to Subnational Authoritarianism and Democratization in Latin America,” Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2:2 (2010), 3-12.
Edward L. Gibson, “Subnational Authoritarianism and Territorial Politics: Charting the Theoretical Landscape” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, August 28, 2008).
Flavia Freidenberg y Julieta Suárez-Cao (eds.), Territorio y poder: Nuevos actores y competencia política en los sistemas de partido multinivel en América Latina (Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2014).
Frank Hendriks, John Loughlin and Anders Lidström, “European Subnational Democracy: Comparative Reflections and Conclusions,” in The Oxford Handbook of Local Regional Democracy in Europe, eds. Frank Hendriks, John Loughlin and Anders Lidström (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 715-42.
Giovanni Sartori, Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 83.
Guillermo O’Donnell, “On the State, Democratization and Some Conceptual Problems: A Latin American View with Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries,” World Development, 21 (1993), 1355-70.
Guillermo O’Donnell, “Polyarchies and the (Un)Rule of Law in Latin America: A Partial Conclusion,” The (Un)Rule of Law and the Under privileged in Latin America, eds. Juan Mendez, Paulo Pinheiro, and Guillermo O’Donnell (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 303-338.
Hirokazu Kikuchi, “Political Careers and the Legislative Process under Federalism,” in Presidents versus Federalism in the National Legislative Process, ed. Hirokazu Kikuchi (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan IDE-JETRO Series, 2018), 19-89.
Imke Harbers and Matthew C. Ingram, “Politics in Space: Methodological Considerations for Taking Space Seriously in Subnational Comparative Research,” (paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28-31, 2014).
Jacqueline Behrend and Laurence Whitehead, “Prácticas iliberales y antidemocráticas a nivel subnacional: enfoques comparados,” Colombia Internacional, 91 (2017), 17-43.
Jacqueline Behrend, “The Unevenness of Democracy at the Subnational Level: Provincial Closed Games in Argentina,” Latin American Research Review 46:1 (2011), 150-176.
John Harrison, “From competitive regions to competitive city-regions: a new orthodoxy, but some old mistakes,” Journal of Economic Geography, 7:3 (2007), 311 – 32.
Jonathan Fox, “Latin America’s Emerging Local Politics,” Journal of Democracy, 5 (1994), 105-116.
Juan Federico Pino Uribe, “Régimen y territorio. Trayectorias de desarrollo del régimen político a nivel subnacional en Colombia 1988-2011,” Documentos del departamento de Ciencia Política, 23 (2013).
Juan Federico Pino Uribe, “Trayectorias de desarrollo: una nueva forma de conceptualizar la variación de la democracia subnacional en Colombia 1988-2015,” Anal. político, 31:92 (2018), 115-136.
Juan Federico Pino, “Entre democracias y autoritarismos: una mirada crítica al estudio de la democracia subnacional en Colombia y Latinoamérica,” Colombia Internacional, 91 (2017), 215-242.
Julieta Suárez-Cao, Margarita Batlle, Laura Wills-Otero Laura, “El auge de los estudios sobre la política subnacional latinoamericana,” Colombia Internacional, 90 (2017), 15-34.
Louise Tillin, “National and Subnational Comparative Politics: Why, What and How,” Studies in Indian Politics, 1:2 (2013), 235-40.
Magnus Pharao Hansen, “Becoming Autonomous: Indigeneity, Scale, and Schismogenesis in Multicultural Mexico,” PoLAR Political & Legal Anthropology Review, 41 (2018), 133-147.
Manuel E. Mera, “Subnational autocratic governments in Latin America: the impact of economic diversification,” Revista de Globalización, Competitividad y Gobernabilidad, GCG, 12:1 (2018), 63-77.
Natalio Botana, “El Cénit del Poder,” La Nacion, May 4, 2006.
Richard Snyder, “Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 36 (2001).
Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 14.
Sabiti Makara, “Decentralisation and good governance in Africa: A critical review,” African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 12 (2018), 22-32.
Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).
Sergio Montero and Karen Chapple, “Peripheral Regions, Fragile Governance: Local Economic Development from Latin America,” in Fragile Governance and Local Economic Development: Theory and Evidence from Peripheral Regions in Latin America, eds. Sergio Montero and Karen Chapple (London: Routledge, 2018), 1-18.
Stein Rokkan, Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development (Nueva York: McKay, 1970).
Volodymyr Hnatiuk, “Introduction to subnational policy: from warnings to approval,” Visnyk of National Technical University of Ukraine ‘Kyiv Polytechnic Institute,’ 37:1 (2018), 8.
Yoes Kenawas, “The Rise of Political Dynasties in Decentralized Indonesia” (Master Thesis at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Academic Year 2012/2013).
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Please read the Copyright Notice in Journal Policy