中東欧研究と比較政治学 : いわゆるディシプリン指向の中での地域研究のあり方の考察

概要

論文の詳細を見る
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the importance of Central and East European studies remains unchanged even in the period of what is called "disciplinization" of comparative politics, by surveying the trend of Central and East European studies from the perspective of comparative politics in relation to the development of the mainstream methodology of comparative politics. Main discussions are summarized as follows: 1) During the socialist era, many scholars of political studies of Central and East European countries conducted their research by focusing on a specific single case with an emphasis on the "uniqueness" of that case, rather than comparing the various cases for dravving some generalized conclusions or for making theories. During the socialist era it was difficult to compare the socialist political system with other kinds of political systems as it was impossible to obtain needed materials for analyzing the political process of the socialist cowltries due to the lack of transparency inherent in a socialist political system. In addition, elections held in socialist countries -- one of the main research topics of comparative politics -- could not be compared with those of the West European countries. Some scholars have tried to apply the theories of comparative politics to cases of East and Central Europe in spite of these limitations. However, research produced by these attempts could be utilized only for analyzing or comparing socialist countries. Ellen Comisso referred to this situation as "ghettoization" of the then Central and East European studies. 2) During the first few years after the collapse of socialist regimes many researchers of comparative politics attempted to investigate the process starting from the collapse of the socialist regime to the consolidation of the post-socialist democratic regime by applying general theories such as "transition theory" or "democratization theory." However, most of these attempts failed mainly because theories applied to the region were insufficient for analyzing the political change at that time. It was admitted that it was inappropriate to use theories without considering the context of the region, and since then most studies trying to analyze the politics of Central and East European countries limit the scope of the analysis to the region in question (or what is called "post-communist" region). 3) Over the past ten years there has been a revolution in the methodology of comparative politics (this revolution is sometimes referred to as "disciplinization"), which means there is an orientation in this field to apply statistical methodology and general (formal) theory to political analyses. It is sometimes thought that this orientation would change the characteristics of political studies based on area, or even destroy area studies itself, as emphasizing the general characteristics of methodology would contradict emphasizing the uniqueness of the area or the context, and some scholars strongly insist that general methodology should be introduced to the field of comparative politics to reconstruct this field as a "science." However, this is not a new claim but a mere recurrence of claims made by supporters of the "behavioral revolution" in the political science field fifty years ago. Initially, many younger scholars supported this claim, but in less than ten years it had lost most of its support because research that neglected regional context did not produce fruitful results. It is important for us to remember this experience. 4) The current "revolution" or "disciplinization" of comparative politics has two main characteristics, one is the orientation to general (formal) theory, and the other is the emphasis on the observance of strict (in most cases statistical) methodology. The fonner is not a major threat to area studies, as it has been demonstrated general theories have many deficiencies in analyzing the situations of the specific areas. However, with an orientation toward statistical methodology, area study scholars are required to meet minimum standards based on methodology without which scholars would not accept the results of area studies. However, this does not mean that studies based on area should be discarded. In fact most scholars have admitted that the "decontextualized" analysis would not produce meaningful results, and "area" is a useful tool for understanding the context. In addition, by using the area as a tool for comparison, area studies will be able to contribute to the methodology of the comparative politics. In conclusion, it is best to take the position of "mid-level analysis," which means taking into consideration both the methodology and the context of area and holding the balance between them. For this purpose it is admitted that a strategy of "two-step comparison" -- first comparing the cases situated in the same area, and after that compare the results obtained from the first level comparison with the cases outside the area -- would be useful. In reality this is the way or thinking many scholars of the "post-behavioral revolution" have taken for years. This way of thinking should not be discarded hastily.
北海道大学スラブ研究センターの論文

中東欧研究と比較政治学 : いわゆるディシプリン指向の中での地域研究のあり方の考察

スポンサーリンク

概要

北海道大学スラブ研究センター | 論文

スポンサーリンク