Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [153]
Lijphart argues that the three main propositions of pluralist theory held that: extreme pluralism tends to be detrimental to stable democratic government; stable democracy requires the presence of secondary groups that help to disperse power, check the government, protect freedom and so on; and stable democracy requires cross-cutting applications.
Lijphart focuses on the third proposition, but recognizes that the three conditions are interrelated. His examination of the Netherlands case challenges and requires reassessment of all three propositions. He demonstrates how stable, effective democracy was possible in the highly segmented society of the Netherlands, despite the absence of these three conditions. His analysis shows that Dutch society was in fact extremely pluralistic, highly segmented, and not cross-affiliated. Stable democracy in the Netherlands is best explained by what he calls the politics of accommodation. Lijphart traces the development of the politics of accommodation through the history of the Netherlands. The plausibility of his thesis is enhanced by demonstrating that five alternative hypotheses do not provide valid explanations for the viability of Dutch democracy.
Lijphart recognizes the limits as well as the advantages of the methodology he has employed. His statement is worth quoting in full:
The usual disclaimer about the conclusions to be drawn from a case study are in order here. A case study may be able to disprove a generalization, but only if the generalization is stated in absolute terms and most of the general propositions in the social sciences are not universal but probabilistic in nature. A single case study can obviously not be the sole basis for a valid generalization. Case studies have a more modest function. In particular, deviant case analysis can lead to the identification of additional variables and to the refinement of concepts and indicators.570
In this spirit, Lijphart offers a number of amendments to enrich pluralist theory, making it more differentiated and more complete. He places emphasis on the development of an elite political culture that defined rules for accommodation that were able to overcome mass level societal divisions.571
GABRIEL A. ALMOND, SCOTT C. FLANAGAN, AND ROBERT J. MUNDT, CRISIS, CHOICE, AND CHANGE: HISTORICAL STUDIES OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, 1973.
This project, completed thirty years ago, is a remarkably interesting and unique effort to address a serious impasse that had developed in the previous fifteen years in comparative politics. The four major theories employed by comparative politics scholars to understand emerging crises in political development in many societies—how some had been avoided and why others had resulted in severe crisis and breakdown—had not produced satisfactory explanations. Moreover, the methodologies employed had failed to produce hoped-for results.
In this situation, the authors of Crisis, Choice, and Change turn to history. “The logic of our inquiry was simple. Since the development we are seeking to explain occurred in history, why not select historical episodes, examine them in great detail, try out our [four] varieties of developmental explanation, and see how they fit?”572 The four extant theories were system functional theory, social mobilization theory, rational choice and coalition theory, and leadership theory.
Having decided to engage in in-depth historical case studies, the authors state, “we gave up any prospects of coming out with a good research design.”573 The historical cases—from the histories of Britain, France, Germany, Mexico, Japan, and India—were chosen because “they were interesting and important” in and of themselves, “not because they represented a systematic typology of developmental causation. We lacked the theory to enable us to choose that at the outset.”574
Each of the historical case analyses attempted in a systematic