Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [189]
107
Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, p. 33.
108
Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” p. 91; Christopher Layne, “Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994), pp. 12-13; and Ray, Democracies and International Conflict, pp. 151; 158-159.
109
See Mansfield and Snyder, Electing to Fight; and Edgar Kiser, Kriss A. Drass, and William Brustein, “Ruler Autonomy and War in Early Modern Europe,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (March 1995), pp. 109-138.
110
Ray, Democracies and International Conflict; and Peterson, “How Democracies Differ.”
111
Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, pp. 40-41.
112
David Collier and Steven Levitsky, “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research,” World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 3 (April 1997), pp. 430-451; and Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, pp. 35-39.
113
Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, pp. 36-37; 41.
114
Alexander L. George, “Foreword” in Arie Kacowicz, ed., A Stable Peace Among Nations (Lanham, Md.: Roman and Littlefield, 2000), pp. xii-xiii.
115
Peterson, “How Democracies Differ.”
116
Randall L. Schweller, “Domestic Structure and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific?” World Politics, Vol. 44, No. 2 (January 1992), pp. 235-269. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 may constitute an important exception to Schweller’s argument.
117
Elman, Paths to Peace, p. 21.
118
Snyder and Mansfield, “Democratization and the Danger of War.”
119
Spiro, “The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace.”
120
Ibid. See also Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, pp. 22-23.
121
Snyder and Mansfield, “Democratization and the Danger of War”; and Braumoeller, “Causal Complexity and the Study of Politics.”
122
There are, unfortunately, no good examples of a “crucial” or critical case in the democratic peace literature. As Eckstein argues, history seldom provides clear examples of cases that satisfy the demanding criteria of a crucial case. The second best alternative, Eckstein argues, are “most- likely” cases that a theory fails or “least-likely” cases that a theory passes (Harry Eckstein, “Case Studies and Theory in Political Science,” in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, pp. 79-138). These constitute “tough tests” for the theory, and Elman provides examples of such tough tests (Paths to Peace, p. 47).
123
Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, pp. 47-52.
124
Ibid., pp. 47-52.
125
Ray, Democracies and International Conflict, pp. 159-200.
126
Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963).
127
Ray, Democracies and International Conflict, pp. 159-200; Carol Ember, Melvin Ember, and Bruce Russett, “Peace Between Participatory Polities: A Cross-Cultural Test of the ‘Democracies Rarely Fight Each Other’ Hypothesis,” World Politics, Vol. 44, No.4 (July 1992), pp. 573-599.
128
Alexander L. George and Timothy J. McKeown, “Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making,” in Robert Coulam and Richard Smith, eds., Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Vol. 2 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 43-68.
129
David Collier and James Mahoney, “Insights and Pitfalls: Selection Bias in Qualitative Research,” World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 1 (October 1996), pp. 56-91.
130
Elman, ed., Paths to Peace, pp. 47-52.
131
Ray, Democracies and International Conflict, pp. 86-87.
132
Olav Njølstad, “Learning From History? Case Studies and the Limits to The ory-Building,” in Olav Njølstad, ed., Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1990), pp. 240-244. We disagree with Njølstad’s suggestion that these approaches are substantially different from the standard methodological advice offered by those who have outlined the method of structured, focused comparisons between cases. See George, “Case Studies