Explanations and Designs in Political Science: The case of electoral turnout
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article proposes an analysis of the argument that institutional and behavioral explanations coexist in contemporary Political Science, which, in turn, increases the range of research designs available to test the proposed arguments. Using the case of the literature on voter turnout, we identified two fundamental questions that refer to different theoretical perspectives. The first (why does the voter vote?) is explained at the individual level, therefore, behavioral theories are more appropriate. The second (why do turnout rates vary from country to country?) needs to compare institutional structures to be answered. Three hypotheses are proposed about the coexistence of theoretical models in recent publications and their relationship with experimental and qualitative designs.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Obra disponible bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es).
References
Almlund, P. (2018). Non-Voting Young People in Conflict with the Political System. Journal of Political Power, 11(2), 230–251.
Blais, A. (2006). WHAT AFFECTS VOTER TURNOUT? Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 111–125.
Blais, A., & Dobrzynska, A. (1998). Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 239–261.
Bühlmann, M., & Freitag, M. (2006). Individual and Contextual Determinants of Electoral Participation. Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4), 13–47.
Campbell, A. (1960). The American Voter. Wiley.
Cepaluni, G., & Hidalgo, F. D. (2016). Compulsory Voting Can Increase Political Inequality: Evidence from Brazil. Political Analysis, 24(2), 273–280.
Condon, M. (2015). Voice Lessons: Rethinking the Relationship Between Education and Political Participation. Political Behavior, 37, 819–843.
Cox, G. W., & Munger, M. C. (1989). Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 217–231.
Do Prado, J. W., Alcântara, V. C., Carvalho, F. M., Vieira, K. C., Machado, L. K. C., & Tonelli, D. F. (2016). Multivariate analysis of credit risk and bankruptcy research data: A bibliometric study involving different knowledge fields (1968–2014). Scientometrics, 106(3), 1007–1029.
Downs, A. (1957). An Economicy Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Duffy, J., & Tavits, M. (2008). Beliefs and voting decisions: A test of the pivotal voting model. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3).
Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P. (1974). The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis. American Political Science Review, 68(2), 525–536.
Fieldhouse, E., & Cutts, D. (2008). Mobilisation or Marginalisation? Neighbourhood Effects on Muslim Electoral Registration in Britain in 2001. Political Studies, 56(2), 333–354.
Fiorina, M. (1990). Information and Rationality in Elections. In J. A. Ferejohn and Kuklinski, Information and Democratic Processes. University of Illinois Press.
Fraga, L. R. (2006). Su Casa Es Nuestra Casa: Latino Politics Research and the Development of American Political Science. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 7.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Kaplan, E. H. (2004). The illusion of learning from observational research. In I. Shapiro, R. Smith, & T. Massoud, Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics (p. 251–273). Cambridge University Press.
Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton University Press.
Goertz, Gary, & Mahoney, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures. Princeton University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.cttq94gh
Gosnell, H. (1927). Getting Out the Vote. University of Chicago Press.
Green, D., & Gerber, A. (2004). Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Brookings Institution Press.
Green, D., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Yale University Press.
Griffin, J. D., & Keane, M. (2006). Descriptive Representation and the Composition of African American Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 998–1012.
Hall, P. A. (2003). Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer, Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (p. Ch. 11). Cambridge University Press.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
Jackman, R. W. (1987). Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial democracies. American Political Science Review, 81(2), 405–423.
Kasy, M. (2016). Why Experiments Might Not Always Want to Randomize, and What They Could Do. Political Analysis, 24(3), 1–15.
Levine, D., & Palfrey, T. R. (2007). The paradox of voter participation: A laboratory study. American Political Science Review, 101, 143–158.
Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14,.
Liu, W. (2014). Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: A 20-year perspective. Scientometrics, 99(2), 507–521.
Machin, D. (2011). Compulsory Turnout: A Compelling (and Contingent) Case. Politics, 31(2), 100-106,.
Maclntyre, A. (1973). Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible? In E. Alan Ryan (Org.), The Philosophy of Social Explanation. Oxford University Press.
Palfrey, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1983). A strategic calculus of voting. Public Choice, v. 41.
Plott, C. R. (1991). Will Economics become an Experimental Science? Southern Economic Journal, 57(4), 901–919.
Powell, G. B. (1982). Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability, and violence (5. print). Harvard Univ. Press.
Powell, G. B. (1986). American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review.
Przeworski, A. (2004). Institutions Matter? Government and Opposition, 39(4), 527–540.
Przeworski, A. (2009). Is the Science of Comparative Politics Possible? In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics.
Rezende, F. C. (2015a). Modelos de Causação e o Pluralismo Inferencial na Ciência Política [Grupo de Pesquisa Epistemologia e Método Comparado. PPGCP/CNPq].
Rezende, F. C. (2015b). Transformações Metodológicas na Ciência Política Contemporânea. Revista Política Hoje, 24(2), 13–46.
Rezende, F. C. (2017). O Pluralismo Inferencial na Ciência Política Pós-KKV (2005- 2015): Argumento e Evidências. Revista Política Hoje, 26(1), 241–277.
Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 74(2), 432–446.
Stokes, S. (2014). A Defense of Observational Research. In D. L. Teele, Field Experiments and Their Critics. Yale University Press.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Harper & Row.
Wang, C. H. (2015). A Deeper Look at the Relationship between Political Knowledge and Political Participation: Evidence from Presidential and Legislative Elections in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Political Science, v. 23(3), 397–419.
Yoo, S. (2010). Two Types of Neutrality: Ambivalence versus Indifference and Political Participation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163–177.