Publication: Studying Contingency Systematically
Open/View Files
Date
2016
Published Version
Published Version
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.
Citation
Einstein, Katherine Levine, and Jennifer Hochschild. 2017. "Studying Contingency Systematically." In Governing in a Polarized Age: Elections, Parties, and Political Representation in America, eds. Alan S. Gerber and Eric Schickler, 304-327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Research Data
Abstract
In a series of articles and books, David Mayhew has argued convincingly that "in the realm of primitive building blocks, there is a case for ranking events as the equals of interests and preferences in a seriously explanatory political science." We develop that insight byexamining the cases of gun control, global warming, and others. Our goal is to determine when and how unique events can spur opinion change, and when and how such opinion change can eventuate in new laws, rules, or rulers. We do not fully succeed, since the task is too great for a single chapter. But the cases enable us to develop a decision tree with crucial points for empirical study, in order to help scholars develop more systematic understandings of when, how, and why, contingency matters in political processes and outcomes.
Description
Other Available Sources
Keywords
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles (OAP), as set forth at Terms of Service