IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v86y1992i01p1-7_08.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The State in Political Science: How We Became What We Study

Author

Listed:
  • Lowi, Theodore J.

Abstract

American political science is a product of the American state. There are political reasons why particular subdisciplines became hegemonic with the emergence of the “Second Republic†after World War II. The three hegemonic subdisciplines of our time are public opinion, public policy, and public choice. Each is a case study of consonance with the thought-ways and methods of a modern bureaucratized government committed to scientific decision making. Following Leviathan too closely results in three principal consequences: (1) failure to catch and evaluate the replacement of law by economics as the language of the state, (2) the loss of passion in political science discourse, and (3) the failure of political science to appreciate the significance of ideological sea changes accompanying regime changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Lowi, Theodore J., 1992. "The State in Political Science: How We Became What We Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 1-7, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:01:p:1-7_08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400086937/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard O. Zerbe & Howard E. McCurdy, 1999. "The failure of market failure," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 558-578.
    2. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2018. "Public choice and political science: a view from Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 245-257, June.
    3. George A. Boyne, 1996. "Competition and Local Government: A Public Choice Perspective," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 33(4-5), pages 703-721, May.
    4. James M. Lindsay & John A. C. Conybeare & Gerald L. Sorokin, 1994. "Introduction," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 179-184, June.
    5. Ruth Lane, 1996. "Positivism, Scientific Realism and Political Science," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 361-382, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:01:p:1-7_08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.