IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v46y2017i4p683-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It’s Been Mostly About Money! A Multi-method Research Approach to the Sources of Institutionalization

Author

Listed:
  • Fernando Casal Bértoa

Abstract

Although much has been written about the process of party system institutionalization in different regions, the reasons why some party systems institutionalize while others do not still remain a mystery. Seeking to fill this lacuna in the literature, and using a mixed-methods research approach, this article constitutes a first attempt to answer simultaneously the following three questions: (1) What specific factors help party systems to institutionalize (or not)? (2) What are the links (in terms of time and degree) as well as the causal mechanisms behind such relationships? and (3) how do they affect a particular party system? In order to do so, this article focuses on the study of party system development and institutionalization in 13 postcommunist democracies between 1990 and 2010. Methodologically, the article innovates in five respects. First, it continues the debate on the importance of “mixed methods†when trying to answer different research questions. Second, it adds to the as yet brief literature on the combination of process tracing and qualitative comparative analysis. Third, it constitutes the first attempt to date to use a most similar different outcome/most different same outcome procedure in order to reduce causal complexity before undertaking a crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis. Third, it also shows the merits of combining both congruence and process tracing in the same comparative study. Finally, it also develops a novel “bipolar comparative method†to explain the extent to which opposite outcomes are determined by reverse conditions and conflicting intervening causal forces.

Suggested Citation

  • Fernando Casal Bértoa, 2017. "It’s Been Mostly About Money! A Multi-method Research Approach to the Sources of Institutionalization," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 683-714, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:46:y:2017:i:4:p:683-714
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124115588998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124115588998
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124115588998?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margit Tavits, 2005. "The Development of Stable Party Support: Electoral Dynamics in Post‐Communist Europe," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 283-298, April.
    2. Gisèle Meur & Peter Bursens & Alain Gottcheiner, 2006. "MSDO/MDSO Revisited for Public Policy Analysis," Springer Books, in: Benoît Rihoux & Heike Grimm (ed.), Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis, chapter 0, pages 67-94, Springer.
    3. Roberts, Kenneth M. & Wibbels, Erik, 1999. "Party Systems and Electoral Volatility in Latin America: A Test of Economic, Institutional, and Structural Explanations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 575-590, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bishop, Matthew Louis & Corbett, Jack & Veenendaal, Wouter, 2020. "Labor movements and party system development: Why does the Caribbean have stable two-party systems, but the Pacific does not?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Sergiu Gherghina & George Jiglău, 2013. "Outside the Government: Why Ethnic Parties Fail to Join the Post-Communist Cabinets," Working Papers 335, Leibniz Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (Institute for East and Southeast European Studies).
    3. Bunker, Kenneth, 2020. "A two-stage model to forecast elections in new democracies," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1407-1419.
    4. Carina Bischoff, 2013. "Electorally unstable by supply or demand?—an examination of the causes of electoral volatility in advanced industrial democracies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 537-561, September.
    5. Elena Semenova, 2020. "Expert Ministers in New Democracies: Delegation, Communist Legacies, or Technocratic Populism?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 590-602.
    6. Patricio Navia & Lucas Perelló & Vaclav Masek, 2022. "Demand without supply? Mass partisanship, ideological attachments, and the puzzle of Guatemala's electoral market failure," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 25(2), pages 99-120, June.
    7. Stephan Kaplan, 2016. "partisan Technocratic Cycles in Latin America," Working Papers 2016-28, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    8. Muhammad Ahsan Ali Raza & Chen Yan & Hafiz Syed Mohsin Abbas & Atta Ullah, 2021. "Impact of institutional governance and state determinants on foreign direct investment in Asian economies," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 2596-2613, December.
    9. Akhtaruzzaman, M. & Berg, Nathan & Hajzler, Christopher, 2017. "Expropriation risk and FDI in developing countries: Does return of capital dominate return on capital?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 84-107.
    10. repec:gig:joupla:v:2:y:2010:i:1:p:31-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Julio A. Ramos Pastrana, 2021. "Who’s getting the office? Party dominance and elected executives’ career path," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 270-297, May.
    12. Alexander Boca Saravia & Gabriel Rodríguez, 2022. "Presidential approval in Peru: an empirical analysis using a fractionally cointegrated VAR," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 1973-2010, August.
    13. Eduardo Lora & Mauricio Olivera, 2005. "The Electoral Consequences of the Washington Consensus," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 1-61, January.
    14. Stephen Kaplan, 2016. "Fighting Past Economic Wars: Crisis and Austerity in Latin America," Working Papers 2015-13, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    15. Stephen B. Kaplan, 2014. "Political Economy of Macroeconomic Policymaking: Economic Crises and Technocratic Governance," Working Papers 2014-18, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    16. Martin Lausegger, 2021. "Stock markets in turmoil: political institutions and the impact of elections," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 172-204, March.
    17. Wibbels, Erik, 2006. "Dependency Revisited: International Markets, Business Cycles, and Social Spending in the Developing World," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 433-468, April.
    18. Akbulut-Yuksel, Mevlude & Okoye, Dozie & Yuksel, Mutlu, 2017. "Learning to Participate in Politics: Evidence from Jewish Expulsions in Nazi Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 10778, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Huo, Jingjing, 2015. "How Nations Innovate: The Political Economy of Technological Innovation in Affluent Capitalist Economies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198735847, Decembrie.
    20. William Bianco & Christopher Kam & Itai Sened & Regina Smyth, 2014. "Party relevance and party survival in new democracies," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 251-261, September.
    21. Daniel M Kselman, 2020. "Public goods equilibria under closed- and open-list proportional representation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(1), pages 112-142, January.

    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:sae:somere:v:46:y:2017:i:4:p:683-714. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.