Area studies, comparative politics, and the role of cross-regional small-N comparison

Stephen Hanson’s (2008) essay in the Fall 2008 issue of this newsletter offers a much needed corrective for the perception that area-focused scholarship is neither rigorous enough nor theoretical enough to deserve a prominent place in the discipline of political science. While concurring with Hanson’s eloquent defense of the value of area studies, this essay is motivated by a concern over just how we might facilitate the “open-minded and mutually respectful dialogue” that Hanson (2008: 41) calls for between area specialists and those who are more partial to general theories or deductive models. Below, I examine the prospects of getting such a dialogue off the ground in view of the prevailing methodological currents and epistemological divides in the discipline. I suggest that rival epistemological orientations not only drive the debates over the status of area studies, as Hanson suggests, but also generate quite different types of area-focused scholarship some of which have a better chance than others of productively engaging general comparativists in the discipline. To facilitate even this more narrowly circumscribed dialogue, which I view as a pre-condition for a wider conversation encompassing more varied perspectives, a useful mediating role can be played by cross-regional small-N comparison (as opposed to area-bound comparative studies or single-country studies)

THE FATE OF LABOR AFTER REGIME CHANGE: Lessons From Post-Communist Poland and Post-Apartheid South Africa For Tunisia’s Nobel-Prize Winning Unions

Wherever labor has played a significant role in bringing about regime change, there may be opportunities to join in the post-authoritarian ruling coalition in the hopes of consolidating its influence. This article examines the long-term risks and unanticipated consequences of giving in to this temptation by comparing post-communist Poland and post-apartheid South Africa, where the leading trade union federations became weaker and more divided as their political allies pushed forward with economic liberalization. Tunisia's trade unions, awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize for their contribution to a stable transition after the "Arab Spring," face the risk of going down the same path should they continue to view themselves as partners of the new governing elite, which has already signaled its intention of pursuing further liberalization

State-sponsored trade unions after democratic transitions

New democracies inherit a variety of institutions from prior authoritarian regimes, including political parties, militaries and entrenched oligarchies. While these authoritarian legacies have generally been well-researched, one set of institutions has received relatively little attention: state-backed trade unions that lose official sponsorship after democratizing transitions. In most new democracies and competitive authoritarian regimes, these “legacy unions” have remained the dominant workers’ organizations despite few internal reforms. Previous research on the causes and consequences of legacy union dominance has rested on case studies of post-transition countries and small-N comparisons. In this article, we offer a global perspective on the fates of legacy unions by introducing new data about the relative importance of legacy unions in post-Third Wave democracies. We show that most legacy unions survive democratic transitions and remain dominant in new democracies, although with significant regional variation. Our data and analyses suggest that these trade unions are authoritarian legacies which continue to influence labour politics in new democracies. Dominant legacy unions are associated with lower labour movement fragmentation and better-protected labour rights in new democracies