Explore the vast range of titles available.

Comparative Area Studies (CAS) emerges as a new approach in which scholars of Latin American Studies engage systematically with scholars working on other world regions. Adopting a focus on intra-, inter- and cross area comparisons, CAS builds on the traditional strengths of area studies. At the same time it enables scholars to have a stronger impact on overarching conceptual debates and it may provide new bridges between area studies scholars and the academic communities in the regions studied. However, a comparative area studies approach requires systematic cooperation among scholars of different world regions, and adequate organizational and institutional structures to support them. Los Estudios Regionales Comparativos (Comparative Area Studies - CAS) surgen como un enfoque nuevo dentro del cual académicos de Estudios Latinoamericanos colaboran sistemáticamente con académicos que investigan sobre otras regiones del mundo. Tomando como punto de partida comparaciones intrarregionales, interregionales y transregionales, los ERC se basan en los puntos fuertes tradicionales de los estudios regionales. Al mismo tiempo, este enfoque permite a los académicos tener un impacto mayor en los debates conceptuales más amplios y puede tender nuevos puentes entre los académicos de estudios regionales y las comunidades académicas de las regiones estudiadas. Sin embargo, un enfoque de estudios regionales comparativos exige una cooperación sistemática entre académicos de distintas regiones del mundo y unas estructuras organizativas e institucionales adecuadas para apoyarles.

This article takes stock of the state of African Studies and argues that (1) research on Africa is strongly dominated by outside, non-African, mostly Western views; (2) there is a tendency towards undifferentiated views on “Africa,” which usually concentrate on negative aspects, overlooking progress in many areas; (3) methodologies that focus on causal identification are rarely used; and (4) the field focuses on micro-perspectives while few works examine the big picture and the longue durée. The article then argues that Comparative African Studies, which builds upon the concept of Comparative Area Studies, can address some of these challenges. A pronouncedly comparative perspective would help to systematically combine and contrast “outside” and “inside” perspectives in order to better identify causal relationships and general trends both within Africa and between Africa and other regions. Consequently, African Studies requires more resources and should more effectively engage in multi-disciplinary and mixedmethods research. Dieser Artikel nimmt eine Bestandsaufnahme der Afrikaforschung vor und stellt fest, dass (1) Forschung zu Afrika stark von externen, nicht afrikanischen, meist westlichen Perspektiven dominiert wird, (2) es eine Tendenz zu undifferenzierten Aussagen zu„ Afrika” gibt, die sich in der Regel auf negative Aspekte konzentrieren und positive Entwicklungen in vielen Bereichen übersehen, (3) Methoden mit einem Fokus auf kausale Identifikation selten angewandt werden, und (4) die Forschung eher Mikroperspektiven einnimmt und wenige Arbeiten das große Ganze („big picture“) und langfristige Entwicklungen („longue durée“) in den Blick nehmen. In der Folge wird argumentiert, dass Vergleichende Afrikastudien (Comparative African Studies), die auf dem Konzept der Comparative Area Studies aufbauen, zur Lösung dieser Probleme beitragen können. Eine dezidiert vergleichende Perspektive würde unter anderem helfen, externe und lokale Perspektiven zu kombinieren, um kausale Beziehungen, generelle Trends in Afrika sowie zwischen Afrika und anderen Regionen zu identifizieren. Die Forschung zu Afrika benötigt mehr Ressourcen und sollte effektiver multidisziplinäre und multimethodische Ansätze nutzen.

Building on studies on authoritarian resilience in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the article engages the current debate on global autocratization. It does so through the analysis of authoritarian deepening as a manifestation of contemporary authoritarianism from a cross-regional perspective. After framing theoretically and methodologically the study of authoritarian deepening, a Comparative Area Study—based on the most-different case study design—is conducted looking at countries from different regions that share similar trends of growing authoritarianism (Egypt, Cameroon, Cambodia, and Venezuela) to illustrate its characteristics. The article shows that authoritarian deepening is experienced by autocracies all over the world, although the MENA region is particularly affected. The comparative analysis of the four cases provides evidence that the process of authoritarian deepening has resulted in clear suppression of political competition, concentration of power in the executive, and even stricter control of rights and freedoms.

Debating the challenges of comparisons in Southeast Asian studies, the objective of this Special Issue is to advance the agenda of context-sensitive and methodologically reflected comparative area studies (CAS). As a deliberate attempt to infuse new meaning into the embattled genre of area studies, CAS seeks to overcome increasingly rigid (sub-)disciplinary barriers often constructed around methodological arguments. Moreover, through stepping up the inclusion of non-Western regions in the research agenda, CAS also makes a decided bid to transcend the usually strongly Western-centric theory building in most social science disciplines. This introduction locates the following articles in the broader context of the area studies-discipline divide. It highlights how the challenges of comparative research practice on different layers of social reality are at the heart of this divide but at the same time provide a productive ground for exchange in interdisciplinary Southeast Asian studies. We expand on the contributing authors' arguments by providing a typology of comparative research practice that captures the value of various forms of area studies comparisons, and by reflecting on the conceptual preconditions for fruitful comparisons.

Bölge çalışmaları 21. yüzyılda derin dönüşümler geçirmektedir. Bunların bir kısmı sosyal bilim disiplinlerindeki dönüşüme paralel gerçekleşmiş ve bu dönüşümlerde tek/çok kutupluluk, küreselleşme ve göç gibi dönemin başlıklarının etkisi görülmüştür. Bu dönüşümün arkasında alana yönelik sancılı bir eleştiri ve özeleştiri süreci vardır. Diğer yandan bölge çalışmaları alanına özgü yeni kuramsal ve yöntemsel eğilimler de ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmada bölge çalışmalarının küresel olarak geldiği yeni yer haritalandırılacak ayrıca yeni kuramsal ve yöntemsel eğilimler sunulacaktır. Bölge çalışmalarının 21. yüzyılda; ana akım bölge çalışmaları, karşılaştırmalı bölge çalışmaları ve eleştirel bölge çalışmaları olarak üç farklı eksende nasıl geliştiği, bu eksenlerin alanın geleneksel sorunlarına getirdiği çözümleri ve birbirleriyle ilişkilerini aktarılacaktır. Bu farklı eğilimlerin evrensel ve tikel; kuram ve ampirik veri gibi temel gerilimleri nasıl çözdüğüne, hangi bilgi kategorilerinde üretim yaptıklarına bakacak ve bölge çalışmalarının temel nesnesi olan “bölge”yi ontolojik açıdan nasıl kavramsallaştırdıklarını ele alacaktır. In 21st century, area studies are undergoing deep transformations. Part of these transformations are occurring in parallel to transformation in disciplines in social sciences, reflecting the discussions around themes of this period, such as uni/multi polarity; globalization and migration. On the other hand, new theoretical and methodological tendencies that are unique to area studies are also emerging. Behind this period of transformations, there lies a painful process of criticism and self-reflection. This study will map out the area studies in this century and present its new approaches. 21st century area studies will be divided into three axes: mainstream area studies; comparative area studies and critical area studies. It will present their solutions to the traditional problems of the field and their interplay with one another. It will examine how that solve the classic tensions such as universal vs particular; theory vs empirical data; their knowledge production processes and their ontological approach to the “area”.

This report deals with the international workshop \"The Legacy of Armed Conflicts: Southern African and Comparative Perspectives,\" held on 28-29 July 2016 at the University of Pretoria. The workshop facilitated discussions and exchanges between regional and comparative experts and focused on three themes: the relationship between peace processes and long-term peacebuilding, the role of former armed actors in post-conflict societies, and the persistence of violence after conflict. The importance of legitimacy for peacebuilding was often evoked as was the necessity to consider the continuity between armed conflict and other forms of violent and non-violent social action. Die Autorin berichtet vom internationalen Workshop „The Legacy of Armed Conflicts: Southern African and Comparative Perspectives“, der am 28./29. Juli 2016 an der Universität Pretoria stattfand. Der Workshop ermöglichte den Austausch und die gemeinsame Debatte von Experten für Regionalforschung und für komparative Studien. Im Zentrum standen drei Themen: der Zusammenhang zwischen Friedensprozessen und langfristiger Friedenssicherung, die Rolle ehemaliger bewaffneter Akteure in Nachkriegsgesellschaften und die Fortdauer von Gewalt nach der Beendigung von Konflikten. In der Diskussion wurde insbesondere die Bedeutung von Legitimität beim Aufbau friedlicher Strukturen hervorgehoben sowie die Notwendigkeit, die Kontinuität zwischen bewaffneten Konflikten und späteren Formen gewaltsamer und gewaltloser sozialer Handlungen zu berücksichtigen.

Examines the dichotomy between area studies and the more traditional discipline of political science. Discusses those areas of political science that relate to area studies and suggests several reasons for an intransigence to change within the more traditional discipline. Recommends a cooperative and interdisciplinary effort between both camps. (MJP)

The growing reliance on rational choice or public choice theory, which attempts to apply the neo-classical model of a market to politics, in political science is discussed.

Los procesos de democratización constituyen un objeto de atención relevante para la política comparada. Sin embargo, las propuestas de carácter transnacional que confrontan casos de diferentes áreas atendiendo a la sensibilidad contextual son todavía escasas y las investigaciones comparadas basadas en enfoques de métodos mixtos (QCA) son muy excepcionales. Estos métodos presentan ciertas ventajas tanto conceptuales como metodológicas. Por un lado, la región adquiere relevancia como criterio ordenador y no como elemento explicativo. Por otro lado, ayudan a evaluar teorías previamente aplicadas a ciertos contextos regionales o locales. Este enfoque mixto es altamente adaptable a los estudios sobre cambio político, y es especialmente útil para los estudios comparados. Así, permite la descripción contextual de los países; favorece la clasificación; posibilita la evaluación de teorías previas, y facilita la comparación. No obstante, la mayoría de las publicaciones QCA se orientan a la evaluación de teorías clásicas y no tienen en cuenta la asimetría de los procesos de cambio político. A este respecto, esta nota de investigación aconseja distinguir entre los tipos de cambio político e incluir nuevas condiciones que solo han sido cubiertas desde los análisis intrarregionales y los estudios de caso sobre la región del Norte de África y Oriente Próximo (MENA).