Abstract: How has the field of comparative politics in the US evolved since the turn of the millennium? What might a scholar based in Latin America, a different working environment than the United States, do to contribute to comparative politics? Researchers in the US currently give disproportionate attention to matters of methods, tend to address narrow substantive questions, and pay inadequate attention to matters of theory. However, the research community in the US is diverse, and no trend dominates for long. In turn, few researchers in Latin America work in the kinds of circumstances conducive to careers focused fully on research that their peers in the US enjoy. Still, there are advantages to working in the periphery, including greater knowledge of the languages and cultures, a stronger ability to produce "thick knowledge" that sets research in context, and closer proximity to empirical phenomena of interest that can make the stakes of research more obvious. Moreover, Latin American scholars can benefit from selectively engaging with ideas and colleagues from the North. We thus see not only problems and obstacles but also opportunities for comparative politics in both the North and South.

Resumen: ¿Cómo ha evolucionado la Política Comparada en Estados Unidos desde el cambio de milenio? ¿Qué pueden hacer los investigadores de América Latina, un contexto de trabajo diferente al de Estados Unidos, para contribuir a la política comparada? Los académicos estadounidenses actualmente dan una atención desproporcionada a cuestiones de método, tienden a abordar preguntas sustantivas estrechas y prestan poca atención a cuestiones de teoría. Sin embargo, la comunidad de investigadores en Estados Unidos es diversa, y ninguna tendencia domina mucho tiempo. A su vez, pocos investigadores en América Latina trabajan en las circunstancias conducentes a carreras plenamente enfocadas en la investigación, a diferencia de sus pares en Estados Unidos. Aun así, hay ventajas de trabajar en la periferia, que incluyen un mayor conocimiento de las lenguas y culturas, una capacidad superior para producir "conocimiento denso" y contextualizado, y una proximidad a los fenómenos empíricos de interés que puede hacer más obvio que es lo que está en juego en la investigación. Además, los académicos latinoamericanos pueden beneficiarse al vincularse selectivamente con ideas y colegas en el norte. Por lo tanto, vemos no sólo problemas y obstáculos sino también oportunidades para la política comparativa tanto en el norte como en el sur.

Resumo A medição dos principais conceitos utilizados no estudo da política tem um grande impacto no nosso conhecimento sobre ela. Afeta a nossa forma de descrever o mundo (e, portanto, as questões que parecem importantes para o estudo) e as proposições causais que consideramos válidas. Ainda mais importante, afeta o tipo de conselho que cientistas políticos podem oferecer sobre os principais temas de política pública e as questões políticas do dia. No entanto, é notável a pouca atenção é dada para a geração de dados e a metodologia de medição. Na verdade, é justo dizer que a visão dominante na ciência política é que a medição é uma tarefa necessária que deve ser rapidamente transcendida ou, se possível completamente ignorada, de modo que as energias dos pesquisadores se concentrem em uma tarefa vista como muito mais importante: o teste de hipóteses causais. A falha em reconhecer a importância da geração de dados e a metodologia da medição, e a propensão a tomar atalhos, tem custos graves. Em poucas palavras, ela leva a ganhos ilusórios em conhecimento, que mais cedo ou mais tarde são questionados. Assim, é hora de que os cientistas políticos desconfiem da tendência de reivindicações prematuras de conhecimento, tão difundida na disciplina, e coloquem mais ênfase na medição de conceitos-chave como uma base de conhecimento, isto é, como uma tarefa que afeta o possibilidade de fornecer análise descritiva e/ou causal sólida e, em última análise, de oferecer conselhos responsáveis.

Abstract Measurement of the core concepts used in the study of politics has a great impact on our knowledge about politics. It affects the way we describe the world- and hence the questions that seem important to study-and the causal propositions we consider to be valid. Even more importantly, it affects the kind of advice political scientists offer on the key political and public policy issues of the day. Yet it is remarkable how little attention is given to the generation of data and the methodology of measurement. Indeed, it is fair to say that the mainstream view in political science is that measurement is a necessary task that should be quickly transcended or, if at all possible altogether skipped, so that researchers ' energies can focus on a task seen as much more important: the testing of causal hypotheses. The failure to acknowledge the importance of data generation and the methodology of measurement, and the propensity to take shortcuts, has severe costs. In a nutshell, it is associated with illusionary gains in knowledge, which sooner or later are questioned. Thus, it is time that political scientists become more suspicious of the tendency toward premature knowledge claims that is so pervasive in the discipline and put more emphasis on the measurement of key concepts as a foundation of knowledge, that is, as a task that affects the possibility of providing sound descriptive and/or causal analysis and, ultimately, of offering responsible advice.

This article offers an overview of the scholarship on the struggle over democracy in Latin America. After introducing the research agenda on political regimes and democracy in Latin America, it focuses on the main explanatory theories and debates about the origins and durability of democracy; and discusses theoretical ideas and critiques as well as the findings of empirical research. The discussion is organized around five lines of research, on economic modernization, culture, capitalist development and class, critical junctures, and the political-institutional. The frontiers of research on democracy in Latin America are also addressed.

Este artículo of rece una visión general de la literatura sobre la lucha por la democracia en América Latina. Después de introducir la agenda de investigación sobre regímenes políticos y democracia en América Latina, se enfoca en los debates teóricos acerca del origen y la durabilidad de la democracia, y discute las principales ideas y críticas teóricas así como los hallazgos de la investigación empírica. La discusión está organizada en torno a cinco líneas de investigación, sobre la modernización económica, la cultura, el desarrollo capitalista y las clases sociales, las coyunturas críticas, y lo político-institucional. Las fronteras de la investigación sobre democracia en América Latina son también abordadas.

This article addresses the old question, what is democracy? In light of developments in Latin American thought, and analyzes political trends in the Andean region during recent years from the perspective of democracy. It argues that electoral democracy is seen as an indispensable minimum of democracy. However, emphasis is also placed on three additional requisites that have been proposed as necessary conditions for an electoral democracy to become a full democracy: a democratic form of governing, a democratic form of changing the constitution, and a state with the power to protect civil and social rights. The forging of consensus about this more complete vision of democracy is an important challenge of Latin American thought on democracy.

Este artículo aborda la vieja pregunta ¿qué es la democracia? a la luz de desarrollos en el pensamiento latinoamericano y analiza las tendencias políticas en la región andina durante años recientes desde la perspectiva de la democracia. Se sostiene que la democracia electoral es vista como un mínimo indispensable de la democracia. Pero también se pone énfasis en tres requisitos adicionales que se han propuesto como condiciones necesarias para que una democracia electoral se convierta en una democracia plena: una forma democrática de gobernar, una forma democrática de cambiar la Constitución, y un Estado con poder para proteger los derechos civiles y sociales. Forjar un consenso acerca de esta visión más completa de la democracia es un reto importante del pensamiento latinoamericano sobre la democracia.

This article focuses on past and current research on Latin American politics. It offers an overview of research agendas in the study of Latin American politics over the past four decades, placing an emphasis on the development of a comparative politics of Latin America. It also addresses the strategies -families of methods- used in research on Latin American politics, and provides an assessment of these research strategies. Though the contributions of traditional research methods are recognized, the need to embrace methodological innovation is also stressed. Hence, the advancement of knowledge on Latin American politics is seen as hinging on research that finds an adequate balance between old and new methods

Este artículo se enfoca en investigaciones pasadas y actuales de la política Latinoamericana. Ofrece una revisión de las agendas de investigación desarrolladas en las cuatro últimas décadas, poniendo énfasis en la evolución de una política comparada de América Latina. También aborda las estrategias -familias de métodos- utilizadas en la investigación de la política Latinoamericana y provee una evaluación de estas estrategias. Aunque las contribuciones de los métodos de investigación tradicionales son reconocidas, también se remarca la necesidad de incorporar metodologías innovadoras. Por lo tanto, el avance del conocimiento de la política Latinoamericana es visto como dependiendo de investigaciones que encuentran un balance adecuado entre viejos y nuevos métodos de estudio

This paper considers efforts to monitor democracy and addresses four questions: Why should democracy be monitored? Who are the monitors? What is to be monitored? And, how is monitoring to be conducted? It first highlights and articulates an emerging consensus regarding the monitoring of democracy. Subsequently the discussion turns to a set of new challenges that remain to be resolved. Specifically, the paper focuses on the challenges of balancing multiple political values, bringing politicians and researchers together, integrating monitoring efforts, and resolving measurement problems. Emphasis is placed on the importance of tackling these complex issues and hence on deepening the consensus that has emerged regarding the monitoring of democracy

Este trabajo considera el monitoreo de la democracia y aborda cuatro preguntas: ¿Por qué debe monitorearse la democracia? ¿Quiénes son los monitores? ¿Qué debe monitorearse? Y, ¿cómo debe llevarse a cabo el monitoreo? Primero articula el consenso emergente referido al monitoreo de la democracia. Luego la discusión se vuelca a varios nuevos desafíos que necesitan ser resueltos. Específicamente, el artículo se focaliza en los desafíos de reconocer y balancear múltiples valores políticos, reunir a políticos con investigadores, integrar esfuerzos de monitoreo y solucionar problemas de medición. Se pone énfasis en la importancia de plantear estas temáticas complejas y de profundizar el consenso surgido en referencia al monitoreo de la democracia

Current political reality in Latin America is characterized by the co-existence of democratic regimes with a series of deeply worrying political and socio-economic factors: unbridled corruption, widespread violence and appalling levels of poverty and inequality. Taking this characterization as the point of departure and avoiding the common teleological vision that sees these countries following the path of democracies in Western Europe, the future scenarios faced by Latin America are discussed. In addition, focusing on one of these scenarios, based on a re-assessment of politics, an outline is provided of the elements of a new political agenda that will enable democratic governance to be re-established on the basis of practices that are more compatible with good government, safety, justice and even prosperity.

La realidad política actual de América Latina está configurada por la coexistencia de regímenes democráticos al lado de una serie de factores políticos y socio-económicos profundamente preocupantes: corrupción desenfrenada, violencia generalizada y niveles de pobreza y desigualdad desgarradores. Partiendo de esta caracterización, y evitando la común visión teleológica que ve a esos países siguiendo el camino de las democracias de Europa Occidental, se discuten los escenarios futuros que enfrenta América Latina. Además, poniendo el énfasis en uno de estos escenarios, fundado en una revalorización de la política, se esbozan los elementos de una nueva agenda política que permitiría refundar la gobernabilidad democrática sobre la base de prácticas más afines al buen gobierno (good government), seguridad y justicia, y prosperidad inclusiva.

Seeking to conduct an inventory of the arguments used by game theory proponents, the article assesses both this theory and a set of theoretical principles that extend the scope from rational choice to interdependent decision-making and a type of formal methodology. The article identifies some key qualities, like the theory’s emphasis on actors and strategic choices and its ability to generate logically rigorous and internally consistent predictions. But it also discusses many of the theory’s shortcomings. Therefore, the challenge faced by scholars of comparative politics is to consider the new perspectives offered by game theory and to make use of its qualities, without losing sight of a series of relevant long-standing issues from the social sciences that this approach is not prepared to solve.

En vue de faire l'inventaire des arguments utilisés par les adeptes de la théorie des jeux, cet article évalue celle-ci à la fois comme un ensemble de principes théoriques étendant l'objectif du choix rationnel à une prise de décisions dépendantes les unes des autres et comme un type de méthodologie formelle. Il y relève quelques qualités capitales telles que l'importance attribuée aux acteurs et aux choix des stratégies, ainsi que la capacité de ces théories d'engendrer des prévisions non seulement logiques et rigoureuses mais aussi cohérentes entre elles. On y perçoit aussi des faiblesses. Ainsi pour les chercheurs en politique comparée, l'enjeu est de prendre en considération les nouvelles perspectives proposées par la théorie des jeux et en tirer profit sans pour autant perdre de vue une série d'anciens centres d'intérêt des sciences sociales que la dite théorie n'est pas à même de résoudre.

Embora a literatura sobre democratização tenha dedicado consideravel atenção ao conceito de modos de transição, as tentativas de explicar as perspectivas de consolidação democrática como conseqüência do modo de transição revelam-se inconclusivas. Revisitando esse debate, este artigo sustenta que o modo de transição afeta o padrão de competição entre elites, as regas institucionais elaboradas durante o período de transição e a disposição de atores-chave a aceitar ou rejeitar as novas regras do jogo. Dá-se conteúdo substantivo a esse argumento mediante uma comparação inter-regional que abrange os casos da Argentina, do Brasil, do Chile, da Bulgária, da Tchecoslováquia, da Hungria e da Polônia.

While the literature on democratization has devoted considerable attention to the concept of modes of transition, the attempts to explain the prospects of democratic consolidation as a consequence of the mode of transition have been inconclusive. Revisiting this debate, this article argues that the mode of transition affects the pattern of elite competition, the institutional rules that are crafted during the period of transition, and the disposition of key actors to accept or reject the new rules of the game. This argument is substantiated through a cross-regional comparison encompassing the cases of Argentina, Brazil Chile, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland.

A survey of the literature on social movements shows that the contributions by American and European scholars have shed considerable light on two problems: why social movements emerge with particular identities and how movement organizers give coherence to a movement and coordinate the actions of their followers. The challenge faced by movement organizers in seeking to bring about change, a challenge that forces a social movement to engage strategically, as a social actor, with its political-institutional environment, has received, however, relative little attention. Seeking to fill this gap in the literature, this article argues that the distinct analytically issues raised by the problem of political strategy social movements face can only be addressed through a synthesis that builds upon but goes beyond the contributions made by American and European scholars. The challenge is to conceive of social movement as strategic actors while acknowledging the implications that a social movement's collective identity and social nature has for an analysis of strategic action.

La littérature sur les mouvements sociaux montre que les études menées aux Etats-Unis et en Europe se concentrent autour de deux questions: pourquoi les mouvements sociaux prennent naissance sous certaines identités et comment agissent leurs organisateurs pour réussir la cohérence d'action de leurs participants. Les travaux manquent pourtant en ce qui concerne les difficultés éprouvées par ces organisateurs lorsqu'il s'agit de mettre en oeuvre des changements. Difficultés qui obligent le mouvement, en tant qu'acteur social, à des compromis stratégiques vis à vis du contexte politico-institutionnel. Souhaitant combler cette lacune de la littérature, l'article montre que les différentes questions posées par la stratégie politique des mouvements sociaux ne peuvent trouver de réponse que dans une synthèse qui, tout en assimilant les apports des auteurs nord-américains et européens, les dépasse. On est devant le problème de considérer le mouvement social comme un acteur stratégique et à la fois les implications de sa nature sociale et de son identité collective en vue d'une analyse de l'action stratégique.