- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- List of Contributors
- Institutional Perspectives—Working towards Coherence or Irreconcilable Diversity?
- Beyond Comparative Statics: Historical Institutional Approaches to Stability and Change In the Political Economy of Labor
- Actors and Institutions
- Institutional Reproduction and Change
- Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Social Science Data
- The State in the Economy: Neoliberal or Neoactivist?
- Money and Markets
- Transnational Institutions and International Regimes
- Law as a Governing Institution
- Institutional Change in Financial Systems
- The Comparative Institutional Analysis of Innovation: From Industrial Policy to the Knowledge Economy
- Changing Competition Models in Market Economies: The Effects of Inter‐nationalization, Technological Innovations, and Academic Expansion on the Conditions Supporting Dominant Economic Logics
- Institutions, Wealth, and Inequality
- Corporate Governance
- The Institutional Construction of Firms
- Institutionalizing the Employment Relationship
- Inter‐Firm Relations in Global Manufacturing: Disintegrated Production and Its Globalization
- Institutional Transformation in European Post‐Communist Regimes
- State Failure
- Financial Capitalism Resurgent: Comparative Institutionalism and the Challenges of Financialization
- Institutional Competitiveness: How Nations came to Compete
- Epilogue: Institutions in History: Bringing Capitalism Back In
Abstract and Keywords
This article explores two topics: comparative methods and methodological responses to contingent ‘truth’ claims of social science. The objective of comparative research is, by this approach, to investigate truth claims across a subset of all possible worlds. For many researchers in the field of comparative social science, these worlds are inhabited by nation-states, but they could be, of course, any type of organization or collective. The kind of truth claim that interests researchers of the study of comparative institutions is the identification of those institutions whose efficacy is universalistic or specific to a country. The objective of comparative research to investigate the domain and validity of a truth claim faces at least four challenges. For reasons of comparing qualitative comparative analysis and statistical approaches, this article focuses on the four challenges. It concentrates on the small-N approach of Charles Ragin to causal inference in such settings.
Bruce Kogut is the Eli Lily Claired Professor of Innovation, Business, and Society at INSEAD. He works in the areas of international competition, strategy and real options, and globalization. Recent articles and projects include: Redesigning the Firm (1996), co-authored with E. Bowman, studies of small worlds in Germany (American Sociological Review, 2001), open source (Oxford Review of Economic Policy), and a forthcoming book on the Global Internet Economy e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.