Explicações e Desenhos na Ciência Política: O caso do Comparecimento Eleitoral

Contenido principal del artículo

Flávio Rezende
Caio Gomes Brandão Rios

Resumen

O artigo se propões a analisar o argumento de que explicações institucionais e comportamentais coexistem na Ciência Política contemporânea o que, por sua vez, aumenta o leque de desenhos de pesquisa disponíveis para testar os argumentos propostos. Utilizando o caso da literatura sobre o comparecimento eleitoral, identificamos duas perguntas fundamentais que remetem, cada uma, a perspectivas teóricas distintas. A primeira (por que o eleitor vota?) é explicada no nível do indivíduo e teorias comportamentais são mais apropriadas. A segunda (por que as taxas de comparecimento variam de país para país?) necessita comparar estruturas e arranjos institucionais para ser respondida. Três hipóteses são propostas sobre a coexistência dos modelos teóricos nas publicações recentes e suas respectivas relações com desenhos experimentais e qualitativos.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Cómo citar
Rezende, F., & Gomes Brandão Rios, C. (2021). Explicações e Desenhos na Ciência Política: O caso do Comparecimento Eleitoral. Revista Latinoamericana De Metodología De Las Ciencias Sociales (Relmecs), 11(1), e091. https://doi.org/10.24215/18537863e091
Sección
Artículos

Citas

Almlund, P. (2018). Non-Voting Young People in Conflict with the Political System. Journal of Political Power, 11(2), 230–251.

Blais, A. (2006). WHAT AFFECTS VOTER TURNOUT? Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 111–125.

Blais, A., & Dobrzynska, A. (1998). Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 239–261.

Bühlmann, M., & Freitag, M. (2006). Individual and Contextual Determinants of Electoral Participation. Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4), 13–47.

Campbell, A. (1960). The American Voter. Wiley.

Cepaluni, G., & Hidalgo, F. D. (2016). Compulsory Voting Can Increase Political Inequality: Evidence from Brazil. Political Analysis, 24(2), 273–280.

Condon, M. (2015). Voice Lessons: Rethinking the Relationship Between Education and Political Participation. Political Behavior, 37, 819–843.

Cox, G. W., & Munger, M. C. (1989). Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 217–231.

Do Prado, J. W., Alcântara, V. C., Carvalho, F. M., Vieira, K. C., Machado, L. K. C., & Tonelli, D. F. (2016). Multivariate analysis of credit risk and bankruptcy research data: A bibliometric study involving different knowledge fields (1968–2014). Scientometrics, 106(3), 1007–1029.

Downs, A. (1957). An Economicy Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

Duffy, J., & Tavits, M. (2008). Beliefs and voting decisions: A test of the pivotal voting model. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3).

Ferejohn, J. A., & Fiorina, M. P. (1974). The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis. American Political Science Review, 68(2), 525–536.

Fieldhouse, E., & Cutts, D. (2008). Mobilisation or Marginalisation? Neighbourhood Effects on Muslim Electoral Registration in Britain in 2001. Political Studies, 56(2), 333–354.

Fiorina, M. (1990). Information and Rationality in Elections. In J. A. Ferejohn and Kuklinski, Information and Democratic Processes. University of Illinois Press.

Fraga, L. R. (2006). Su Casa Es Nuestra Casa: Latino Politics Research and the Development of American Political Science. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 7.

Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Kaplan, E. H. (2004). The illusion of learning from observational research. In I. Shapiro, R. Smith, & T. Massoud, Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics (p. 251–273). Cambridge University Press.

Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton University Press.

Goertz, Gary, & Mahoney, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures. Princeton University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.cttq94gh

Gosnell, H. (1927). Getting Out the Vote. University of Chicago Press.

Green, D., & Gerber, A. (2004). Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Brookings Institution Press.

Green, D., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Yale University Press.

Griffin, J. D., & Keane, M. (2006). Descriptive Representation and the Composition of African American Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 998–1012.

Hall, P. A. (2003). Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer, Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (p. Ch. 11). Cambridge University Press.

Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.

Jackman, R. W. (1987). Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial democracies. American Political Science Review, 81(2), 405–423.

Kasy, M. (2016). Why Experiments Might Not Always Want to Randomize, and What They Could Do. Political Analysis, 24(3), 1–15.

Levine, D., & Palfrey, T. R. (2007). The paradox of voter participation: A laboratory study. American Political Science Review, 101, 143–158.

Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14,.

Liu, W. (2014). Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: A 20-year perspective. Scientometrics, 99(2), 507–521.

Machin, D. (2011). Compulsory Turnout: A Compelling (and Contingent) Case. Politics, 31(2), 100-106,.

Maclntyre, A. (1973). Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible? In E. Alan Ryan (Org.), The Philosophy of Social Explanation. Oxford University Press.

Palfrey, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1983). A strategic calculus of voting. Public Choice, v. 41.

Plott, C. R. (1991). Will Economics become an Experimental Science? Southern Economic Journal, 57(4), 901–919.

Powell, G. B. (1982). Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability, and violence (5. print). Harvard Univ. Press.

Powell, G. B. (1986). American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review.

Przeworski, A. (2004). Institutions Matter? Government and Opposition, 39(4), 527–540.

Przeworski, A. (2009). Is the Science of Comparative Politics Possible? In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics.

Rezende, F. C. (2015a). Modelos de Causação e o Pluralismo Inferencial na Ciência Política [Grupo de Pesquisa Epistemologia e Método Comparado. PPGCP/CNPq].

Rezende, F. C. (2015b). Transformações Metodológicas na Ciência Política Contemporânea. Revista Política Hoje, 24(2), 13–46.

Rezende, F. C. (2017). O Pluralismo Inferencial na Ciência Política Pós-KKV (2005- 2015): Argumento e Evidências. Revista Política Hoje, 26(1), 241–277.

Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 74(2), 432–446.

Stokes, S. (2014). A Defense of Observational Research. In D. L. Teele, Field Experiments and Their Critics. Yale University Press.

Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Harper & Row.

Wang, C. H. (2015). A Deeper Look at the Relationship between Political Knowledge and Political Participation: Evidence from Presidential and Legislative Elections in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Political Science, v. 23(3), 397–419.

Yoo, S. (2010). Two Types of Neutrality: Ambivalence versus Indifference and Political Participation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163–177.