This paper (which is mainly expository) sets up graphical models for causation, having a bit less than the usual complement of hypothetical counterfactuals. Assuming the invariance of error distributions may be essential for causal inference, but the errors themselves need not be invariant. Graphs can be interpreted using conditional distributions, so that we can better address connections between the mathematical framework and causality in the world. The identification problem is posed in terms of conditionals. As will be seen, causal relationships cannot be inferred from a data set by running regressions unless there is substantial prior knowledge about the mechanisms that generated the data. There are few successful applications of graphical models, mainly because few causal pathways can be excluded on a priori grounds. The invariance conditions themselves remain to be assessed.

* This paper will be published in Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming, 2007). I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments I received from Robert Adcock, Andrew Gould, Richard Snyder and one anonymous reviewer. This paper focuses on the past and present of comparative politics in the US. The discussion is organized around three issues: the definition of the field’s subject matter, the role of theory, and the use of methods. These three issues are the basis for an identification of distinct periods in the history of comparative politics and for assessments of the state of the field. Attention is also given to the link between comparative politics, on the one hand, and other fields of political science and other social sciences, on the other hand, and, more briefly, to political events and the values held by scholars of comparative politics. The evolution of comparative politics is seen as punctuated by two revolutions: the behavioral revolution, during the immediate post-World War II years until the mid-1960s, and the second scientific revolution, which started around the end of the Cold War and is still ongoing. On both occasions, the impetus for change came from developments in the field of American politics and

Introduction In the broad project of 'class analysis' a great deal of effort goes into defining class and delineating the boundaries of classes. This is necessarily so, because class analysis is 'the empirical investigation of the consequences and corollaries of the existence of a class structure defined exante ' (Breen and Rottman 1995b: 453). By starting from a particular definition, sociologists can assess the extent to which such things as inequality in life chances among individuals and families are structured on the basis of class. This approach stands in contrast to one that discovers a class structure from the empirical distribution of inequality in society (Srrenson 2000 labels this the 'nominal classifications' approach). In class analysis the theoretical underpinnings of the version of class that is being used have to be made clear at the outset, and the concept of class has to be operationalized so as to allow claims about class to b

This paper considers whether it is still possible to identify a status order in contemporary Britain. We analyse the occupational structure of friendship and present empirical results which show that there is one dimension of this structure that can be plausibly interpreted as reflecting a hierarchy of status. This status hierarchy is gender-neutral, and displays clear continuities with that depicted for the later nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries in historical and earlier sociological research. We further show that the correlation between social status and both income and education is only rather modest. As regards status and class, we find that while some classes show a rather high degree of status homogeneity, in other classes status stratification is quite extensive.

Few concepts are more contested in sociological theory than the concept of “class. ” In contemporary sociology there are scholars who assert that “class as a concept is ceasing to do any useful work in sociology ” (Pahl, 1989) or even more stridently proclaim “the death of class” (eg. Pakulski and Waters, 1996; see also Holton and Turner, 1989). Yet, at the same time, there are also sociologists who write books with titles such as Bringing Class Back In (McNall, Levine and Fantasia, 1991), Reworking Class (Hall, 1997), Repositioning Class (Marshall 1997), and Class Counts (Wright, 1997). In some theoretical traditions in sociology, most notably Marxism, class figures at the very core of the theoretical structure; in others, especially the tradition identified with Durkheim, only pale shadows of class appear. In what follows we will first examine in broad strokes the different ways in which the word class is used in sociological theory. This will be followed by a more fine-grained exploration of the differences in the concept of class in the two most important traditions of class analysis, the Weberian and the Marxist. Varieties of class concepts Many discussions of the concept of class confuse the terminological problem of how the word

Acknowledgments: Our primary debt is to Hyunsub Kum who implemented the statistical matching algorithms used in creating the synthetic dataset used in this study. We are grateful for comments from Stephan Klasen and Michael Zweig. We have also benefited from discussions about our paper with participants in the conferences of the Working Class Studies Association, Eastern Economic Association, Allied Social Science Association and International Association for Research on Income and Wealth. We alone are responsible for any errors and omissions. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants. The purpose of the series is to disseminate ideas to and elicit comments from academics and professionals. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad.

New York: Russell Sage 2008. Stimulating comments of and discussions with Jeroen Weesie and other members of our Utrecht group “Cooperation in Social and Economic Relations ” are gratefully acknowledged. We also acknowledge helpful comments from participants of the Russell Sage Foundation “Rational Choice Social Research Workshop ” and specifically from our discussant, Simon Gächter. Financial support for Buskens was provided by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) for the project “Third-Party Effects in Cooperation Problems ” and by Utrecht University for the High Potential-program “Dynamics of Cooperation, Networks, and

Abstract not found

Stanford University. We wish to thank David Bills and an anonymous reviewer for their comments.

Earlier research following the modern world system perspective has suggested multinational corporate investment in poor countries can harm chances of long term economic development, thus increasing world inequality in the process of globalization. Especially since the Asian economic miracles of recent decades, other explanations of economic development have focused upon cultural factors. All sides in the debate, however, have neglected the fact that when we examine separate world regions individually the situation becomes far more complex. Multinational corporate investment and open markets in East and Southeast Asia are more likely associated with economic development and reduced poverty when compared to less developed countries in Latin America and Africa. Within Asia, however, countries in similar cultural groupings have had vastly different economic development prospects in the second half of the 20 th century. This paper begins with consideration of methodological shortcomings of the now traditional statistical analysis of comparative data sets in identifying the forces producing economic development or stagnation in the modern global economy. The focus then turns to an historical and comparative analysis of the successful and failed Theravada Buddhist nations