本书是对政治学领域进行研究设计的基本问题的方法论介绍，内容浅显易懂，是一本使用的操作指南，适合政治学、社会学、人类学、经济学和历史学专业的研究生和本科生及其导师使用。全书分为六章，分别论述研究设计与相关知识的构建；研究问题的提出如何影响研究结果；研究对象和案例的选择如何影响研究结果；研究论据的采用如何影响研究结果；研究方法和技术的选择如何影响研究结果；以及最后的总结。

Michael Kennedy develops a theoretical conception of Soviet-type societies by analyzing Solidarity's significance on three levels. First, he explains the background to and nature of the conflict between Solidarity and the authorities by examining the relation between the distribution of power and movement strategies. Second, he considers the implications of Solidarity's struggle for the theory of the Soviet-type system's reproduction and transformation by offering a critique and synthesis of relevant theories of class and civil society. Third, he examines the internal constitution of Solidarity in terms of gender and, in particular, cross-class alliances. He argues that because engineers and physicians were dependent on the self-organized working class in this conflict between civil society and state, professional projects had to be recast in visions suitable to the alliance. In a concluding chapter, he explores the implications of his analysis both for understanding perestroika in the Soviet Union and more generally for reformulating a critical sociology of Soviet-type societies.

本书以全国范围内抽样调查资料为依据，探讨“中国人想要什么样民主”，分析中国伦理主义政治文化的特征，描述不同受教育程度、不同年龄段中国人在政治观念、政治参与态度及行为、了解政治知识三个方面的不同之处，并通过与本书作者1988年的同类调查及1994年出版的《中国“政治人”》一书做比较，指出过去二十年间中国政治文化在若干方面的变化。中国人想要什么样民主？通过对全国范围内随机抽样的1750位城镇居民的调查，作者发现中国人想要的民主是：德治优先于法治，重视实质和内容优先于重视形式和程序，协商优先于表决，解决反腐败和群众监督政府问题优先于保障公民权利和自由，中国人自己的而不是外国的民主。

While millions in China have been advantaged by three decades of reform, impressive gains have also produced social dislocation. Groups that had been winners under socialism find themselves losers in the new order. Based on field research in nine cities across China, this fascinating study considers the fate of one such group - 35 million workers laid off from the state-owned sector. The book explains why these lay-offs occurred, how workers are coping with unemployment, what actions the state is taking to provide them with livelihoods and re-employment, and what happens when workers mobilize collectively to pursue redress of their substantial grievances. What happens to these people, the remnants of the socialist working class, will be critical in shaping post-socialist politics and society in China and beyond.

Popkin develops a model of rational peasant behavior and shows how village procedures result from the self-interested interactions of peasants. This political economy view of peasant behavior stands in contrast to the model of a distinctive peasant moral economy in which the village community is primarily responsible for ensuring the welfare of its members.

在西方思想史和学术史上，对政治文化的研究源远流长。西方政治文化研究可分为三大谱系，即法国的社会学谱系、德国的文化哲学谱系以及美国的政治科学谱系。当代政治文化研究以美国的政治科学谱系为主流。1956年阿尔蒙德正式提出“政治文化”概念，1963年他又与维巴合作出版了《公民文化——五个国家的政治态度和民主制》，此为当代科学的政治文化研究，从1980年代起，政治文化研究经历了从“回归”到“复兴”进而走向繁荣的过程。复兴后的政治文化研究出现了前所未有的繁荣，一大批有影响、有重大原创性贡献的成果问世，本书为其中之一。

在二十世纪六十年代末期的工业化西方社会中，社会运动的兴起向社会科学提出了这样一些紧迫问题：为什么政治冲突正是在那些似乎已被福利国家的许诺和劳资冲突的制度化所安抚、平定的社会中走向激进的？为什么在六十年代初期的安宁和富足中通过社会化进入政治生活的那一代人会诉诸暴力？为什么在“第一世界”中，警察会被命令向政治示威者们开枪射击？ 《社会运动、政治暴力和国家：对意大利和德国的比较分析》提出一项对政治暴力的性质和结构的经验研究。当大多数社会运动研究集中于单一国家研究时，多娜泰拉·德拉波尔塔就在用比较研究的方案，分析意大利和德国这两个国家自二十世纪六十年代至九十年代的社会运动。通过广泛地运用官方文献和深度访谈，德拉波尔塔解释了事件参与者对外部政治现实的构建。她运用经验数据来建立一个关于政治暴力的中层理论，这个理论包括：在宏观层次上，对社会运动与国家间相互作用的分析；在中观层次上，对作为政治暴力倡导者的激进组织的发展化的分析；在微观层次上，对“武装分子”身份和反主流文化建构历程的分析。 《社会运动、政治暴力和国家：对意大利和德国的比较分析》通过研究那些其中出现暴力的社会运动家族，并把社会运动和制度相联系，最后提出对政治暴力性质的系统性分析（紧紧地建基于历史）。作者做出了一项卓越的综合性研究，这项研究将有助于在体制性政治的研究领域中为政治暴力研究取得一个位置。

The book considers the past accomplishments and future agendas of comparative-historical research in the social sciences. It defines the distinctiveness of this type of research and explores its strengths in explaining important outcomes (e.g. revolutions, social provision, democracy) in the world. It includes sections on substantive research accomplishments, methodology, and theory, and features essays by some of the most important political scientists and sociologists currently working. This review of the accomplishments and future agendas of comparative historical research in the social sciences explores its strengths in explaining important worldwide outcomes (e.g., revolutions, social provision, democracy). It includes sections on substantive research accomplishments, methodology, and theory, and features essays by some of the most important political scientists and sociologists currently working.

本书考察了1945-1996年期间的36个民主国家，将它们置于一幅二维的民主“概念图”之中。凭借有力的证据和深层次的比较分析，作者得出了一个重要结论：共识民主的效果比多数民主更好。作者认为，这一发现奖为正处在民主化进程中的国家以及新兴民主国家提供参考。 本书是美国著名学者阿伦·利普哈特最具代表性的著作，本书于1999年出版后，在政治学界产生了广泛的影响，进入了多所高等院校政治学专业的必读书目。本书以其新颖的学术视角、宽广的研究领域、科学的研究方法、丰富的实证材料、严密的论证过程，成为比较政治学领域内的一部当之无愧的杰作。

《社会中的国家：国家与社会如何相互改变与相互构成》采用“社会中的国家”的研究路径，从方法论、国家社会关系模型、国家权力与妥协、国家人类学、国家的稳定性、个体变迁、发展与变迁政治学、国家研究等方面，试图为“国家”提出一个有别于马克斯韦伯经典定义的新定义，并为政治学研究探索一种新的研究思路，即在国家、社会相互构成、相互改变的视角，研究两者共生、共同发展的辩证关系。

学者们通常认为，社会运动研究和政党研究互不相干、截然不同。事实上，二者深深地交织在一起。社会运动常常塑造选举竞争和政党政策，甚至能导致新政党的出现，同时，政党和政治活动塑造社会运动的机遇、人员结构和结果。在很多国家里，选举民主制本身就是社会运动的产物。本书考察了自20世纪50年代以来发生在美国乃至全世界的社会运动和政党政治之间的交互作用。本书揭示出，在对美国公民权运动、新左翼、捷克斯洛伐克持不同政见者运动、墨西哥人争取民主的斗争以及其他种种事件的研究中，如若忽视政党政治和社会运动之间的紧密关系，就不可能理解这些事件。

《俄罗斯社会的潜规则:后苏联时代政治与商业领域中的寻租行为》主要内容简介：比较政治经济学不为人所知完全不是因为它是一个崭新的领域或边缘领域。比较政治经济学通过比较不同国家或同一国家不同时期的政府、利益集团和市场的关系来探讨国家怎样管理经济事务。其实这个领域所研究的问题关系到我们每人每天的生活，也几乎是大众话题。

《强社会与弱国家:第三世界的国家社会关系及国家能力》内容简介：为何即使拥有那么多资源和处置权，还是有那么多亚非拉国家在指导其国民行为时困难重重？为何同时又有为数甚少的几个国家成功地取得了这种控制能力？失效的法律和社会政策对国家本身又会造成什么样的影响？在回答这些问题的时候，米格代尔采用了一个看待第三世界国家角色的新视角《强社会与弱国家》为研究国家社会关系及第三世界的经济政治改革的可能性提供了一个新的路径在亚非拉地区。国家机构在人群中——甚至是最偏远的山村——建立了其机构然而，近距离观察这些机构．却会发现它们往往按截然不同于其远在首都的创立者们设想的原则行事米格代尔对这个悖论提供的答案是一个强调国家和其他社会组织争夺社会控制的国家社会关系的模型，以及一个为何有的国家能成功战胜社会的理论。

《国家的比较:为什么比较,如何比较,拿什么比较》是法国著名政治学家和社会学家马太-杜甘的重要著作，也是比较政治学领域的经典著作。《国家的比较:为什么比较,如何比较,拿什么比较》主要讨论了三个问题：在研究国家时为什么需要比较；如何比较；拿什么来比较，从而通过对政治学领域重要问题的讨论，具体地展现了比较方法如何应用于国家研究。《国家的比较:为什么比较,如何比较,拿什么比较》是论述比较方法特别是政治学领域的比较方法的一部基础著作，对于比较研究的意义及方法论做了比较精要的阐述，具有相当的学术价值。

In this title, two renowned political scientists make the contrarian, research-based case that - regardless of any other factors political scientists or historians may find relevant - the calculations and actions of rulers are the driving force of all politics, and the primary goal of rulers is to maintain power as long as possible. In this clever and accessible book, Bueno de Mesquita and Smith introduce us to their perspective of the political world. They bare the logic of politics, starting from the simple premise that leaders pursue their own ends, and that populations either have, or more often don't have, the power to constrain them to a significant degree. The book is organized by a series interconnected questions, among them: Why do leaders who wreck their countries keep their jobs for so long? Why do autocracies have dismal economic policies? How are there so many suffering people in resource-rich lands? Why do 'natural disasters' disproportionately strike poor nations? Why do 'evil-doers' so often collect loads of foreign aid? Why are democracies so good at war? In answering these questions, the authors look at politics, the choices of public policies, and even decisions about war and peace as lying outside of conventional thinking about culture and history. They set aside ideas of civic virtue and psychopathology. Such notions simply are not central to understanding what leaders do and why they do it. Instead, Bueno de Mesquita and Smith see politicians as self-interested louts, just the sort of people you wouldn't want to have over for dinner, but without whom you might not have dinner at all. And from this perspective, they are able to answer some perplexing mysteries of politics, shed light on what we read in the newspapers every single day, and offer realistic ways of improving human governance.

What drives politics in dictatorships? Milan W. Svolik argues authoritarian regimes must resolve two fundamental conflicts. Dictators face threats from the masses over which they rule – the problem of authoritarian control. Secondly from the elites with whom dictators rule – the problem of authoritarian power-sharing. Using the tools of game theory, Svolik explains why some dictators establish personal autocracy and stay in power for decades; why elsewhere leadership changes are regular and institutionalized, as in contemporary China; why some dictatorships are ruled by soldiers, as Uganda was under Idi Amin; why many authoritarian regimes, such as PRI-era Mexico, maintain regime-sanctioned political parties; and why a country's authoritarian past casts a long shadow over its prospects for democracy, as the unfolding events of the Arab Spring reveal. Svolik complements these and other historical case studies with the statistical analysis on institutions, leaders and ruling coalitions across dictatorships from 1946 to 2008.

本书从实证的角度，运用比较的方法，立足于多元社会（黎巴嫩、加拿大、马来西亚、印度尼西亚等），建构了一些民主的新概念，预测人类社会的民主目标与走向。

The authors of this ambitious book address a fundamental political question: why are leaders who produce peace and prosperity turned out of office while those who preside over corruption, war, and misery endure? Considering this political puzzle, they also answer the related economic question of why some countries experience successful economic development and others do not.The authors construct a provocative theory on the selection of leaders and present specific formal models from which their central claims can be deduced. They show how political leaders allocate resources and how institutions for selecting leaders create incentives for leaders to pursue good and bad public policy. They also extend the model to explain the consequences of war on political survival. Throughout the book, they provide illustrations from history, ranging from ancient Sparta to Vichy France, and test the model against statistics gathered from cross-national data. The authors explain the political intuition underlying their theory in nontechnical language, reserving formal proofs for chapter appendixes. They conclude by presenting policy prescriptions based on what has been demonstrated theoretically and empirically.