Hacia una explicación de las coaliciones: una taxonomía de modelos formales de formación y colapso de los Gobiernos

IF 0.8 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Enzo Lenine
{"title":"Hacia una explicación de las coaliciones: una taxonomía de modelos formales de formación y colapso de los Gobiernos","authors":"Enzo Lenine","doi":"10.21308/RECP.49.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"C Coalition theory is one of the fields that has extensively benefited from formal modelling in political science. Since the publication of William Riker’s (1962) seminal book, a variety of coalition models has been developed to explain government formation and breakdown. Nevertheless, despite the diversity of models, the literature seems to judge their predictability solely in terms of empirical tests, usually deriving hypotheses from their propositions and testing via statistics. In this work, I survey classical and more recent formal models in coalition theory, demonstrating how they serve different purposes. I build a taxonomy of models that acknowledges these purposes, and, more importantly, the roles they play in building explanations about coalitions. I identify three types of models: conceptual models, whose conceptual and theoretical value relies on the mathematical deductions entailed in the model; quasi-conceptual models, which formalise explanations of regularities in the real world; and extrapolative models, which allow for an empirical test of formal models via a variety of statistical methods. All of these types of models coexist, generating explanations and setting research agendas.","PeriodicalId":43142,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Ciencia Politica-RECP","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Ciencia Politica-RECP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21308/RECP.49.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

C Coalition theory is one of the fields that has extensively benefited from formal modelling in political science. Since the publication of William Riker’s (1962) seminal book, a variety of coalition models has been developed to explain government formation and breakdown. Nevertheless, despite the diversity of models, the literature seems to judge their predictability solely in terms of empirical tests, usually deriving hypotheses from their propositions and testing via statistics. In this work, I survey classical and more recent formal models in coalition theory, demonstrating how they serve different purposes. I build a taxonomy of models that acknowledges these purposes, and, more importantly, the roles they play in building explanations about coalitions. I identify three types of models: conceptual models, whose conceptual and theoretical value relies on the mathematical deductions entailed in the model; quasi-conceptual models, which formalise explanations of regularities in the real world; and extrapolative models, which allow for an empirical test of formal models via a variety of statistical methods. All of these types of models coexist, generating explanations and setting research agendas.
对联盟的解释:政府形成和崩溃的正式模型的分类
联合理论是政治学中广泛受益于形式建模的领域之一。自从威廉·里克(William Riker)的开创性著作(1962)出版以来,各种各样的联盟模型被发展出来解释政府的形成和瓦解。然而,尽管模型多种多样,但文献似乎只根据经验检验来判断它们的可预测性,通常从它们的命题中得出假设,并通过统计进行检验。在这项工作中,我调查了联盟理论中的经典和最近的正式模型,展示了它们如何服务于不同的目的。我建立了一个模型分类,承认这些目的,更重要的是,它们在解释联盟时所起的作用。我确定了三种类型的模型:概念模型,其概念和理论价值依赖于模型中所包含的数学推导;准概念模型,将现实世界中的规则解释形式化;外推模型,它允许通过各种统计方法对正式模型进行实证检验。所有这些类型的模型共存,产生解释和设定研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信