Empirical Political Theory (Ept): Characteristics, Strength-Weakness, And Challenges
Keywords:deductive, empirical theory, model, hypothesis
This article discusses EPT in political science research in three explanations, namely characteristics, strength-weakness, and challenges. EPT has four critical characteristics, i.e., deductive, empirical, theoretic-methodologist, and replication.EPT, as part of the empiricism approach, covers scientific elements (Hypotetico-Deductive) and theoretical-methodological elements. It also allowsreplication., where it can be applied to case-comparison at one theoretical building. However, Formal Model (FM) scholars criticize EPT since it too adopts natural science models. It also depends on the data to provethe relationship or influence between variables in the hypothesis. Nevertheless, the relations do not reflect the causal inference. Nonetheless, EPT contributes significantly to the development of political science research, and replication can be used to build new theories, at least the case comparisons.
Akirav, O., Co, G.w., and McCubbins, M.D. 2010. Agenda Control in the Israeli Knesset during Ariel Sharon’s Second Government. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 16(2). 251-267
Aldrich, J., and Alt, J. 2003. Introduction to the Special Issue. Political Analysis. 11(4). 309-315
Blais, A., Young, R., and Lapp, M., 2000. The calculus of voting: An empirical test. European Journal of Political Research. 37(2).181-201
Brady, H. E., and Collier. D. (eds). 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standard. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Candler, W. M., Cox, G. W., and McCubbins, M. D. 2006. Agenda Control in the Bundestag, 1980-2002. German Politics. 15(1). 27-282
Clarke, K.A., and Primo, D.M., 2007. Modernizing political science: A model-based approach. Perspectives on Politics. 5(4).741-753.
Clarke, K.A., and Primo, D.M., 2012. A model discipline: Political science and the logic of representations. Oxford University Press.
Cox, G. W., Cox, G. W., Masuyama, M., Masuyama, M., McCubbins, M. D., & McCubbins, M. D. (2000). Agenda Power in the Japanese House of Representatives. Japanese Journal of Political Science. 1(1). 1–21.
Cox, G.W., Heller, W. B., and McCubbins, M.D. 2008. Agenda Power in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988-2000. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 33(2). 171-198
Diermeier, D., and Krehbiel, K., 2003. Institutionalism as a Methodology. Journal of theoretical politics. 15(2).123-144.
Fiorina, M. P., 1975. Formal Model in Political Science. American Journal of Political Science. 19(1). 133-159
Goertz, G., and Mahoney, J. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Granato, J., and Scioli, F., 2004. Puzzles, Proverbs and Omega Matrices: The Scientific and Social Significance of Empirical Implication of Theoretical Model (EITM). Perspective on Politics 2. 313-323
Granato, J. et al., 2015. EITM: An assessment with an application to economic voting. Electoral Studies. 40. 372-393
Hall, P.A., and Taylor, R.C., 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalism. Political studies. 44(5). 936-957
Johnson, J. B., Reynolds, H.T. and Mycoff, J.D. 2016. Political Science Research Methods. California: CQ Press
Jones, M. P., and Hwang, W. 2005. Party Government in Presidential Democracies: Extending Cartel Theory Beyond the U.S. Congress. American Journal of Political Science. 49(2). 267-282
Kaplan, A., 1973. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher
Kellstedt, P. M., and Whitten, G. D., 2018. The Fundamental of Political Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
King, G., Keohane, R.O., and Verba, S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Mas’oed, M., 1990. Ilmu Hubungan Internasional: Disiplin dan Metodologi. Jakarta: LP3ES
Nalepa, M. 2016. Party Institutionalization and Legislative Organization: The Evolution of Agenda Power in the Polish Parliament. Comparative Politics. 83(3). 353-372
Nalepa, M. 2017. Adapting Legislative Agenda Setting Models to Parliamentary Regimes: Evidence from the Polish Parliament. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric. 50(1). 181-203
Neto, O. A., Cox, G.W., and McCubbins, M.D. 2002. Agenda Power in Brazil’s Camara dos Deputados, 1989-98. World Politics. 55(4). 550-578
North, D.C., 1991. Institutions. Journal of economic perspectives. 5(1).97-112
Pearl, J., and Mackenzie, D. 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Causal and Effect. New York: Basic Books
Toro-Maureira, S. and Hurtado, N. 2016. The Executrive on The Battlefield: Government Amandments and Cartel Theory in the Chilean Congress. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 22(2). 196-215
Voeton, E., 2000. Clashes in the Assembly. International Organization. 54(2). 185-215.
Wong, M. Y. H., 2016. A Game-Theory Model of Democratization and Political Reform in Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 12(2). 127-154
Zubek, R., 2011. Negative Agenda Control and Executive-Legislative Relations in East Central Europe, 1997-2008. The Journal of Legislative Studies. 17(2). 172-192