Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:41:02.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Science and Systemic Failure

A Discussion of Stefan Hedlund's Invisible Hands, Russian Experience, and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding Systemic Failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2013

Stephen E. Hanson
Stephen E. Hanson*
Affiliation:
College of William and Mary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Invisible Hands, Russian Experience, and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding Systemic Failure. By Stefan Hedlund. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 324p. $95.00, cloth, $35.99 paper.

In recent decades the study of social phenomena has been characterized by the increasing specialization of academic subdisciplines. At the same time, social science has had great difficulty in accounting for instances of systemic failure that challenge the artificial typologies often promoted by specialized scholarship. Increasing theoretical sophistication thus arguably has come at the expense of grasping the particular and unique nature of historical events. In Invisible Hands, Russian Experience, and Social Science, Stefan Hedlund examines the postcommunist Russian encounter with capitalism and the global financial crisis as examples of unprecedented events that challenged social scientists' assumptions about the causes of human behavior and the functioning of social and political institutions. In this symposium a group of political scientists have been asked to critically assess the book's account and to comment more broadly on what systemic failure can tell us about social science theorizing.—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Type
Review Symposium: Social Science and Systemic Failure
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 875 - 878
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Greif, Avner. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Taylor, Rosemary C. R.. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44(5): 936–57.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. 2010. Post-Imperial Democracies: Ideology and Party Formation in Third Republic France, Weimar Germany, and Post-Soviet Russia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 2006. Politcal Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, Moshe. 1988. The Gorbachev Phenomenon: A Historical Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2000. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29(4): 507–48.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E. 1996. The Mechanisms of Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar