This restatement of Max Weber's methodological position takes as its point of departure a point-by-point response to a critique by Talcott Parsons of the author's rejection of system, function and evolution as basic concepts of sociological theory – and of studies of political development. In turn, Weber's position that is ‘intermediate’ between materialism and idealism, the purpose of his typological approach, and of his comparative studies are discussed. The last part of the paper restates Weber's position on ‘ideal types’ and examines their assets and liabilities through an analysis of contrast-conceptions.

This article examines the effects of different definitions of the working class on the measurement of class voting and left voting in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. First, the similarities and differences in how the working class has been operationalized in the three countries are summarized. To determine the effects of different operationalizations, Swedish election survey data are recoded to conform more closely to the classification procedures used in Danish and Norwegian studies. The analysis shows that if a similar operationalization is used, the level of left voting in both the Swedish working and middle classes increases and the Alford index of class voting declines. Class voting and left voting in the younger and older generations and among women and men are also discussed. Dissimilar patterns of class voting and left voting among women in the three countries are largely a product of different classification schemes. The concluding discussion points to a number of problems in using the Alford index as a summary statistic in cross-national comparisons.

According tot standard dictionaries ‘implementation’ is ambiguous, as it means either the act of implementing or the state of having been implemented. This duality has characterized implementation theory, which models the process of implementation in different ways, each presumably conducive to successful implementation as an outcome. It is argued that one model of implementation as a process is most suitable for successful implementation meaning the fulfillment of policy objectives by programme technologies. However, there is no necessary relation between some model of implementation processes and implementation as an outcome. Public policies may be implemented in various ways and some policies do fail implementation or result only in political symbolism, but that does not warrant generalizations about the impossibility of successful implementation or create a case for some special model of implementation as hierarchical authority, or as evolution, learning or coalition. Basic to implementation is accountability, which restricts the amount of trust that gives autonomy to those responsible for the implementation of policies. The conceptualization of implementation as a combination of accountability and trust points in a new direction for the analysis of policy cycles.

This review attempts to assess the validity and usefulness of the arguments of the so-called ‘International Regimes’ approach and the political-institutional view with respect to economic policy formation and economic performance. In particular, the works of Keohane and Krasner on the one hand, and of Katzenstein on the other are examined. It turns out that both viewpoints can largely contribute to a better understanding of why economic interdependence is such a vital factor for domestic politics and policies. At the same time it appears also to be evident that ‘corporatism’ can be an asset in weathering the effects of these growing international economic pressures. Yet both approaches have serious theoretical and methodological weaknesses. The concept of ‘International Regime’ remains too vague and, in addition, is empirically difficult to pin down. Moreover, it seems unable to account for much extant discord.‘Corporatism’ is also prone to these faults as well as tending to over explain certain developments, which may render cross-national differences in economic performance as incomprehensible. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, there is so much to build on that both approaches merit further attention and discussion.

Little research on peripheral nationalism goes beyond the case study approach. Comparative studies provide greater understanding of national self-identification by comparing different ethnic groups, yet encounter difficulties in rigorously delineating specific non-group causal factors. This study adds to our insights into peripheral nationalism by comparing self-identification within the same group but in two different political systems. Study of the Basques in both Spain and France permits a comparison of the same group, thus imposing an analytical control on ethnicity, under two different sets of state policy directions. Utilizing survey data, this investigation found sharp differences in national self-identification in the Basques in Spain and France. The argument is advanced that, even when other explanatory factors are considered, this difference in Basque identification should be understood in light of the different policy stances taken over time by the central governments in Paris and Madrid toward their respective Basque minorities. While initially counter-intuitive, it is suggested that toleration and non-repressive policies toward such minorities may actually serve in the long term to decrease peripheral national identification.