Snow
Consilience Wilson antidiscipline Wilson Wilson
contingency Gould idiographic Todorov Berry
Fromm emergence labyrinth Ariadne fan Wallerstein social scientization restructuring Wallerstein et al Sawyer Ryan
timid sientists Wallerstein understanding
Henrickson and McKelvey explanation
X Y X Y X Y Goldthorpe X Y Holland Munro generative process Goldthorpe King et al abduction Cederman
Freedman Kennedy Frey Emmeche et al. inclusive
sui generis Wiley boundary conditions irreversibility Polanyi levels Bunge eduction Holland level
coarse-graining Gell-Mann explanandum explanans Esser Freedman A B C Elster Elster
Tilly Falleti and Lynch Rios Elster monads
B C Coleman C bridge law p q p q q Elster
Fazekas Fodor
Singer Singer
Waltz X Y ecological fallacy Moul Robinson
Wendt Wendt critical theory Isaak Neack
von Bertalanffy Faber and Scheper
Emirbayer generic agent-based Epstein bottom-up dyads Hafner-Burton et al
C. P. Snow
Berry, Wendell. 2006. Life Is a Miracle... :. Bunge, Mario. 1960. Levels. Review of Metaphysics 13(3), 396-406. Cederman, Lars-Erik. 2005. Computational Models of Social Forms. American Journal of Sociology 110(4), 864-893. Coleman, James S. 1986. Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action. American Journal of Sociology 91(6), 1309-1335. Elster, Jon. 1983. Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. Manifesto for a Relational Sociolgoy. American Journal of Sociology 103(2), 281-317. Emmeche, Claus et al. 1997. Explaining Emergence. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28, 83-119. Epstein, Joshua. 1999. Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science. Complexity 4(5), 41-60. Esser, Hartmut. 1996. What Is Wrong with Variable Sociology? European Sociological Review 12(2), 159-166. Faber, Jan and Willem Scheper. 1997. Interdisciplinary Social Science. Quality and Quantity 31, 37-56. Falleti, Tulia and Julia Lynch. 2009. Context and Causal Mechanism in Political Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42(9), 1143-1166. Fazekas, Peter. 2009. Reconsidering the Role of Bridge Laws in Inter-Theoretical Reductions. Erkenntnis 71, 303-322. Fodor, J. A. 1974. Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis). Synthese 28, 97-115. Freedman, David. 1991. Statistical Models and Shoe Leather. Sociological Methodology 21, 291-313. Frey, Frederick. 1985. The Problem of Actor Designation in Political Analysis. Comparative Politics 17(2), 127-152. Fromm, Harold. 2001. A Crucifix for Dracula. Hudson Review 53, 657-664. Gaddis, John Lewis. 2004. The Landscape of History... :. Gell-Mann, Murray. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Goldstein, Jeffrey. 1999. Emergence as a Construct. Emergence 1(1), 49-72. Goldthorpe, John. 2001. Causation, Statistics, and Sociology. European Sociological Review 17(1), 1-20. Gould, Stephen. 2003. The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister s Pox. New York: Harmony Books. Hafner-Burton et al. 2009. Network Analysis for International Relations. International Organization 63, 559-592. Hempel, Carl. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press. Henrickson, Leslie and Bill McKelvey. 2002. Foundations of New Social Science. PNAS 99(3), 7288-7295. Holland, John. 1998. Emergence. Reading, MA: Helix Books. Holland, Paul. 1986. Statistics and Causal Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81(396), 945-960. Hudson, Valerie. 2009. Foreign Policy Analysis... :. Isaak, Robert. 1974. The Individual in International Politics. Polity 7(2), 264-276. Kennedy, Peter. 2005. Oh No! I Got the Wrong Sign! What Should I Do? Journal of Economic Education 36(1), 77-92. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Macy, Michael and Robert Willer. 2002. From Factors to Actors. Annual Review of Sociology 28, 143-166. Moul, William. 1973. The Level of Analysis Problem Revisited. Canadian Journal of Political Science 6(3), 494-513. Munro, Don. 1992. Process vs Structure and Levels of Analysis in Psychology. Theory and Psychology 2(1), 109-127. Nagel, Ernst. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Neack, Laura, Jeanne A. K. Hey, and Patrick J. Haney, eds. 1995. Foreign Policy Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Polanyi, Michael. 1958. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, Michael. 1968. Life s Irreducible Structure. Science 160(3834), 1308-1312. Rand, Kevin and Stephen Ilardi. 2005. Toward a Consilient Science of Psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61(1), 7-20. Rios, Diego. 2004. Mechanistic Explanations in the Social Sciences. Current Sociology 52(1), 75-89. Robinson, W. S. 1950. Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. American
Sociological Review 15(3), 351-357. Ryan, Alex. 2007. Emergence Is Coupled to Scope, Not Level. Complexity 13(2), 67-77. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2005. Social Emergence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sayer, Andrew. 1999. Method in Social Science... :. Simon, Herbert. 1962. The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6), 467-482. Singer, J. David. 1960. International Conflict: Three Levels of Analysis. World Politics 12(3), 453-461. Singer, J. David. 1961. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics 14(1), 77-92. Snow, C. P. 2001[1959]. The Two Cultures... :. Tilly, Charles. 1995. To Explain Political Processes. American Journal of Sociology 100(6), 1594-1610. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1998. The Surrender to Nature. New Republic (April 27), 29-33. von Bertalanffy, L. 1973. General System Theory. New York: George Braziller. Wallerstein, Immanuel et al. 1996. Open the Social Sciences... :. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1997. Social Science and the Quest for a Just Society. American Journal of Sociology 102(5), 1241-1257. Waltz, Kenneth. 1959. Man, the State and War. New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Wendt, Alexander. 1987. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization 41(3), 335-370. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiley, Norbert. 1988. The Micro-Macro Problem in Social Theory. Sociological Theory 6(2), 254-261. Wilson, Edward. 1977. Biology and the Social Sciences. Daedalus 106(4), 127-140. Wilson, Edward. 2000. On Human Nature... :. Wilson, Edward. 2005[1998]. Consilience... :.
The Effect of Ballot Position on Korean Municipal Council Election Outcomes Ah-Ran Hwang This study investigates a name-order effect in balloting evidenced by the 2006 municipal council election. After comparing the electoral success of candidates in multi-seat wards, I find out that candidates listed as first through all 3 parties have higher success rates, and more challengers than incumbents have benefited from the effect. The name-order effect appears even greater in urban areas and the non-regional party supportive areas. These findings confirm the notion that voter knowledge regulates the magnitude of the name-order effect. The name-order, candidates names appearing in an alphabetical order on the ballot, exemplifies that such a non-substantive factor can affect election outcomes, undermining fair representation of an individual candidate. The effect can be mitigated by rotating ballot order by precinct and by changing the institutional arrangement of simultaneous implementation of local elections. Key words: municipal election, ballot position effect, voting bias in multi-member district Consilient International Relations: Mechanisms and the Level-of-Analysis Problem in Scientific Explanation Min, Byoung Won This paper discusses how and why social sciences have been troubled by exclusiveness and poor performances and looks for any available solutions. For this, it introduces and criticizes Edward O. Wilson's notion of consilience, which urges us cross-disciplinary integration. Wilson's passion for consilience was based on his firm beliefs on scientific progress, it has not been welcomed by many social scientists. In this paper, an alternative against his reductionist approach is suggested, which emphasized common elements in methods and theoretical frameworks. In particular, developing and sharing models that show the processes and mechanisms are important as the fundamental purpose of science is in explaining causal relations of social phenomena. The paper also discusses the current
situation of international relations studies, which deal with a broad spectrum from individuals to global politics, in terms of its consilient level. Key words: Consilience, Scientific Explanation, Models, Mechanisms, Level-of-Analysis, Emergence East Asia s Revenge, Frictions among Economic Systems, and Global Imbalances: Who will Take the Burden of Economic Adjustment? Jin-Young Jung At the Pittsburgh Summit on September 24-25, 2009, leaders of G20 countries agreed to A Framework for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth as guidelines for policies to be adopted by member countries. They shared the opinion that the world economy should be rebalanced in order not to fall into another crisis and the rebalancing process should be proceeded in a way that brings strong and sustainable world economic growth. In this paper we deal with why the global imbalances emerged and how to rebalance them by allocating the burden of adjustment costs among major imbalanced countries. We develop three interrelated arguments here. First, East Asian countries pursuit of accumulating massive foreign reserves through current account surpluses as a self-help measure in the world of anarchical international monetary and financial system greatly contributed to the rise of global imbalances. It is paradoxical that 1997-98 crisis-hit East Asian countries self-help efforts to avoid another crisis resulted in a global crisis. This is why the current global crisis can be perceived as East Asian s revenge. Second, the main reason why East Asian countries, especially China, could succeed in accumulating massive foreign reserves can be found in the characteristics of these countries economic systems. They importantly include the low rate of private consumption and the very high savings and investment rates in the economy, which laid the foundation for export-led economic growth. Third, considering that global imbalances are based on the self-help nature of the international monetary and financial system and the characteristics of East Asian economic systems, we expect that the process of international adjustment of global imbalances is going to be difficult and conflictual. Market-led adjustment is limited due to the very fact that East Asian economies, especially the Chinese economy, are not fully market-based ones. Individual states efforts are not going to be satisfactory because China