Theory Building (govern-theory-building)
A Governance contribution is judged by what it adds to how we understand governing — the state,
institutions, the policy process, bureaucracy, governance networks, accountability. The argument must be
sharp enough to test (govern-research-design) and portable enough to matter beyond one case. This
skill builds the argument and its concepts; it does not run the empirics.
When to trigger
- Stating the core argument, mechanism, and scope conditions
- A reviewer said the theory is "ad hoc," "just a description," or "won't travel"
- Defining or refining a concept for comparative use
- Specifying what the theory predicts that rivals do not
Build a portable argument
-
Name the mechanism, not just the correlation. State why governing produces the outcome — the
causal logic (delegation incentives, blame avoidance, institutional layering, policy feedback,
network coordination). A mechanism is what lets the claim travel.
-
State scope conditions explicitly. Where does the argument hold — which regime types, levels of
government, policy domains, capacity levels? Scope conditions are a feature, not a hedge; they make
portability honest.
-
Specify observable implications in advance. What should we see in the cases/countries if the
argument is right — and what would we see instead if a rival institutional account were right?
-
Connect to a theory others can use. Tie the contribution to an existing family (historical
institutionalism, principal-agent, the regulatory state, multilevel governance) so the field can
build on it — even when you revise that family.
Concept formation for comparative work (avoid concept stretching)
Comparative governance lives or dies on concepts. Apply Sartori-style discipline:
-
Define by attributes, then by cases. Fix the defining attributes (intension) before deciding which
cases fall under the concept (extension); do not stretch a concept to fit a convenient case.
-
Mind the ladder of abstraction. To travel to more cases, drop attributes (move up); to gain
precision, add them (move down). State where on the ladder your concept sits.
-
Establish equivalence across cases. "Accountability," "agency," "reform," "capacity" do not mean
the same thing in every system — show functional/contextual equivalence before you compare.
-
Avoid the degreeism / dichotomy trap. Be explicit about whether the concept is categorical or
graded, and justify the choice for the comparison at hand.
Contribution types that land at Governance
- A new or revised mechanism for a governing phenomenon, with scope conditions.
- A reconceptualization that resolves a measurement or classification problem comparatively.
- A theory portability claim — an account known in one context shown to (not) travel, and why.
- A scope-condition correction — a leading theory holds only under conditions the field missed.
The strongest-rival test (Governance-specific)
For the single strongest rival institutional explanation, write one sentence: "If the rival
account of governing were right rather than mine, we would observe ___ across cases; my argument
instead implies ___." If you cannot write it, the theory is not yet a testable contribution — it is a
description waiting for a mechanism.
Anti-patterns
- A "framework" that organizes cases but predicts nothing
- Concept stretching: relabeling a familiar concept to claim novelty, or applying it where attributes don't hold
- Scope conditions left implicit, so the claim silently over-generalizes
- A mechanism that cannot distinguish your argument from the leading institutional rival
- Theory and case so fused that the argument cannot travel to a second country
Output format
【Core claim】one sentence
【Mechanism】why governing produces the outcome
【Scope conditions】where it holds (regimes / levels / domains / capacity)
【Key concept(s)】definition + position on ladder of abstraction + equivalence note
【Rival ruled out】the strongest-rival sentence
【Observable implications】what we should/should not see across cases
【Next】govern-research-design
Supplementary resources
