Recent research suggests that states arose as a form of political organization because

Bibliography

Adams, H. (1892). The Germanic Origins of New England Towns. John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 2, 5–38.Google Scholar

Adams, H. (1884). Special Methods of Historical Study. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 1, 25–137.Google Scholar

Adams, H. (1895). Is History Past Politics? Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 3, 68–75.Google Scholar

Adcock, R. (2003). The Emergence of Political Science as a Discipline: History and the Study of Politics in America, 1875–1910. History of Political Thought, 24, 481–508.Google Scholar

Adcock, R. (2007). Interpreting Behavioralism. In Adcock, R., Bevir, M. and Stimson, S., eds., Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar

Adcock, R. (2014a). A Disciplinary History of Disciplinary Histories: The Case of Political Science. In Backhouse, R. and Fontaine, P., eds., A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–36.Google Scholar

Adcock, R. (2014b). Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science: A Transatlantic Tale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aksu, E. ed. (2008). Early Notions of Global Governance: Selected Eighteenth-Century Proposals for ‘Perpetual Peace’. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Almond, G. (1960). A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics. In Almond, G. and Coleman, J., eds., The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–64.Google Scholar

Almond, G. (1965). A Developmental Approach to Political Systems. World Politics, 17, 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almond, G. (1995). Political Science: The History of the Discipline. In Goodin, R. and Klingemann, H., eds., A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 50–96.Google Scholar

Amadae, S. (2003). Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Aristotle. (1946). The Politics, trans. E. Barker. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Baer, M., Jewell, M., and Sigelman, L., eds. (1991). Political Science in America: Oral Histories of a Discipline. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar

Ball, T., Hauptmann, E., Gunnell, J. et al. (2017). Symposium: The Berkeley School of Political Theory. PS: Political Science and Politics, 50, 789–810.Google Scholar

Bancroft, G. (1860–74). A History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent to the Present Time, 8 vols. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Barker, E. (1915). Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to Present Day. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Barker, E. (1944). The Development of Public Services in Europe, 1660–1930. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barkin, J. (2015). On the Heuristic Use of Formal Models in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review, 17, 617–34.Google Scholar

Barry, B. (1970). Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Beard, C. (1961). An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Beer, S. (1956). Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain. American Political Science Review, 50, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beer, S. (1958). The Analysis of Political Systems. In Beer, S. and Ulam, A., eds., Patterns of Government: The Major Political Systems of Europe. New York: Random House, pp. 3–68.Google Scholar

Beer, S. (1963a). Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-enactment. History and Theory, 3, 6–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beer, S. (1963b). Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups. London: Faber.Google Scholar

Beer, S. (1970). Political Science and History. In Richter, M., ed., Essays in Theory and History: An Approach to the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, M. (2011). The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science and God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bevir, M. (1999). The Logic of the History of Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bevir, M. (2002). Sidney Webb: Utilitarianism, Positivism, and Social Democracy. Journal of Modern History, 74, 217–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bevir, M. (2005). New Labour: A Critique. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Blakely, J. (2016). Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and the Demise of Naturalism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakely, J. (2020). We Built Reality: How Social Science Infiltrated Culture, Politics, and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blondel, J. (1981). Discipline of Politics. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar

Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., and Walsh, P. (1996). Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bremner, G. and Conlin, J., eds. (2015). Making History: Edward Augustus Freeman and Victorian Cultural Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bryce, J. (1888). The American Commonwealth, 3 vols. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bryce, J. (1909). Presidential Address to the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Quarterly, 3, 10–6.Google Scholar

Bryce, J. (1921). Modern Democracies, 2 vols. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bull, H. (1966). International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach. World Politics, 18, 361–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burgess, J. (1891). Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, 2 vols. Boston: Ginn.Google Scholar

Burgess, J. (1897). Political Science and History. In Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1896. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, pp. 201–20.Google Scholar

Burgess, J. (1934). Reminiscences of an American Scholar. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Burrow, J. (1966). Evolution and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burrow, J. (1981). A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton, J. (1965). International Relations: A General Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, D., and Stokes, D. (1969). Political Change in Britain: Forces Shaping Electoral Choice. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Butterfield, H., and Wight, M. (1966). Preface. In Butterfield, H. and Wight, M., eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 11–3.Google Scholar

Campbell, A., Miller, W., and Converse, P. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chapman, R. (1981). To Rent or Buy? Housing Tenure Choice in New Zealand. Ph.D. Thesis, New Zealand: University of Auckland.Google Scholar

Chapman, R. (1989). Core Public Sector Reform in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Public Money & Management, 9, 44–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collini, S. (1988). ‘Disciplinary History’ and ‘Intellectual History’: Reflections on the Historiography of the Social Sciences in Britain and France. Revue de Synthese, 3, 387–99.Google Scholar

Collini, S. (1991). Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain 1850–1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Collini, S. (2009). Postscript: Disciplines, Canons, and Publics: The History of ‘The History of Political Thought’ in Comparative Perspective. In Castiglione, D. and Hampsher-Monk, I., eds., The History of Political Thought in National Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 280–302.Google Scholar

Collini, S., Winch, D., and Burrow, J. (1983). That Noble Science of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowther-Heyck, H. (2005). Herbert A. Simon: The Bounds of Reason in Modern America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Deutsch, K. (1963). The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. London: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar

Dickinson, G. (1926). The International Anarchy, 1904–1914. New York: The Century.Google Scholar

Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., and Vlaev, I. (2010). Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour through Public Policy. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H., and Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Easton, D. (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Easton, D., Gunnell, J., and Graziano, L. (1991). The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Englander, D., and O’Day, R., eds. (1995). Retrieved Riches: Social Investigation in Britain, 1880–1914. Aldershot: Scolar Press.Google Scholar

Evans, P. (1979). Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, P., Rueschemeyer, D., and Skocpol, T., eds. (1985). Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farr, J. (1988). Political Science and the Enlightenment of Enthusiasm. American Political Science Review, 82, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farr, J. (1991). Political Science and the State. In Brown, J. and van Keuren, D., eds., The Estate of Social Knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

Farr, J. (1995). Remembering the Revolution. In Farr, J., Dryzek, J., and Leonard, S., eds., Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198–224.Google Scholar

Finer, H. (1921). Foreign Governments at Work: An Introductory Study. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Finer, H. (1970). Theory and Practice of Modern Government. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar

Forrester, K. (2019). In the Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Fortes, M., and Evans-Pritchard, E. (1940). African Political Systems. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, Genealogy, History. In Rabinow, P., ed., The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, pp.76–100.Google Scholar

Frei, C. (2001). Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar

Freyberg-Inan, A. (2003). What Moves Man: The Realist Theory of International Relations and Its Judgment of Human Nature. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Friedrich, C. (1929). Review of Quantitative Methods in Politics. American Political Science Review, 23, 1022–7.Google Scholar

Friedrich, C. (1937). Constitutional Government and Politics. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Friedrich, C. (1941). Constitutional Government and Democracy. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Friedrich, C. (1952). The Age of the Baroque, 1610–1660. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Friedrich, C. (1953). Comments on the Seminar Report. American Political Science Review, 47, 658–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galisanka, A. (2019). John Rawls: The Path to A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilman, N. (2003). Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Goldfinch, S. (1998). Remaking New Zealand’s Economic Policy: Institutional Elites as Radical Innovators, 1984–1993. Governance, 11, 177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodin, R., and Klingemann, H.-D. (1998). Political Science: The Discipline. In Goodin, R. and Klingemann, H.-D., eds., A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Griffith, E., ed. (1948). Research in Political Science. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Guilhot, N., ed. (2011). The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Gunnell, J. (2007). Making Democracy Safe for the World: Political Science between the Wars. In Adcock, R., Bevir, M., and Stimson, S., eds., Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 137–57.Google Scholar

Gutting, G. (1989). Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Scientific Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haas, E. (1964). Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, I. (2012). Dilemmas of Decline: British Intellectuals and World Politics, 1945–75. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Hall, I. (2014). The Second Image Traversed: Kenneth N. Waltz’s Theory of Foreign Policy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49, 535–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, P., ed. (1989). The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, P., and Taylor, R. (1996). Political Science and the Three Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halliday, F. (1988). Three Concepts of Internationalism. International Affairs, 64, 187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hauptmann, E. (2005). Defining ‘Theory’ in Postwar Political Science. In Steinmetz, G., ed., The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its Epistemological Others. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press, pp. 207–32.Google Scholar

Hay, C. (2014). Neither Real nor Fictitious but ‘as if Real’? A Political Ontology of the State. British Journal of Sociology, 65, 459–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haynes, L., Service, O., Goldacre, B., and Torgerson, D. (2012). Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar

Hayward, J., Barry, B., and Brown, A., eds. (1999). The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heaney, M. and Hansen, J. (2006). Building the Chicago School. American Political Science Review, 100, 589–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herbst, J. (1965). The German Historical School in American Scholarship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Herring, P. (1929). Group Representation before Congress. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Herring, P. (1953). On the Study of Government. American Political Science Review, 47, 961–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heyck, H. (2007). Administrative Science. In Bevir, M., ed., Modernism and the Social Sciences: Anglo-American Exchanges, c. 1918–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–81.Google Scholar

Heyck, H. (2015). The Age of System: The Rise and Fracture of High Modern Social Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Ikenberry, G. (1993). The Political Origins of Bretton Woods. In Bordo, M., Barry, J. and Eichengreen, B., eds., A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 155–82.Google Scholar

Isaac, J. (2012). Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences from Parsons to Kuhn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kant, I. (1949). The Philosophy of Kant, trans. C. Friedrich. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar

Katznelson, I. (1994). The State to the Rescue? Political Science and History Reconnect. Social Research, 59, 719–37.Google Scholar

Keohane, R. (1986). Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Keohane, R. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32, 379–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Key, V. (1958). The State of the Discipline. American Political Science Review, 52, 961–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, A. (1975). Overload: Problems of Governing in the 1970s. Political Studies, 23, 284–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kloppenberg, J. (1986). Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koopman, C. (2013). Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, M. (2004). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Krasner, S. (1983). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. In Krasner, S., ed., International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

Latham, M. (2000). Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and ‘Nation Building’ in the Kennedy Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H. (1944). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Election. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.Google Scholar

Lecky, W. (1892). The Political Value of History. London: E. Arnold.Google Scholar

Linklater, A. (1990). Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations. Houndmills: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lippincott, B. (1940). The Bias of American Political Science. Journal of Politics, 2, 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar

Lloyd, W. (1949). The United Nations and World Federalism. The Antioch Review, 9, 16–28.Google Scholar

Lowell, A. (1896). Governments and Parties in Continental Europe, 2 vols. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar

Lowell, A. (1908). The Government of England, 2 vols. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Lowell, A. (1913). Public Opinion and Popular Government. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar

Lowenberg, G. (2006). The Influence of European Émigré Scholars on Comparative Politics, 1925–65. American Political Science Review, 100, 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacIntyre, A. (1962). A Mistake about Causality in the Social Sciences. In Laslett, P. and Runciman, W., eds., Philosophy, Politics, and Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 48–70.Google Scholar

Maine, H. (1871). Village Communities in the East and West. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Mandler, P. (2000). ‘Race’ and ‘Nation’ in Mid-Victorian Thought. In Collini, S., Whatmore, R., and Young, B., eds., History, Religion, and Culture: British Intellectual History 1750–1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–44.Google Scholar

Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction: Studies in Modern Social Structure, trans. E. Shils. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

McBriar, A. (1987). An Edwardian Mixed Doubles: The Bosanquets versus the Webbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McCallum, R., and Readman, A. (1947). The British General Election of 1945. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McKay, D. (1999). Federalism and the European Union: A Political Economy Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merriam, C. (1970). The Present State of the Study of Politics. In New Aspects of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 63–83.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1965). Principles of Political Economy, Books I-II. Vol. II of The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Mirowski, P., and Plehwe, D., eds. (2009). The Road from Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitrany, D. (1943). A Working Peace System. London: Royal Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar

Mitrany, D. (1975). The Functional Theory of Politics. London: M. Robertson.Google Scholar

Moe, T. (1984). The New Economics of Organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morefield, J. (2005). Covenants without Swords: Idealist Liberalism and the Spirit of Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Morgenthau, H. (1954). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Murphy, C. (1994). International Organization and Industrial Change: Global Governance since 1850. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Nietzsche, F. (2007). On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. Ansell-Pearson, K., trans. Diethe, C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Odegard, P. (1928). Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Olsen, N. (2019). The Sovereign Consumer: A New Intellectual History of Neoliberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paul, H. (2008). A Collapse of Trust: Reconceptualizing the Crisis of Historicism. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 2, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pederson, S., and Mandler, P., eds. (1994). After the Victorians: Private Conscience and Public Duty in Modern Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pemberton, J.-A. (2020). The Story of International Relations, 3 vols. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 92, 251–67.Google Scholar

Pierson, P. and Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science. In Katznelson, I. and Milner, H., eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 693–721.Google Scholar

Pitkin, H. (1972). Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Prinz, J., and Raekstad, P. Forthcoming. The Value of Genealogies for Political Philosophy. Inquiry.Google Scholar

Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1924). The Mother’s Brother in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 21, 542–55.Google Scholar

Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Riker, W. (1980). Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions. American Political Science Review, 74, 432–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Riker, W. (1982). The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science. American Political Science Review, 76, 753–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Risk and Regulation Advisory Council. (2009). Building Resilient Communities, from Ideas to Sustainable Action. London: RRAC.Google Scholar

Rittel, H., and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rodgers, D. (1998). Atlantic Crossings: Progressive Politics in a Social Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rose, R. (1965). Politics in England: An Interpretation. London: Faber.Google Scholar

Ross, D. (1990). On the Misunderstanding of Ranke and the Origins of the Historical Profession in America. In Iggers, G. and Powell, J., eds., Leopold von Ranke and the Shaping of the Historical Discipline. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp. 154–69.Google Scholar

Ross, D. (1991). The Origins of American Social Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ross, D., ed. (1994). Modernist Impulses in the Human Sciences, 1870–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Ruggie, J. (1975). International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends. International Organization, 29, 557–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruggie, J. (1983). International Regimes, Transactions and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. In Krasner, S., ed., International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 195–232.Google Scholar

Sagan, S. and Waltz, K. (2003). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Schattschneider, E. (1935). Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Schick, A. (1996). The Spirit of Reform: Managing the New Zealand State Sector in a Time of Change. Wellington State Services Commission.Google Scholar

Scott, W. (1992). Chester I. Barnard and the Guardians of the Managerial State. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar

Seeley, J. (1896). Introduction to Political Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Shepsle, K. (1979). Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepsle, K., and Weingast, B. (1981). Structure-Induced Equilibria and Legislative Choice. Public Choice, 37, 503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sigelman, L. (2006). The Coevolution of American Political Science and the American Political Science Review. American Political Science Review, 100, 463–78.Google Scholar

Skinner, Q. (2009). A Genealogy of the Modern State. Proceedings of the British Academy, 162, 325–70.Google Scholar

Skocpol, T. (1978). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Skocpol, T. (2000). Theory Tackles History. Social Science History, 24, 669–76.Google Scholar

Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, S. (1987). Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Somit, A., and Tanenhaus, J. (1967). The Development of Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

SSRC Committee on Political Behavior. (1950). Committee Briefs: Political Behavior. Social Science Research Council Items, 4, 20.Google Scholar

Stapleton, J. (1994). Englishness and the Study of Politics: The Social and Political Thought of Ernest Barker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stapleton, J. (2000). Political Thought and National Identity, 1850–1950. In Collini, S., Whatmore, R., and Young, B., eds., History, Religion, and Culture: British Intellectual History 1750–1950, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 245–69.Google Scholar

Stedman Jones, D. (2014). Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. (1987). Principal and Agent. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, 3, 966–71.Google Scholar

Strauss, L. (1953). Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Stubbs, W. (1904). The Letters of William Stubbs, ed., Hutton, W.. London: Archibald Constable.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the Sciences of Man. Review of Metaphysics, 25, 3–51.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Thakur, V., Davis, A., and Vale, P. (2017). Imperial Mission, ‘Scientific Method’: An Alternative Account of the Origins of IR. Millennium, 46, 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thelen, K. and Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. In Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., and Longstreth, F., eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

Treasury. (1987). Government Management: Briefing to the Incoming Government 1987, vol. 1. Wellington: Treasury.Google Scholar

Tully, J., ed. (1988). Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

UNESCO. (1950). Contemporary Political Science: A Survey of Methods, Research and Teaching. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar

Vitalis, R. (2015). White World Order, Black Power Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Wallas, G. (1908). Human Nature in Politics. London: Archibald Constable.Google Scholar

Wallas, G. (1914). The Great Society. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wallis, J. (1997). The Schick Report: Evaluating State Sector Reform in New Zealand. Agenda, 4, 489–94.Google Scholar

Waltz, K. (1967). Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Williams, A. (2007). Failed Imagination? The Anglo-American New World Order from Wilson to Bush. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wolin, S. (1960). Politics and Vision. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wright, Q. (1942). A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Zimmern, A. (1936). The League of Nations and the Rule of Law, 1918–1935. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

What phenomenon is most responsible for bringing the organization of the modern state into adoption by most of the world?

What is the purpose of politics research?

Which of the following is most likely a reason for the emergence of the modern state in Europe?

What changes and development led to the emergence of political science?