American Political Development and Political History
OxfordHandbooksOnline
AmericanPoliticalDevelopmentandPoliticalHistory RichardR.John
TheOxfordHandbookofAmericanPoliticalDevelopment(Forthcoming)
EditedbyRichardValelly,SuzanneMettler,andRobertLieberman
OnlinePublicationDate: Aug
2014
Subject: PoliticalScience,U.S.Politics,PoliticalInstitutions
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697915.013.12
AbstractandKeywords
Thisessaytracesthelongandproductiverelationshipbetweentwogenresofhistoricalwriting:Americanpolitical
development(orAPD)andAmericanpoliticalhistory.Itiswrittenprimarilyforpoliticalscientists;asecondary
audienceishistorianswhowishtobecomemorefamiliarwithAPD.Itsfocusisontheperiodbeforetheadoptionof
thefederalConstitutionin1788andtheendoftheSecondWorldWarin1945,anepochthathaslongbeen
recognizedasnotonlyformative,butalsodistinctfromtheepochthatitfollowedandpreceded.Itis,inaddition,an
epochthathasspawnedadialoguebetweenAPDandpoliticalhistorythathadprovedtobeparticularlyfruitful.
Keywords:politicalhistory,state-building,stateandsociety,methodology,newinstitutionalism,historicalsociology,earlyrepublic,communications
Thisessaytracesthelongandproductiverelationshipbetweentwogenresofhistoricalwriting:Americanpolitical
development(orAPD)andAmericanpoliticalhistory.Itiswrittenprimarilyforpoliticalscientists;asecondary
audienceishistorianswhowishtobecomemorefamiliarwithAPD.ThefirstsectioncomparesandcontrastsAPD
andpoliticalhistory;thesecondsectionisacasestudyofaninfluentialAPDmonograph;andthethirdsection
brieflyhighlightssomeoftheareasinwhichpoliticalhistorianshavebuiltonAPDtoadvancetheirownintellectual
agendas.ItsfocusisontheperiodbeforetheadoptionofthefederalConstitutionin1788andtheendofthe
SecondWorldWarin1945,anepochthathaslongbeenrecognizedasnotonlyformative,butalsodistinctfrom
theepochthatitfollowedandpreceded(Keller2007).Itis,inaddition,anepochthathasspawnedadialogue
betweenAPDandpoliticalhistorythathadprovedtobeparticularlyfruitful.
***
APDisasubfieldofpoliticalsciencewhosepractitionersstudythetemporaldimensionsofgovernance(Pierson
2004;OrrenandSkowronek2002).Itcanbedividedintotwobroadgenres:historicalinstitutionalismand
culturalism(Glenn2004;Lieberman2002).Thisessaywillfocusonhistoricalinstitutionalism,thegenreinwhichthe
relationshipbetweenAPDandpoliticalhistoryhasbeenthemostsustained.Institutionaliststakegovernmental
institutionsastheirunitofanalysis.Culturalists,incontrast,placemoreemphasisonideologyandsocial
movements.InfluentialmonographsintheculturalisttraditionincludeRogersM.Smith’sCivicIdeals:Conflicting
VisionsofCitizenshipinU.S.History(Smith1997),awide-rangingcritiqueoftheideologicalconventionsthat
haveshapedthecreationofamajorlegalcategoryintheperiodbetweenthecolonialeraand1912,andDavid
Plotke’sBuildingaDemocraticPoliticalOrder:ReshapingAmericanLiberalisminthe1930sand1940s(Plotke
1996),anincisiveanalysisoftheinfluenceofsocialmovementsontheNewDealcoalition.
ManyAPDpractitionersteachinpoliticalscienceorgovernmentdepartmentsandidentifythemselvesaspolitical
scientists.Othersweretrainedassociologistsandidentitythemselvesassociologists,whileafewteachinhistory
departmentsandidentifythemselvesashistorians.
APDpresumesthatgovernmentalinstitutionscanbeagentsofchange,andthat,incertaintimesandplaces,
Page 1 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
politicalphenomenacanhavepoliticalcauses—asopposedtobeingamerebyproductofdevelopments
originatinginsociety,culture,ortheeconomy(Pierson2004;PiersonandSkocpol2002).Whilepractitionersoften
undertakedetailedempiricalresearch,theyarelessinterestedindescribingandanalyzingaspecificeventor
sequenceofevents(apreoccupationformanypoliticalhistorians)thaninframinganalyticallyfruitful,yetnot
overlybroad,generalizationsthatilluminatethedynamicworkingsofthepoliticalprocess.
APDhasbeenaptlycharacterizedasthesocialsciencethatisclosesttopoliticalhistory(Katznelson2003,385).
Itsaffinitieswithpoliticalhistoryhavebeenrepeatedlyaffirmedbothbysocialscientistsandpoliticalhistorians,and
havebeenthesubjectofalargebodyofcommentary(Zelizer2004;Balogh2003;Katznelson2003,2002a,b,
1993).Eachfieldtakesasaproblematiquetherelationshipbetweengovernmentalinstitutionsandcivicideals;
eachissensitivetotemporality,contingency,andsequencing;eachdefinesgovernmentalinstitutionsbroadlyto
includelaw,federal,federalism,andtheconfigurationoforganizationsthatshapetheframing,enactment,and
enforcementofpublicpolicy;andeachisskepticalofgrandnarrativesstructuredaroundpresidential
administrations(theso-called,andoft-derided,“presidentialsynthesis”).Inaddition,aninfluentialcohortineach
grouprejectsthemisleadingpresumptionthatthestatecanbemeaningfullycharacterizedaseitherstrongorweak
(Witt,Gerstle,Adams,andNovak2010;Baldwin2005)andthatpoliticalphenomenaarebestunderstoodasa
functionalresponsetoindustrialization,urbanization,modernization,orsomecomparablydisruptivesocial
transformation.
Historianshavelongreliedontheoreticalconstructsborrowedfromthesocialsciences.Severalofthese
constructs—including“partysystems,”“criticalelections,”and“politicaldevelopment”—antedatedtheemergence
ofAPD.Manyderivefrommodernizationtheory,amid-twentieth-centurysocial-scientificframeworkthat
emphasizedcommonalitiesintimeandspace.APDisdifferent.Byrejectingthepresumptionthatsocialchange
followedasingletrajectory,and,inparticular,byemphasizingtheimportanceforinstitutionalevolutionof
sequencing(orwhatissometimescalled“pathdependence”or“intercurrence”),itprovidedhistoriansnotonly
withanewvocabulary—e.g.,“state-building,”“administrativecapacity,”“bureaucraticautonomy,”
“organizationalconfigurations”—butalsowithanewresearchagenda.
Thetheoreticalself-awarenessofAPDhashelpedpoliticalhistorianstranscendthehoaryinterpretative
conventionsthathaveshapedthewritingofmuchU.S.politicalhistory.And,inparticular,ithasprovided
historianswithanalternativetothe“presidentialsynthesis,”alonginfluentialinterpretativeframeworkthat
exaggeratedtheautonomyofpresidentialadministrationsinshapingpublicpolicyandoverestimatedtheefficacy
ofsocialmovementsinhasteningsocialreform.“Forpoliticalhistorianstotrulyreconceptualizethestudyof
politics”—opinedpoliticalhistorianJulianE.Zelizerin2004,inathoughtfulreviewessaythatforcefullyarticulated
thisposition—“theywillneedtodrawonscholarshipinpoliticalsciencetothinkoffreshapproachesand
frameworksthatmovebeyondtheliberalpresidentialsynthesis.Ifnot,wewillbestuckwithdatedframeworksfor
understandingpoliticsthatwerecraftedseveralgenerationsago.Themostobviousconnection,ofcourse,isthat
historianswillhavetokeepinteractingwithscholarsinthefieldofAmericanPoliticalDevelopmentwhoare
currentlyfaraheadinthisimportantresearch”(Zelizer2004,129).
APDemergedinthe1980s,adecadeduringwhichthestudyofU.S.politicalhistoryhadlargelyfallenoutoffavor
inhistorydepartments.EarlyAPDlandmarksincludedStephenSkowronek’sBuildingaNewAmericanState
(Skowronek1982);Skocpol’s“BringingtheStateBackIn”(Skocpol1985);andSkocpol’sProtectingSoldiersand
Mothers(Skocpol1992).SkowronekhadbeentrainedasapoliticalscientistatCornell,whereheobtainedaPhDin
1979;SkocpolwastrainedasasociologistatHarvard,wheresheobtainedaPhDin1975.
NewAmericanStatewasathicklylayeredmonographonorganizationalchangeinthe1877–1920periodinthree
federaladministrativeagencies(theWarDepartment,theCivilServiceCommission,andtheInterstateCommerce
Commission).“BringingtheStateBackIn”wasaprogrammaticessaythatlucidlysetforth“strategiesofanalysis”
forscholarsinterestedintracingtheinfluenceofgovernmentalinstitutionsonsocietyandculture.Protecting
SoldiersandMotherswasasweepingreinterpretationofthebeginningsofsocialwelfarepolicyintheUnited
States.Skocpol’ssynthesisprovedespeciallysuggestiveforpoliticalhistorians,sinceitdemonstratedhowthe
structuralanalysisofgovernmentalinstitutionscouldprovidefreshinsightintorace,class,andgender,topicsthat
wereatthetimehighontheircolleagues’agenda.
AmongthemostinfluentialprecursorstoAPDwerethemanybooksandarticlespublishedbytheEuropean
Page 2 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
historianCharlesTilly.ThoughTillywrotelittleabouttheUnitedStates,hisscholarshipprovidedU.S.historianswith
abracingcritiqueofthethen-dominantsocial-historyparadigm,acritiquethatTillyadvancedinBigStructures,
LargeProcesses,HugeComparisons(Tilly1984)andelaboratedinCoercion,CapitalandEuropeanStates:AD
990—1990(Tilly1990).
Oneofthemostseminalpublicationsfromthe1980stoshiftattentiontogovernmentalinstitutionswasBringingthe
StateBackIn,aneditedcollectionofunusualdistinctionthatwaspublishedin1985underauspicesoftheSocial
ScienceResearchCouncil(Evans,Rueschemeyer,andSkocpol1985).Amongtheseveralessaysinthiscollection
wastheprogrammaticessayofSkocpol’son“BringingtheStateBackIn”thatwasmentionedabove(Skocpol
1985).Inthisessay,Skocpoloutlinedthreeapproachestothestudyofstate–societyrelationshipsthathadbeen
adoptedbysocialscientists:thesociety-centeredapproach,whichdeniedthatthestatehadautonomyin
relationshiptosocialclasses(anapproachshelabeledMarxian);thestate-centeredapproach,whichanalyzed
statecapacity(anapproachshelabeledWeberian);andthemacro-socialapproach,whichemphasizedstate
effects,including,inparticular,theunintendedconsequencesofconfigurationsofgovernmentalinstitutions(an
approachshelabeledTocquevillian).Skocpol’sessaywouldprovetobehighlyinfluentialinthedecadestocome,
notleastbecauseitclarifiedthelimitationsandpossibilitiesofallthreeapproaches.
Inthefollowingyears,socialscientistsworkingintheinstitutionalisttraditionpublishedaspateofmonographsthat
wouldhelptransformAPDintoadistinctivefield.Amongthemonographstoprovemostusefulforpoliticalhistorians
wereIraKatznelsonandAristideR.Zolberg,Working-ClassFormation(KatznelsonandZolberg1986);Richard
FranklinBensel,YankeeLeviathan(Bensel1990);KarenOrren,BelatedFeudalism(Orren1991);Skocpol,
ProtectingSoldiersandMothers(Skocpol1992);VictoriaC.Hattam,LaborVisionsandStatePower(Hattam
1993);MartinShefter,PoliticalPartiesandtheState(1994);KennethFinegoldandThedaSkocpol,Stateand
PartyinAmerica’sNewDeal(1995);BartholomewH.Sparrow,FromtheOutsideIn(Sparrow1996);AmyBridges,
MorningGlories(1997);ElizabethS.Clemens,People’sLobby(Clemens1997);GretchenRitter,Goldbugsand
Greenbacks(Ritter1997);SuzanneMettler,DividingCitizens(Mettler1998);ElizabethSanders,RootsofReform
(Sanders1999);Bensel,PoliticalEconomyofAmericanIndustrialization(Bensel2000);ScottC.James,
Presidents,Parties,andtheState(James2000);DanielP.Carpenter,RootsofBureaucraticAutonomy(Carpenter
2001);DanielJ.Tichenor,DividingLines(Tichenor2002);ThedaSkocpol,DiminishedDemocracy(Skocpol2003);
RichardM.Vallely,TwoReconstructions(Vallely2004);Bensel,AmericanBallotBox(Bensel2004);AristideR.
Zolberg,NationbyDesign(Zolberg2006);KimberlyS.Johnson,GoverningtheAmericanState(Johnson2007);
MichelleLandisDauber,TheSympatheticState(Dauber2012);andIraKatznelson,FearItself(2013).Whilethese
monographsdifferedinmanyways,theycertainfeaturesincommon.Eachbuiltontheinstitutionalisttraditionthat
hadbeenrevivedbySkowronekandSkocpol;eachengagedwithhistoricalwritingonrelatedtopics;andeach
displayedafamiliaritywiththerelevantprimarysources.Inaddition,mostfocusedlargely,ifnotexclusively,onthe
periodbetweentheCivilWarandtheSecondWorldWar,atimespanthatwouldlongbeafavoriteforAPD.One
relatedmonograph—AmyBridges,CityintheRepublic(Bridges1984)—appearedpriortothepublicationof
Skocpol’sessay.Interestingly,itfocusedontheearlyrepublic,aperiodthatAPDpractitionerswouldmostly
eschew.(Forrareexceptions,seeLomazoff2012;Adler2012;andJensen2003.)
PoliticalhistoryandAPDshareapreoccupationwiththerelationshipofgovernmentalinstitutionsandcivicideals.It
is,thus,notsurprisingthatinthepastfewdecadesseveralacademicforumshavebeenestablishedtohighlight
theircommonalities.Especiallyinfluentialisthepre-doctoralfellowshipprogramattheUniversityofVirginia’sMiller
CenterledbypoliticalhistorianBrianBaloghandpoliticalscientistSidneyM.Milkis;thesemi-annualmeetingsofthe
PolicyHistoryConference,anorganizationfoundedandformanyyearsrunbyhistorianDonaldT.Critchlow;and
theongoingworkshopintwentieth-centurypoliticalhistoryatColumbiaUniversityconvenedbythepolitical
scientistIraKatznelsonandthepoliticalhistorianAlanBrinkley.Opportunitiesforinterdisciplinarydialoguehave
beennumerous,friendshipshavebeenformed,andideashavebeenshared.Forhistoriansoftherecentpast,
Princeton’sJulianE.Zelizerhasbeenparticularlysuccessfulatstraddlingtheinterdisciplinarydivide.Thefruitsof
thisdialoguecanbesampledinthemanytitlesinadistinguishedbookseries—the“PrincetonStudiesinAmerican
Politics:Historical,International,andComparativePerspectives”—aswellasseveralessaycollections(John2006a;
Jacobs,Novak,andZelizer2003;KatznelsonandShefter2002;ShaferandBadger2001).
***
APD,likepoliticalscience,isregardedbyitsleadingpractitionersasasocialscience.Politicalhistory,incontrast,
Page 3 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
likethedisciplineofhistoryofwhichitisasubfield,isregardedbymanyifnotmostleadingpractitionersnotasa
socialscience,butrather,likeliterature,art,andphilosophy,asahumanity(Ekirch1994).
WhileAPDandpoliticalhistoryhavemuchincommon,theyarebynomeansidentical.Itisamistaketocontend,
assomesocialscientistsdo,thathistoriansaremerestorytellers.Onthecontrary,historiansaretrainedtoengage
insophisticatedargumentsaboutsubstanceandmethodandoftenaspiretocrafttheoreticallyinformedanalytical
narrativesthatbridgethedividebetweenhistoryandsocialscience(Hofstadter1956).Yetintheendmost
historiansdoregardstorytellingasanart,whilevirtuallyallsocialscientistsregardstorytellingasameanstothe
endofframingpersuasivearguments.
Notsurprisingly,APDandpoliticalhistoryhaveadifferentaesthetic.Thebesthistoricalwritingbreathesinaway
thateventhemostartfulpoliticalsciencewritingdoesnot.Andwhenpoliticalscientiststrytowriteforageneral
audience—asJamesMoronedid,forexample,inHellfireNation(Morone2003)—theyfindthemselvesvulnerable,
fairlyorunfairly,tothecritiquethat,intheattempttorenderavastsubjectaccessible,theyhaveoversimplifieda
complexreality(Garrow2003).
Closelyrelatedtotheseaestheticdifferencesaredifferencesinmethod.Politicalscientistshavebroughta
sophisticationtoseveraltopicsinU.S.politicalhistorythatpoliticalhistoriansneglect.AmongthemareCongress
andregionalism.ScholarshipbypoliticalhistoriansonCongressisnotoriouslyunsystematicandcanbenefitfrom
therigorousanalysisofvoting,agenda-setting,andinstitutionalrule-making—topicsatwhichpoliticalscientists
(manyofwhomarenotAPDpractitioners)excel(Katznelson2013;JenkinsandStewart2013;Katznelsonand
Lapinski2006;Zelizer2004;KatznelsonandMilner2002;PooleandRosenthal1997;Binder1997).Inaddition,and
withafewconspicuousexceptions(Barreyre2011;Richardson2007),politicalhistorianshaveprovedreluctantto
followtheleadofAPDpractitionersandunderscoretheinfluenceofregionalismonpublicpolicy(Bensel2000,
1984).Thisistruedespitethedistinguishedpedigreeofregionalisminhistoricalscholarship,apedigreethatgoes
allofthewaybacktothe“sectionalist”schoolpioneeredbyFrederickJacksonTurner,oneofthefoundersofthe
historicalprofession.
Invirtuallyeverybranchofhistoricalinquiry,thechallengeofkeepingupwiththeliteraturecanbedaunting.Itis,
thus,notsurprising—andnotnecessarilytobelamented—thatAPDpractitionersaresometimesoblivioustorecent
trendsinhistoricalwriting.Sometimes,infact,thiscircumstancecanbeanadvantage:APDscholarshipoftenbrims
withcitationstoworthybutunfashionableoldermonographsbyhistoriansthathistorians,intheirrushtobeau
courant,haveforgottenordismissed.Inhistoricalwriting,asinsomanydisciplines,themostrecentisnot
necessarilythebest.Sometimes,however,theabsenceofcross-fertilizationisamissedopportunity.Thisis
particularlytruewhenAPDpractitionersturntheirattentiontotopics—suchas,forexample,theinfluenceof
slaveryonstate-building—uponwhichhistorianshavelavishedattentionoflate(VanCleve2010;Waldstreicher
2009;Rothman2005;Fehrenbacher2001).Tobesure,APDpractitionershavemadedistinguishedcontributionsto
ourunderstandingoftherelationshipofslaverytoAmericanpubliclife(Graber2006).YetAPDmonographson
slavery-relatedtopicsareoftennarrowlycastanddisplayaselectiveengagementwithrecenthistoricalwritingon
relatedtopics(Ericson2011).OthertopicsofinteresttopoliticalhistoriansthatAPDpractitionershavemostly
neglectedincludethefoundationsofpublicfinance(Einhorn2006;Edling2003);publicadministrationintheearly
republic(Watson2012,2013;Rao2012;John1995),CivilWarmilitaryprocurement(Wilson2006a,b),municipal
governmentintheprogressiveera(Radford2013;John2010;Willrich2003;Rodgers1998),andthe
transformationofpublicfinancesincetheFirstWorldWar(Mehrotra2009,2013;Smith2006;Sparrow2011).
SimilarquestionscanberaisedaboutthemonographsthatAPDpractitionersregardasexemplary.Ifcoursesyllabi
postedonthewebcanbetakenasrepresentative,thenitwouldseemhardtodenythatAPDpractitionersand
politicalhistorianshavesomewhatdivergentconceptionsofthestateofthefield.Acaseinpointisscholarshipon
topicsinthehalfcenturyfollowingtheadoptionofthefederalConstitution.APDreadinglistsaremorelikelyto
featuredecades-oldperennials,suchasJamesSterlingYoung’sWashingtonCommunity(Young1966)andGordon
Wood’sCreationoftheRepublic(Wood1969),ratherthannewermonographsthatexploretopicsofcentral
interesttothefield—e.g.JoanneB.Freeman’sAffairsofHonor(Freeman2001);MaxEdling’sRevolutioninFavor
ofGovernment(Edling2003);JohnL.Brooke’sColumbiaRising(Brooke2010);orBenjaminH.Irvin’sClothedin
RobesofSovereignty:TheContinentalCongressandthePeopleOutofDoors(Irvin2011).Thisistrueeven
thoughmanyofthemostarrestingofYoung’sandWood’sclaimshavebeenchallenged,andinsomeinstances
supplanted,bypoliticalhistoriansworkingonsimilartopics.
Page 4 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
TheinsularityofAPDisreinforcedbythedisinclinationofsome(thoughbynomeansall)APDpractitionersto
engagewith—and,insomeinstances,eventocite—institutionallyorientedhistoricalwritingontopicsinAmerican
politicalhistorythathavebeenwrittenbyhistorians.Totheconsternationofhistoriansthisisfarfromaccidental.In
fact,twoofAPD’sleadingstandardbearers,KarenOrrenandStephenSkowronek,havegonesofarasto
announce,inacoauthoredoverviewofthefield—TheSearchforAmericanPoliticalDevelopment—thattheyhad
excludedfromtheirbibliographyscholarshipwrittenbyhistorians(OrrenandSkowronek2004,34).Insodoing,
theydisplayedahabitofmindthatmosthistorians,andevenmanyoftheirfellowpoliticalscientists,findunsettling.
InTheSearchforAmericanPoliticalDevelopment,asfellowpoliticalscientistSidneyM.Milkishasdeclared,Orren
andSkowronekpaid“littleattentiontohistorians”:“OrrenandSkowronekdonotdefinetheirtasksasa
multidisciplinaryone;rather,theirAPDprimersetsoutanagendaforhistoricallysavvypoliticalscientist,andthus
downplaysthelanguageoftimeandcontingencytowhichmosthistoriansarecommitted”(Milkis2006,754).
PerhapsthemostenduringdifferencebetweenAPDandpoliticalhistoryconcernsresearchdesign.Historiansare
trainedtoorganizetheirresearcharoundasubstantialbodyofdocuments,whichhistorianscallprimarysources,
intheconvictionthat,ifproperlyinterpreted,thesedocumentscanyieldinsightsintotheinterplayofindividuals,
institutions,andeventsthatarenoteasilyfoundelsewhere.Ifthesedocumentsarelocatedinaninstitutional
repository(suchastheNationalArchivesorthemanuscriptsdepartmentoftheAmericanAntiquarianSociety),
theyaretermed“archival”todistinguishthemfromotherprimarysources—suchasnewspapers,magazines,and
publishedgovernmentreports—thatcanbefoundinlibrariesor,increasingly,ontheweb.Archivaldocumentsare
valuedbyhistoriansnotonlyforthekindsofinformationthattheycontain—informationthatcanoftenbe
reconstructedfromnoothersource—butalsofortheircandor.Manyarchivaldocumentswereintendedtoremain
private,increasingthelikelihoodthattheycandeepenunderstandingofphenomenathatcontemporarieswishedto
keepoutofpublicview.SomeAPDpractitionershaveemulatedpoliticalhistoriansbyconductingarchivalresearch
(Carpenter2001;Sparrow1996),whileothershaveminedpublishedprimarysources(Bensel2000,2004;Sanders
1999).StillotherAPDpractitioners,however,relyexclusivelyonscholarshippublishedbypoliticalhistorians—a
stopgapthatisinevitable,atleasttoacertaindegree,inallhistoricalresearch(noonecanknoweverythingabout
everything)butthatincreasesthelikelihoodthattheirconclusionswillbeshapedbyinterpretativecanonsofa
bygoneera.
ThemethodologicaldividebetweenAPDandpoliticalhistoryowesagooddealtotheaudiencesthatAPD
practitionersandpoliticalhistoriansaspiretoengage.Historiansenvisionastheiridealaudiencethewell-informed
readerandstrivetocraftinterpretativeframeworksthatwillbecomesouncontroversialthattheyaretakenfor
granted.“Historyismoreimportantthanhistorians”isformanyarallyingcry.APDpractitioners,incontrast,write
primarilyfortheirfellowsocialscientists,predisposingthemtoseekcreditforaparticulartheoreticalinnovation,
andeventheilluminatingphrase.AsAPDhasbecomemoreinstitutionalizedwithinpoliticalscience,aninfluential
cohortofpractitionershasbecomemoreinterestedinintra-disciplinaryquarrelsthaninmaintaininglinksbetween
APDandpoliticalhistory.Atthesametime,therevivalofU.S.politicalhistorywithinthehistoricalprofessionhas
encouragedpoliticalhistorianstodevotemoreattentiontothecontentofU.S.historytextbooksthantothelatest
theoreticalrefinementsinAPD.
***
TheenduringdifferencesbetweenAPDandpoliticalhistorycanbeillustratedbysurveyingtheresponseof
historianstoSkowronek’sNewAmericanState.“Everysooften,ascholarwritesabookthathelpstodefineafield
inoneofthemajorscholarlydisciplines,”observedZelizerinatributepublishedonthetwentiethanniversaryofits
publication:“ByfocusingontheinstitutionsthateveryProgressiveErainterestconfrontedandtheinstitutionsthey
triedtocreateinresponsetotheirvariousneeds,hisbookofferedafreshsynthesisinahistoriographicaldebate
thathadreachedadeadend”(Zelizer2003,426,437).
PartofthereasonforthestayingpowerofNewAmericanStateisitsunapologeticfocusonpublicadministration.
Atthetimeofitspublication,itwouldhavebeenhighlyunusualforapoliticalhistorianofcomparableambitionto
undertakeaparallelproject.Bythe1970s,thecenterofgravityinthehistoricalprofessionhadshiftedawayfrom
institutionaltopics,whichwererituallyderidedasold-fashionedandelitist(or“topdown”),andtowardthe
recoveryofthe“livedexperience”ofmarginalizedsocialgroups,includingblacks,women,andthepoor(Kammen
1980).Forvariousreasons—whichincludedadisillusionmentwiththe“waronpoverty”andtheVietnamWarand
thedeep-seatedcynicismaboutthepoliticalelitethataccompaniedtheWatergatescandal—therisinggeneration
Page 5 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
ofhistorianswaslessinclinedtoinvestigatehowgovernmentalinstitutionsworkedthantowritehistory“fromthe
bottomup”(Ciepley2000,2006).
Thishistoriographicalseachangewouldcometobeknown,somewhatmisleadingly,asthe“new”socialhistory.In
fact,the“new”socialhistorywasnotasinnovativeasitsmarketing-savvypractitionersadvertised,andhadno
specialclaimtothe“social”—thecommongroundofallhistoricalinquiry.Yetitwasnothingifnotinfluential.Even
politicalhistorianswouldby1980cometohailasthe“cuttingedge”scholarshipthatdwelledlessongovernmental
institutionsthanonelectoralbehavior,including,inparticular,theinfluenceonvotingpatternsofculturalimpulses
rootedinethnicityandreligion.
Noteveryoneagreed.Evenamongpoliticalhistorians,thereremainedastalwartfewinthe1980swhoquestioned
whetherelectoralbehaviorheldthekeytopublicpolicy(McDonald1990,1989;Leuchtenberg1986;McCormick
1986).Yettherewaslittleevidencethatmanyhistorianswerelistening.Itwas,forexample,unusualatthistimefor
historydepartmentstoadvertisepositionsinpoliticalhistory,and,whentheydid,positionsoftenwenttonewly
mintedPhDswhowerespecializinginsocialandculturaltopicsthathad,atbest,atangentialrelationshiptothe
historyofgovernmentalinstitutions.ForahistoryPh.D.candidateatamajorresearchuniversityinthisperiodto
writeadissertationonfederaladministrativeagenciesinthe1877–1920periodwouldhavebeenriskyifthe
candidatehopedtoobtainatenure-trackpositionuponthecompletionofhisorherdegree.Inotherdisciplines,in
contrast,thestudyofgovernmentalinstitutionsretainedacertaincachet.Predictably,then,someofthemost
penetratinghistoricallyorientedmonographsonpolicy-relatedtopicsinthe1980swouldoriginateasdissertations
inpoliticalscience,sociology,andeconomics,andforseveralyearssomeofthemostinnovativeworkinthe
historyofgovernmentalinstitutionswouldoriginateindisciplinesotherthanhistory.
Thisisnottosaythathistorianshadlostsightofeitherthestateorinstitutions.Infact,scholarsinfluencedby
criticallegaltheoryprobedtheinfluenceoflawonsocialrelationships(Tomlins2010),whilesocialhistorians
analyzedpublicschools,prisons,andotherinstitutionsthroughaFoucauldianlens(Meranze1996).APDoffered
politicalhistoriansawaytothinkaboutgovernmentalinstitutionsthatwasdistinctfrom,thoughoftenindialogue
with,thesetwotraditions.
The“deadend”thatZelizeridentifiedinhis2003essay,andthatNewAmericanStatehelpedpoliticalhistorians
escape,waspartlymethodological.NewAmericanStateunderscoredthepotentialofastyleofscholarshipthat
emphasizedtheinterplaybetweengovernmentalinstitutionsandgovernmentaladministrators.Forpolitical
historianstemperamentallyinclinedtotracesocialchangetoinsurgentsocialmovements,thiswasanarresting
insight:governmentadministratorscould,atleastatcertainjunctures,beagentsofchange.
ThecontributionofNewAmericanStatetohistoricalwritingwasnotonlymethodological,butalsosubstantive,and
intwodifferentways.First,andmostobviously,itreinvigoratedalongstandingdebateoverthecharacterofthe
earlytwentieth-centurypoliticalreformmovementknownasprogressivism.Progressivismhadlongbeen
characterizedasaresponsetolate-nineteenth-centuryindustrialism,urbanization,andmodernization—thatis,as
apoliticalresponsetoasocialtransformation.NewAmericanStateraisedthealternativepossibilitythat
progressivismcouldbecharacterizedasanoutcomenotonlyofthetransformationofAmericansociety,butalso
ofchangesoriginatingwithintheAmericanstate.Politicalhistoriansdifferedastowhethertheorganizational
innovationsthatSkowronekdescribedwere,asSkowronekcontended,a“patchwork”rootedinpriorinstitutional
arrangements,ora“pattern”withtheiroriginsinthedistantpast(Keller1983).Inaddition,specialistshave
critiqued,eitherimplicitlyorexplicitly,Skowronek’sanalysisofrailroadregulation(Churella2013;Berk2009;
Usselman2002;Berk1994)andarmyreorganization(Watson2006;2012,8–11,23,and313n15;2013;Wilson
2006a,b).YetthechallengethatSkowronekposedhasbeensubstantialandenduring.Nolongerwoulditbe
possibletocharacterizetheprogressives’achievementswithoutreferencetotheinstitutionalarrangementsthat
theyinheritedandthegovernmentalinstitutionsthattheybuilt.Subsequentscholarshiponamultitudeoftopicshas
abundantlyaffirmedSkowronek’sbasicinsightthattheorganizationalconfigurationinwhichgovernment
administratorsoperateshapesnotonlytheadministrators’policyoptionsbutalsothelikelihoodthattheywill
succeed.
Skowronek’ssecond,andmostcontroversial,substantivecontributionwashischaracterizationoftheAmerican
stateintheearlyrepublicasa“stateofcourtsandparties.”Severalinfluentialhistorianswhospecializeinthe
post-1877periodhavefoundSkowronek’scharacterizationapt,ashavescoresofpoliticalscientists(Keller2007;
Page 6 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
Galambos1987).Specialistsinthehistoryoftheearlyrepublic,incontrast,includingthisessayist,havealmost
uniformlyrejecteditasmisleading(Edling2010;John2003,2004,2006a,b,2008a,b,d;Jensen2003).Theearly
Americanstate,politicalhistoriansnowagree,wasstronger,morepowerful,andmoreautonomousthan
Skowronek’scharacterizationwouldleadonetoassume.InadeliberatechallengetoSkowronek,onehistorianhas
publishedabook-lengthhistoryofthenineteenth-centuryfederalgovernment(Balogh2009),whileanotherisin
theprocessofwritingahistoryoftheAmericanstateatthefederal,state,andmunicipallevelsintheperiodbefore
theSecondWorldWar(Gerstle2009).Thestateintheearlyrepublic,observedMaxM.Edling,insummarizingwhat
hasbecomeforinstitutionallyorientedpoliticalhistorians,thenewconsensus,playedaninstrumentalrolenotonly
insubjugatingthenativepopulationandforestallingmilitaryconflictsbetweentheindividualstates,butalsoin
promotingAmericancommerce,expandingAmericanterritory,defendingthecountry’spoliticalindependence
againsttheEuropeangreatpowers,and,atleastforsevendecades,preservingtheunion:“Theseachievements
havebeenignoredbecausetheyformtheparametersratherthantheobjectsofhistoricalinquiriesintothenation’s
history.Wearetoousedtotheideaoftheearlyrepublicasanindependentstate,afederalunion,aflourishing
commercialsociety,andarapidlyevolvingnationtoseethesefeaturesofAmericanhistoryasanythingbut
inevitable”(Edling2010,31).
ParticularlyproblematichasbeenSkowronek’scharacterizationofAmericanpoliticalcultureintheearlyrepublic
as“stateless”inthesensethat,despitetheexistenceofastate(a“stateofcourtsandparties”),contemporaries
lackedasenseofthestate.Tosubstantiatethisclaim,Skowronekreliedneitheronthescholarshipofhistoriansnor
theconsideredjudgmentofcontemporaries.Instead,herestedhisconclusionontheassertionsofthreeEuropean
politicaltheorists—Hegel,Marx,andTocqueville—onlyoneofwhomhadsetfootintheUnitedStates(John2006b).
Skowronek’sdecisiontoconfinethebulkofhisresearchtothepost-CivilWarperiodisunderstandable:
monographsalmostbydefinitionarequitenarrowlyboundedintimeaswellasinspace.Yetitremainsstartlingtoa
historianthatascholarcouldconfidentlybasesweepinggeneralizationsaboutthecharacterofAmericanpolitical
cultureduringitsformativeeraonsuchathinempiricalfoundation.Notonlyhistorians,butalsopoliticalscientists,
wouldfindSkowronek’sconclusionsinthisregardtobewideofthemark(John2006b,2008b;Farr1995;Gunnell
1995).
Notwithstandingthesecaveats,itisimportantnottolosesightofthemainpoint:NewAmericanStatereoriented
thewritingofpoliticalhistory.Thisisparticularlyimpressive,giventherelativenarrownessofitstheme:namely,
thechangingcharacteroffederaladministrativeagenciesintheperiodbetween1877and1920.Interestingly,in
hislaterscholarshipSkowronekhasremainedtightlyfocusedonthefederalexecutive.Skowronek’ssecond
monograph—ThePoliticsPresidentsMake(Skowronek1997)—remainsmorethanfifteenyearsafteritspublication
thesinglemostambitioushistoricalanalysisofthechallengesandopportunitiesthathaveconfrontedthenation’s
presidentsfromtheeighteenthcenturytothepresent.YethistorianshaveprovedreluctanttoadoptSkowrenek’s
analyticalcategories,whileevensomeofSkowronek’scolleaguesinpoliticalsciencehaveraisedquestionsabout
hiscommitmenttointerdisciplinarity.“Forsomeofuswhowelcometheendoftheartificialdividebetweenhistory
andpoliticalscience,”onefellowpoliticalscientistobserved,inanappreciativeyetcriticalreview,Politics
PresidentsMakewas“inaway,astepbackward”(Wilson1994,356).Evenso,byframinganargumentaboutthe
presidencythatcoveredmuchoftheU.S.history,itaccomplishedafeatthatmanyAPD-orientedpolitical
historianshadregardedasimpossible:namely,ithasreturnedamodicumofintellectualrespectabilitytothelongmaligned“presidentialsynthesis.”
***
IntheyearssincethepublicationofNewAmericanState,therelationshipbetweenAPDandpoliticalhistoryhas
shiftedsubstantially.Initially,politicalhistorianslookedtoAPDtoilluminatetopicsthathadfallenoutoffavorin
historydepartments.Prominentamongthesewasthehistoryofpublicadministration.Historiansinterestedinfilling
outtheirunderstandingoftheevolutionofthefederalgovernmenthadlongbenefitedfromthescholarshipofan
earliergenerationofpoliticalscientists,ofwhomthemostprolifichadbeenLeonardD.White(John1996),the
authorofamagisterialfour-volumeoverviewoffederalpublicadministrationthat,withthenotableexceptionofthe
CivilWar(1861–1865),spannedtheperiodbetween1787and1900.Politicalscientistsfromearliergenerationshad
alsopublishedmonographsonstate-levelgovernmentalinstitutionsthathistoriansfounduseful(Hartz1947;John
1997).Yetin1982thesestate-levelmonographswereallseveraldecadesold.
ThepublicationofNewAmericanStateinspiredanewgenerationofscholarstoturntheirattentiontothehistoryof
Page 7 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
publicadministration.Amongthescholarshipthatithashelpedspawnhasbeenamajornewhistoryofthefirst
centuryoffederalpublicadministration(Mashaw2012)andaflurryofchallengingbooksandarticlesontheracial
dimensionofthetwentieth-centuryAmericanstate(KingandLieberman2009;Katznelson2005;Horton2005;
Lieberman1998;King1995).Atleastpartofthedistinctivenessofthisscholarshipcanbefoundinthewillingness
ofAPDpractitionerstoengagewithanolderbodyofscholarshiponthehistoryofpublicadministrationthat
stretchedbacktoWhiteandhisinterwarcolleagues.Keepingupwiththeliteraturecanhaveitsperils.Political
scientistsfeellessofaprofessionalneedthanhistorianstostayabreastofthelatesthistoricalmonographsinU.S.
history.Insomeinstances,thisposesproblems;inothers,itcanyieldrichrewards.Bymaintainingatightfocuson
perennialissuesinpoliticaldevelopment,APDpractitionerssometimesdoabetterjobofminingvaluable,if
unfashionable,olderscholarshipthandohistoriansfixatedonthenextnewthing.
Inseveralareas,APDpractitionershaveadvancedargumentsthatpoliticalhistorianshavebeenslowtoengage.
Bensel’sanalysisofthecausalrelationshipbetweenregionalismandpopularpoliticsinlate-nineteenth-century
Americanindustrializationhasmostlybeenoverlooked(Bensel1984,2000),ashashislinkageofdifferentpolicy
issueswithdifferentbranchesofthefederalgovernmentandhisspeculationthatAmericanpoliticaleconomic
developmentinthisperiodwouldappearinaquitedifferentlightifweshiftourframeofreferencefromEuropeto
EastAsia(Bensel2009).Itwill,similarly,beintriguingtoseehowpoliticalhistoriansengageKatznelson’srecently
publishedanalysisofthepivotalroleofsouthernlawmakersinthepromulgationofdomesticandforeignpolicy
duringtheNewDeal(Katzlenson2013).
AmongthethrivingtradingzonesbetweenpoliticalhistoryandAPDhasbeenthehistoryofcommunications.Here,
too,Skowronek’sinfluence—and,morebroadly,thatoftheAPDtraditionthatNewAmericanStatedidmuchto
encourage—hasbeensalutary.Thebestone-volumehistoricaloverviewofcommunicationspolicyintheUnited
StateswasauthoredbyPaulStarr,asociologistmuchinfluencednotonlybyrecenthistoricalwritingon
governmentalinstitutions,butalsobytheinstitutionalistturninpoliticalscience(Starr2004).Institutionallyoriented
scholarshiphasbeenpublishedontopicsrangingfromtheearlyhistoryofthepostoffice(John1995)tothe
establishmentoftheFederalCommunicationsCommission(MossandFein2003)andtherelationshipofradioand
newspapersintheinterwarperiod(Stamm2011).
TheinterdisciplinarydialoguebetweenAPDandpoliticalhistoryhasinformedmyrecentlypublishedmonograph
—NetworkNation:InventingAmericanTelecommunications(John2010)—ontheformativeeraoftheU.S.
telegraphandtelephonebusiness.NetworkNationbuiltontheAPDcommonplacethattheorganizational
configuration,orpoliticalstructure,inwhichenterprisesoperatecanexertalargeandenduringinfluenceontheir
managers’businessstrategy.Insodoing,itinvertedacelebratedadagepopularizedbybusinesshistorianAlfred
D.Chandler,Jr.InStrategyandStructure(1962),Chandlercontendedthatthebusinessstrategyofanenterprise
shapeditsorganizationalstructure.Insodoing,andinaspiritthatwastypicalofsomanymid-twentieth-century
historians,Chandlerrejectedthepresumptionthatgovernmentalinstitutionscouldbeagentsofchange.Network
Nation,incontrast,demonstratedhow,intheformativeeraofAmericantelecommunicationsthatopenedwiththe
grantingofthefirstpatentrightstotelegraphinventorSamuelF.B.Morsein1840andclosedwiththeopeningof
thefirstcommercialradiostationin1920,thepoliticalstructureoftheAmericanstateatthefederal,state,and
municipallevelsshapedthebusinessstrategyoftelegraphandtelephonecompanieslargeandsmall,including
WesternUnionandAmericanTelephoneandTelegraph(orAT&T),whichwere,atthetime,twoofthelargest
corporationsintheworld(John2008c,2010).Inreachingthisconclusion,itdrewonconceptsthathadbeen
elaborated,respectively,bythepoliticalscientist-turned-historianColleenA.DunlavyandthehistoricalsociologistturnedcommunicationsscholarRobertBrittHorwitz:namely,thatthestatecanhavea“structuringpresence”and
thatrate-and-entryregulationcanshapebusinessstrategy(Dunlavy1994;Horwitz1989).
Thehistoryofcommunicationsisbutoneofseveralinstitutionallyorientedrealmsintowhichhistorianshave
movedinrecentyearsthattheyhadbeenreluctanttotacklein1982.Amongtheserealms(andthislistisbyno
meansexhaustive)arefederalism(Edling2013a,b,2010;Morser2011;Gerstle2009;Lacey2000);law(Witt2012;
Mashaw2012;Novak2010,2008,2002,2001,1996;Tomlins2010;Wilson2008;UsselmanandJohn2006;
Willrich2003);taxation(Mehrotra2009,2013;Michelmore2012;Martin,Mehrotra,andPrasad2009;Einhorn2006,
1991);regulation(Churella2013;Grisinger2012;McCraw2012;Rao2011,2012;IrwinandSylla2011;John
2006a,b,2010;Berk2009,1994;Adams2006;Childs2005;Klein2003;Moss2002;Usselman2002;Brinkley
1995;Dubofsky1994);publicworks(Radford2013;Smith2006);socialmovements(White2011;Edwards2009,
2010;Postel2007;Jacobs2007;Rodgers1998;Foner1988);publiclifeandcivilsociety(Brooke2010;Butterfield
Page 8 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
2009;Neem2008;Novak2001);militarymobilization(Wilson2006a,b,2013;Watson2006,2012,2013;Sparrow
2011;Angevine2004);citizenship(ThompsonandOnuf2013;Sparrow2011;Canady2009;Ngai2004;Keyssar
2000);andinternationalrelations(GoloveandHulsebosch2010;LevinsonandSparrow2005;Onuf2000).Political
developmenthasalsoemergedasamajorthemeinonehighlyregardedU.S.historytextbook(Maier,Smith,
Keyssar,andKevles2006)andoneinnovativehistoryofanAmericanregion(White1991).Closelyrelated,yet
distinctfromthisscholarshipistheveinofhistoricalwritingthatbuildsontheinsightsofDouglassC.Northandthe
newinstitutionalismineconomics(North1990)toanalyzemarkettransactions(Lamoreaux,Raff,andTemin2003).
OnlysomeofthisscholarshiphasdrawndirectlyonconceptsandapproachespopularizedbyAPD.Yetallofithas
beeninformedbytheinstitutionalistturninpoliticalhistorythatAPDhelpedinspire.
Atthesametimethatpoliticalhistorianshaveexpandedtheirambit,APDhasturnedinward.Ratherthanfollowing
thecapaciousagendathathadbeensetforthbySkocpolandTillyinthe1980s,leadingpractitioners(including
Skowonek)havebecomeincreasinglypreoccupiedwithmethodologicalrefinements.Ifpoliticalhistorianswritewith
oneeyecockedtowardtheU.S.historytextbooksandtheop-edpage,APDpractitionershavebecome
increasinglyfocusedonturfbattlesinsidedepartmentsofpoliticalscience.Skowronek’sPoliticsPresidentsMake,
forexample,contributesrelativelylittletoourunderstandingoftherelationshipofpoliticstootherdimensionsof
Americanlife—suchas,forexample,urbanization,industrialization,militarization,orpoliticaleconomy(Wilson
1994).Inthisregard,itisquitedifferentfromRichardBensel’sPoliticalEconomyofAmericanIndustrialization
(Bensel2000),inwhichtheinfluenceofgovernmentalinstitutionsoneconomicdevelopmentbecameitsdefining
problematique.
TheincreasingpreoccupationofcertainAPDpractitionerswithmethodologyhasopenedariftwithhistorianswho
arecontentwiththetheoreticalkitbagtheyalreadypossess.“Historianspreferto‘find’connectiveframeworks
ratherthanhavethemassigned,”observedpoliticalhistorianBrianBaloghinausefulreviewessayonthe“stateof
thestate”inAmericanhistoricalwriting:“Remarkably,inthetruespiritofsocialandculturalhistory,itappearsthat
somehistoriansarebeginningtofindthestateontheirown—havingarrivedatthispointbyfollowingtheirsubjects
fromprivateworldsandcivilsocietyintopublicservice”(Balogh2003,458–59).Misgivingsaboutthetheoretical
turninAPDhaveevenbeenvoicedbysomeofthefoundersofthefield.Inabriefyetpenetratingessay,for
example,Skocpolhasobservedthat,inherownresearch,shealwaysworkedout“theoreticalframeworks”in
“closeconnectionwithempiricalresearchonactualcomparativelyconceptualizedpatternsofsomesort”and
that,inherrecentlypublishedProtectingSoldiersandMothers,the“mostimportantpatterns”thatshetriedto
explaincametoherattention“throughempiricalrummaging,nottheorizing”(Skocpol1995,104).
Ifthefutureresemblesthepast,theinterdisciplinarydialoguebetweenAPDandpoliticalhistorythatbeganinthe
1980swillcontinue,notwithstandingenduringdifferencesinaesthetics,methods,andaudience.Butwitha
difference.Inthe1980s,therelegationofpoliticalhistorianstothestatusofjuniorpartnerhadacertainlogic.
Todaythisisconsiderablylesstrue.Historianswilldoubtlesscontinuetodrawonthelargeandimpressivebodyof
scholarshipthatAPDpractitionershavegenerated.Yet,andinlargepartbecauseoftheirsustainedengagement
withAPD,politicalhistorianstodayareinamuchbetterpositionthantheyhavebeeninmanydecadestomakean
enduringcontributiontohistoricalwritingontheinstitutionaldimensionsoftheAmericanpast.
Acknowledgments
Forsuggestionsandadvice,IamgratefultoBrianBalogh,MaxM.Edling,GarethDavies,NancyR.John,Ira
Katznelson,RobertC.Lieberman,JohannNeem,GauthamRao,RobertY.Shapiro,ByronE.Shafer,RichardValelly,
MarkR.Wilson,andJulianE.Zelizer.
References
Adams,S.2006.‘Promotion,Competition,Captivity:ThePoliticalEconomyofCoal.’JournalofPoliticalHistory18,
74–95.
Adler,W.D.2012.‘StateCapacityandBureaucraticAutonomyintheEarlyUnitedStates:TheCaseoftheArmy
CorpsofTopographicalEngineers.’StudiesinAmericanPoliticalDevelopment26,1–18.
Page 9 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
Angevine,R.G.2004.TheRailroadandtheState:War,Politics,andTechnologyinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.
Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Balogh,B.2009.AGovernmentOutofSight:TheMysteryofNationalAuthorityinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Balogh,B.2003.‘TheStateoftheStateamongHistorians.’SocialScienceHistory27,455–463.
Baldwin,P.2005.‘BeyondWeakandStrong:RethinkingtheStateinComparativePolicyHistory.’JournalofPolicy
History17,12–33.
Barreyre,N.2011.‘ThePoliticsofEconomicCrises:ThePanicof1873,theEndofReconstruction,andthe
RealignmentofAmericanPolitics.’JournaloftheGildedAgeandProgressiveEra10,403–423.
Bensel,R.F.2009.‘Comments:ForumonShouldweAbolishthe“GildedAge?”’JournaloftheGildedAgeand
ProgressiveEra8,481–485.
Bensel,R.F.2004.TheAmericanBallotBoxintheMid-NineteenthCentury.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Bensel,R.F.2000.ThePoliticalEconomyofAmericanIndustrialization,1877-1900.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Bensel,R.F.1990.YankeeLeviathan:TheOriginsofStateAuthorityinAmerica,1859-1877.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bensel,R.F.1984.SectionalismandAmericanPoliticalDevelopment,1880-1940.Madison:Universityof
WisconsinPress.
Berk,G.D.2009.LouisD.BrandeisandtheMakingofRegulatedCompetition,1900-1932.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Berk,G.D.1994.AlternativeTracks:TheConstitutionofAmericanIndustrialOrder,1865-1916.Baltimore:Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress.
Binder,S.A.1997.MinorityRights,MajorityRule:PartisanshipandtheDevelopmentofCongress.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bridges,A.1997.MorningGlories:MunicipalReformintheSouthwest.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Bridges,A.1984.ACityintheRepublic:AntebellumNewYorkandtheOriginsofMachinePolitics.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Brinkley,A.1995.TheEndofReform:NewDealLiberalisminRecessionandWar.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1995.
Brooke,J.L.2010.ColumbiaRising:CivilLifeontheUpperHudsonfromtheRevolutiontotheAgeofJackson.
ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.
Butterfield,K.2009.‘ACommonLawofMembership:Expulsion,Regulation,andCivilSocietyintheEarlyRepublic.’
PennsylvaniaMagazineofHistoryandBiography133,255–275.
Canady,M.2009.TheStraightState:SexualityandCitizenshipinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Carpenter,D.P.2001.TheForgingofBureaucraticAutonomy:Reputations,Networks,andPolicyInnovationin
ExecutiveAgencies,1862-1928.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Childs,W.R.2005.TheTexasRailroadCommission:UnderstandingRegulationinAmericatotheMid-Twentieth
Century.CollegeStation:TexasA&MUniversityPress.
Churella,A.2013.ThePennsylvaniaRailroad:vol.1:BuildinganEmpire,1846-1917.Philadelphia:Universityof
Page 10 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
PennsylvaniaPress.
Ciepley,D.2006.LiberalismintheShadowofTotalitarianism.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Ciepley,D.2000.‘WhytheStateWasDroppedintheFirstPlace:APrequeltoSkocpol’s“BringingtheStateBack
In.”’CriticalReview14,157–213.
Clemens,E.S.1997.ThePeople’sLobby:OrganizationalInnovationandtheRiseofInterestGroupPoliticsinthe
UnitedStates,1890-1925.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Dauber,M.L.2012.TheSympatheticState:DisasterReliefandtheOriginsoftheAmericanWelfareState.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Dubofsky,M.1994.TheStateandLaborinModernAmerica.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.
Dunlavy,C.A.1994.PoliticsandIndustrialization:EarlyRailroadsintheUnitedStatesandPrussia.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Edling,M.M.2013a.‘“Amongrelkindofgovernment”:TheU.S.Constitution,thefederalunion,andtheoriginsof
theAmericanstate,’inP.ThompsonandP.S.Onuf,eds.,StateandCitizen:BritishAmericaandtheEarlyUnited
States.Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,150–177.
Edling,M.M.2013b.‘Amoreperfectunion:TheframingandratificationoftheConstitution,’inE.G.GrayandJ.
Kamensky,eds.,TheOxfordHandbookoftheAmericanRevolution.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,388–406.
Edling,M.M.2010.‘ThestrangehybridoftheearlyAmericanstate,’inH.JoasandB.Klein,eds.,TheBenefitsof
BroadHorizons.Leiden:Brill,15–32.
Edling,M.M.2003.ARevolutioninFavorofGovernment:OriginsoftheU.S.ConstitutionandtheMakingofthe
AmericanState.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Edwards,R.2010.NewSpirits:Americansinthe“GildedAge.”Secondedition.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Edwards,R.2009.‘Politics,SocialMovements,andthePeriodizationofU.S.History.’JournaloftheGildedAgeand
theProgressiveEra,8,463–485.
Einhorn,R.L.2006.AmericanTaxation,AmericanSlavery.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Einhorn,R.L.1991.PropertyRules:PoliticalEconomyinChicago,1833-1872.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Ekirch,A.R.1994.‘SometimesanArt,NeveraScience,AlwaysaCraft:AConversationwithBernardBailyn.’
WilliamandMaryQuarterly51,625–658.
Ericson,D.F.2011.SlaveryintheAmericanRepublic:DevelopingtheFederalGovernment,1791-1861.
Lawrence:UniversityofKansasPress.
Evans,P.B.,Rueschemeyer,D.,andSkocpol,T.,eds.BringingtheStateBackIn.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress,1985.
Farr,J.1995.‘Frommodernrepublictoadministrativestate:Americanpoliticalscienceinthenineteenthcentury,’in
D.Eastonetal.,eds,RegimeandDiscipline:DemocracyandtheDevelopmentofPoliticalScience.AnnArbor:
UniversityofMichiganPress,131–167.
Fehrenbacher,D.E.2001.TheSlaveholdingRepublic:AnAccountoftheUnitedStatesGovernment’sRelations
toSlavery.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Finegold,K.,andT.Skocpol.1995.StateandPartyinAmerica’sNewDeal.Madison:UniversityofWisconsin
Press.
Foner,E.1988.Reconstruction:America’sUnfinishedRevolution,1863-1877.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Page 11 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
Freeman,J.B.2001.AffairsofHonor:NationalPoliticsintheNewRepublic.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Galambos,L.1987.‘Bywayofintroduction,’inL.Galambos,ed.,TheNewAmericanState:Bureaucraciesand
PoliciessinceWorldWarII.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1–20.
Garrow,D.J.2003.Visionsofviceandvirtueruleanation’sheart.NewYorkTimes,9April2003.
Gerstle,G.2009.‘Theresilientpowerofthestatesacrossthelongnineteenthcentury,’inL.JacobsandD.King,
eds.,TheUnsustainableAmericanState.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,61–87.
Glenn,B.2004.‘TheTwoSchoolsofAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.’PoliticalStudiesReview2,153–165.
Golove,D.M.,andD.J.Hulsebosch.2010.‘ACivilizedNation:TheEarlyAmericanConstitution,theLawofNations,
andthePursuitofInternationalRecognition.’NewYorkUniversityLawReview85,932–1066.
Graber,M.A.2006.DredScottandtheProblemofConstitutionalEvil.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Grisinger,J.L.2012.TheUnwieldyAmericanState:AdministrativePoliticsSincetheNewDeal.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gunnell,J.G.1995.‘Thedeclinationofthe“state”andtheoriginsofAmericanpluralism,’inJ.Farr,J.S.Dryzek,
andS.T.Leonard,eds.,PoliticalScienceinHistory:ResearchProgramsandPoliticalTradition.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,19–40.
Hartz,L.1947.EconomicPolicyandDemocraticThought:Pennsylvania,1776-1900.Cambridge,MA.:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Hattam,V.C.1993.LaborVisionsandStatePower:TheOriginsofBusinessUnionismintheUnitedStates.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Hofstadter,R.1956.‘Historyandthesocialsciences,’inF.Stern,ed.,VarietiesofHistory.ClevelandandNew
York:MeridianPress,359–370.
Horton,C.A.2005.RaceandtheMakingofAmericanLiberalism.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Horwitz,R.B.1989.TheIronyofRegulatoryReform:TheDeregulationofAmericanTelecommunications.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Irvin,B.H.2011.ClothedintheRobesofSovereignty:TheContinentalCongressandthePeopleOutofDoors.
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Irwin,D.A.,andR.Sylla,eds.2011.FoundingChoices:AmericanEconomicPolicyinthe1790s.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Jacobs,M.2007.PocketbookPolitics:EconomicCitizenshipinTwentieth-CenturyAmerica.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
Jacobs,M.,Novak,W.J.,andZelizer,J.E.,eds.2003.TheDemocraticExperiment:NewDirectionsinAmerican
PoliticalHistory.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
James,S.C.2000.Presidents,Parties,andtheState:APartySystemPerspectiveonDemocraticRegulatory
Choice,1884-1936.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Jenkins,J.A.,andC.A.StewartIII.2013.FightingfortheSpeakership:TheHouseandtheRiseofParty
Government.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Jensen,L.2003.Patriots,Settlers,andtheOriginsofAmericanSocialPolicy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
John,R.R.2010.NetworkNation:InventingAmericanTelecommunications.Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressof
HarvardUniversityPress.
Page 12 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
John,R.R.2008a.‘BringingPoliticalEconomyBackIn.’EnterpriseandSociety9,487–490.
John,R.R.2008b.‘RethinkingtheEarlyAmericanState.’Polity40,332–339.
John,R.R.2008c.‘Telecommunications.’EnterpriseandSociety9,507–520.
John,R.R.2008d.‘WhyInstitutionsMatter:RewritingtheHistoryoftheEarlyRepublic.’Common-place9,
www.common-place.org.
John,R.R.,ed.2006a.RulingPassions:PoliticalEconomyinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.StateCollege:Penn
StateUniversityPress.
John,R.R.2006b.‘Rulingpassions:politicaleconomyinthenineteenthcentury,’inR.R.John,ed.,Ruling
Passions:PoliticalEconomyinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.StateCollege:PennStateUniversityPress,1–20.
John,R.R.2004.‘Farewelltothe“PartyPeriod”:PoliticalEconomyinnineteenth-centuryAmerica.’JournalofPolicy
History16,117–125.
John,R.R.2003.‘Affairsofoffice:theexecutivedepartments,theelectionof1828,andthemakingofthe
democraticparty,’inM.Jacobs,Novak,andZelizer,eds.,TheDemocraticExperiment:NewDirectionsin
AmericanPoliticalHistory.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,50–84.
John,R.R.1997.‘GovernmentalInstitutionsasAgentsofChange:RethinkingAmericanPoliticalDevelopmentinthe
EarlyRepublic,1787-1835.’StudiesinAmericanPoliticalDevelopment11,347–80.
John,R.R.1996.‘LeonardD.WhiteandtheInventionofAmericanAdministrativeHistory.’ReviewsinAmerican
History24,344–360.
John,R.R.1995.SpreadingtheNews:TheAmericanPostalSystemfromFranklintoMorse.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Johnson,K.S.2007.GoverningtheAmericanState:CongressandtheNewFederalism,1877-1929.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Kammen,M.G.,ed.1980.ThePastBeforeUs:ContemporaryHistoricalWritingintheUnitedStates.Ithaca:
CornellUniversityPress.
Katznelson,I.2013.FearItself:TheNewDealandtheOriginsofOurTime.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.
Katznelson,I.2005.WhenAffirmativeActionwasWhite:AnUntoldStoryofRacialInequalityinTwentiethCenturyAmerica.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.
Katznelson,I.2003.‘Thepossibilitiesofanalyticalpoliticalhistory,’inM.Jacobs,W.J.Novak,andJ.E.Zelizer,eds.
TheDemocraticExperiment:NewDirectionsinAmericanPoliticalHistory,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,
381–400.
Katznelson,I.2002a.‘Flexiblecapacity:ThemilitaryandearlyAmericanstatebuilding,’inI.KatznelsonandM.
Shefter,eds.,ShapedbyWarandTrade:InternationalInfluencesonAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress,82–110.
Katznelson,I.2002b.‘RewritingtheepicofAmerica,’inKatznelsonandM.Shefter,eds.ShapedbyWarandTrade:
InternationalInfluencesonAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,3–23.
Katznelson,I.,andJ.S.Lapinski.2006.‘AttheCrossroads:CongressandAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.’
PerspectivesonPolitics4,243–660.
Katznelson,I.,andH.V.Milner,eds.2002.PoliticalScience:TheStateoftheDiscipline.NewYork:W.W.Norton&
Company.
Katznelson,I.,andM.Shefter,eds.2002.ShapedbyWarandTrade:InternationalInfluencesonAmerican
PoliticalDevelopment.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Page 13 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
Katznelson,I.1993.‘StatetotheRescue?PoliticalScienceandHistoryReconnect.’SocialResearch59719–737.
Katznelson,I.,andA.R.Zolberg,eds.1986.Working-ClassFormation:Nineteenth-CenturyPatternsinWestern
EuropeandtheUnitedStates.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Keller,M.2007.America’sThreeRegimes:ANewPoliticalHistory.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Keller,M.1983.‘(Jerry-)buildingaNewAmericanState.’ReviewsinAmericanHistory11,248–251.
Keyssar,A.2000.TheRighttoVote:TheContestedHistoryofDemocracyintheUnitedStates.NewYork:Basic
Books.
King,D.1995.SeparateandUnequal:BlackAmericansandtheU.S.FederalGovernment.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
King,D.,andR.C.Lieberman.2009.‘IroniesofStateBuilding:AComparativePerspectiveontheAmericanState.’
WorldPolitics61,547–588.
King,D.,andM.Stears.2009.‘ThemissingstateinpostwarAmericanpoliticalthought,’inL.JacobsandD.King,
eds.,TheUnsustainableAmericanState.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,116–132.
Klein,J.2003.ForAllTheseRights:Business,Labor,andtheShapingofAmerica’sPublic-PrivateWelfareState.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Lacey,M.J.2000.‘Federalismandnationalplanning:thenineteenth-centurylegacy,’inR.Fishman,ed.,The
AmericanPlanningTradition.Washington,DC:WoodrowWilsonCenterPress,89–145.
Lamoreaux,N.,D.,Raff,M.G.,andTemin,P.2003.‘BeyondMarketsandHierarchies:TowardaNewSynthesisof
AmericanBusinessHistory.’AmericanHistoricalReview108,404–433.
Leuchtenberg,W.1986.‘ThePertinenceofPoliticalHistory:ReflectionsontheSignificanceoftheStateinAmerica.’
JournalofAmericanHistory73,585–600.
Levinson,S.,andB.H.Sparrow,eds.2005.TheLouisianaPurchaseandAmericanExpansion,1803-1898.
Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield.
Lieberman,R.C.2002.Ideas,Institutions,andPoliticalOrder:ExplainingPoliticalChange.AmericanPolitical
ScienceReview,96,697–712.
Lieberman,R.C.1998.ShiftingtheColorLine:RaceandtheAmericanWelfareState.Cambridge,MA:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Lomazoff,E.2012.‘Turning(into)“theGreatRegulatingWheel”:TheConversionoftheBankoftheUnitedStates,
1791-1811.’StudiesinAmericanPoliticalDevelopment26,1–23.
Maier,P.,Smith,M.R.,Keyssar,A.,andKevles,D.J.2006.InventingAmerica:AHistoryoftheUnitedStates.2nd
ed.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.
Martin,I.W.,Mehrotra,A.K.,andPrasad,M.,eds.2009.TheNewFiscalSociology:TaxationinComparativeand
HistoricalPerspective.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mashaw,J.L.2012.CreatingtheAdministrativeConstitution:TheLostOneHundredYearsofAdministrativeLaw.
NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
McCormick,R.L.1986.ThePartyPeriodandPublicPolicy:AmericanPoliticsfromtheAgeofJacksontothe
ProgressiveEra.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
McCraw,T.K.2012.TheFoundersandFinance:HowHamilton,Gallatin,andOtherImmigrantsForgedaNew
Economy.Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.
McDonald,T.J.1990.‘Buildingtheimpossiblestate:towardaninstitutionalanalysisofstatebuildinginAmerica,
Page 14 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
1820-1930,’inJ.E.Jackson,ed.,InstitutionsinAmericanSociety:EssaysinMarket,Political,andSocial
Organization.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,217–239.
McDonald,T.J.1989.‘TheBurdensofUrbanHistory:TheTheoryoftheStateinRecentAmericanSocialHistory.’
StudiesinAmericanPoliticalDevelopment3,3–29.
Mehrotra,A.K.2013.MakingtheModernAmericanFiscalState:Law,Politics,andtheRiseofProgressive
Taxation,1877-1929.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mehrotra,A.K.2009.‘TheIntellectualFoundationsoftheModernAmericanFiscalState.’Daedalus138,53–62.
Meranze,M.1996.LaboratoriesofVirtue:Punishment,Revolution,andAuthorityinPhiladelphia,1760-1835.
ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.
Mettler,S.1998.DividingCitizens:GenderandFederalisminNewDealPublicPolicy.Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press.
Michelmore,M.C.2012.TaxandSpend:TheWelfareState,TaxPolitics,andtheLimitsofAmericanLiberalism.
Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Milkis,S.M.2006.‘ReviewofTheSearchforAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.’JournalofPolitics68,744–755.
Morone,J.A.2003.HellfireNation:ThePoliticsofSininAmericanHistory.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,
2003.
Morser,E.J.2011.HinterlandDreams:ThePoliticalEconomyofaMidwesternCity.Philadelphia:Universityof
PennsylvaniaPress.
Moss,D.A.2002.WhenAllElseFails:GovernmentastheUltimateRiskManager.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Moss,D.A.,andFein,M.R.2003.‘RadioRegulationRevisited:Coase,theFCC,andthePublicInterest.’Journalof
PolicyHistory15,389–416.
Neem,J.N.2008.CreatingaNationofJoiners:DemocracyandCivilSocietyinEarlyMassachusetts.Cambridge,
MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Ngai,M.2004.ImpossibleSubjects:IllegalAliensandtheMakingofModernAmerica.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
North,D.C.1990.Institutions,InstitutionalChange,andEconomicPerformance.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Novak,W.J.2010.LawandtheSocialControlofAmericanCapitalism.EmoryLawJournal,60,377–405.
Novak,W.J.2008.‘TheMythofthe“Weak”AmericanState.’AmericanHistoricalReview113,752–772.
Novak,W.J.2002.‘ThelegaloriginsofthemodernAmericanstate,’inA.Saratetal.,eds,LookingBackatLaw’s
Century.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,249–282.
Novak,W.J.2001.‘TheAmericanLawofAssociation:TheLegal-PoliticalConstructionofCivilSociety.’Studiesin
AmericanPoliticalDevelopment15,163–188.
Novak,W.J.1996.ThePeople’sWelfare:LawandRegulationinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.ChapelHill:
UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.
Onuf,P.S.2000.Jefferson’sEmpire:TheLanguageofAmericanNationhood.Charlottesville:UniversityPressof
Virginia.
Orren,K.1991.BelatedFeudalism:Labor,theLaw,andPoliticalDevelopmentintheUnitedStates.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Page 15 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
Orren,K.,andS.Skowronek.2004.TheSearchforAmericanPoliticalDevelopment.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Orren,K.,andS.Skowronek.2002.‘ThestudyofAmericanpoliticaldevelopment,’inI.KatznelsonandH.V.Milner,
eds.,PoliticalScience:TheStateoftheDiscipline.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,722–754.
Pierson,P.2004.PoliticsinTime:History,Institutions,andSocialAnalysis.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Pierson,P.,andT.Skocpol.2002.‘Historicalinstitutionalismincontemporarypoliticalscience,’inI.Katznelsonand
H.V.Milner,eds.,PoliticalScience:TheStateoftheDiscipline.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,691–721.
Plotke,D.BuildingaDemocraticPoliticalOrder:ReshapingAmericanLiberalisminthe1930sand1940s.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996.
Poole,K.T.,andH.Rosenthal.1997.Congress:APolitical-EconomicHistoryofRollCallVoting.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Postel,C.2007.ThePopulistVision.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Radford,G.2013.TheRiseofthePublicAuthority:StatebuildingandEconomicDevelopmentinTwentiethCenturyAmerica.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Rao,G.2012.‘AdministeringEntitlement:Governance,PublicHealthCare,andtheEarlyAmericanState.’Lawand
SocialInquiry37,627–656.
Rao,G.2011.‘Thestatetheslaveholdersmade:regulatingfugitiveslavesintheearlyrepublic,’inT.FreyerandL.
Campbell,eds.,Freedom’sConditionsinU.S.-CanadianBorderlandsintheAgeofEmancipation.Durham:
CarolinaAcademicPress,85–108.
Richardson,H.C.2007.WestfromAppomattox:TheReconstructionofAmericaAftertheCivilWar.NewHaven:
YaleUniversityPress.
Ritter,G.1997.GoldbugsandGreenbacks:TheAntimonopolyTraditionandthePoliticsofFinanceinAmerica,
1865-1896.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rodgers,D.T.1998.AtlanticCrossings:SocialPoliticsinaProgressiveAge.Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressof
HarvardUniversityPress.
Rothman,A.2005.‘The“slavepower”intheUnitedStates,1783-1865,’inS.FraserandG.Gerstle,eds.,Ruling
America:AHistoryofWealthandPowerinaDemocracy.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,64–91.
Sanders,E.1999.RootsofReform:Farmers,Workers,andtheAmericanState,1877-1917.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Shafer,B.E.,andA.J.Badger,eds.2001.ContestingDemocracy:SubstanceandStructureinAmericanPolitical
History,1775-2000.Lawrence:UniversityPressofKansas.
Shefter,M.1994.PoliticalPartiesandtheState:TheAmericanHistoricalExperience.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
Skocpol,T.2003.DiminishedDemocracy:FromMembershiptoManagementinAmericanCivicLife.Norman:
UniversityofOklahomaPress.
Skocpol,T.1995.‘WhyIAmanHistoricalInstitutionalist.’Polity38,103–106.
Skocpol,T.1992.ProtectingSoldiersandMothers:ThePoliticalOriginsofSocialPolicyintheUnitedStates.
Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.
Skocpol,T.1985.‘Bringingthestatebackin:strategiesofanalysisincurrentresearch,’inP.B.Evans,D.
Rueschemeyer,andT.Skocpol,eds.,BringingtheStateBackIn.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,3–43.
Page 16 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
Skowronek,S.1997,rev.ed.[1993]ThePoliticsPresidentsMake:LeadershipfromJohnAdamstoBillClinton.
BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.
Skowronek,S.1982.BuildingaNewAmericanState:TheExpansionofNationalAdministrativeCapacities,18771920.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Smith,J.S.2006.BuildingNewDealLiberalism:ThePoliticalEconomyofPublicWorks,1933-1956.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Smith,R.M.1997.CivicIdeals:ConflictingVisionsofCitizenshipinU.S.History.NewHaven:YaleUniversity
Press.
Sparrow,B.H.1996.FromtheOutsideIn:WorldWarIIandtheAmericanState.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Sparrow,J.T.2011.WarfareState:WorldWarIIAmericansandtheAgeofBigGovernment.NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Stamm,M.2011.SoundBusiness:Newspapers,Radio,andthePoliticsofNewMedia.Philadelphia:Universityof
PennsylvaniaPress.
Starr,P.2004.TheCreationoftheMedia:PoliticalOriginsofModernCommunications.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Thompson,P.andP.S.Onuf,eds.2013.StateandCitizen:BritishAmericaandtheEarlyUnitedStates.
Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress.
Tichenor,D.J.2002.DividingLines:ThePoliticsofImmigrationControlinAmerica.Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress.
Tilly,C.1990.Coercion,CapitalandEuropeanStates:AD990-1990.Oxford:Blackwell.
Tilly,C.1984.BigStructures,LargeProcesses,HugeComparisons.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.
Tomlins,C.2010.FreedomBound:Law,Labor,andCivicIdentityinColonizingEnglishAmerica,1580-1865.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Usselman,S.W.2002.RegulatingRailroadInnovation:Business,Technology,andPoliticsinAmerica,18401920.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Usselman,S.W.,andR.R.John.2006.‘PatentPolitics:IntellectualProperty,theRailroadIndustry,andtheProblem
ofMonopoly.’JournalofPolicyHistory18,96–125.
Vallely,R.M.2004.TheTwoReconstructions:TheStruggleforBlackEnfranchisement.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
VanCleve,G.W.2010.ASlaveholder’sUnion:Slavery,Politics,andtheConstitutionintheEarlyAmerican
Republic.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Waldstreicher,D.2009.Slavery’sConstitutionfromRevolutiontoRatification.NewYork:HillandWang.
Watson,S.J.2013.PeacekeepersandConquerors:TheArmyOfficerCorpsontheAmericanFrontier,1821-1846.
Lawrence:UniversityPressofKansas.
Watson,S.J.2012.Jackson’sSword:TheArmyOfficerCorpsontheAmericanFrontier,1810-1821.Lawrence:
UniversityPressofKansas.
Watson,S.J.2006.‘HowtheArmyBecameAccepted:WestPointSocialization,MilitaryAccountability,andthe
Nation-stateDuringtheJacksonianEra.’AmericanNineteenth-CenturyHistory7,219–251.
White,R.2011.Railroaded:TheTranscontinentalsandtheMakingofModernAmerica.NewYork:W.W.Norton&
Co.
Page 17 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015
American Political Development and Political History
White,R.1991.“It’sYourMisfortuneandNoneofMyOwn”:ANewHistoryoftheAmericanWest.Norman:
UniversityOklahomaPress.
Willrich,M.2003.CityofCourts:SocializingJusticeinProgressiveEraChicago.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Wilson,G.K.1994.‘DoPresidentsMakePolicy.’ReviewsinAmericanHistory22,352–357.
Wilson,M.R.2013.‘Economicmobilization,’inR.A.Kennedy,ed.,ACompaniontoWoodrowWilson.NewYork:
Wiley-Blackwell,289–307.
Wilson,M.R.2008.‘LawandtheAmericanstate,fromtherevolutiontothecivilwar:institutionalgrowthand
structuralchange,’inM.GrossbergandC.Tomlins,eds.,CambridgeHistoryofLawinAmerica:vol.2,TheLong
NineteenthCentury(1789-1920).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1–35.
Wilson,M.R.2006a.TheBusinessofCivilWar:MilitaryMobilizationandtheState,1861-1865.Baltimore:Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress.
Wilson,M.R.2006b.‘Thepoliticsofprocurement:militaryoriginsofbureaucraticautonomy,’inR.R.John,ed.,
RulingPassions:PoliticalEconomyinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.StateCollege:PennStateUniversityPress,
44–73.
Witt,J.F.2012.Lincoln’sCode:TheLawsofWarinAmericanHistory.NewYork:FreePress.
Witt,J.F.,G.Gerstle,J.Adams,andW.J.Novak.2010.‘AHRExchange:onthe“Myth”ofthe“Weak”American
State.’AmericanHistoricalReview115,766–800.
Wood,G.S.1969.TheCreationoftheAmericanRepublic,1776-1787.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolina
Press.
Young,J.S.1966.TheWashingtonCommunity,1800-1828.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Zelizer,J.E.2004.‘HistoryandPoliticalScience:TogetherAgain?’JournalofPolicyHistory16,126–136.
Zelizer,J.E.2003.‘StephenSkowronek’sBuildingaNewAmericanStateandtheOriginsofAmericanPolitical
Development.’SocialScienceHistory27,425–441.
Zolberg,A.R.2006.ANationbyDesign:ImmigrationPolicyintheFashioningofAmerica.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversityPress.
RichardR.John
RichardR.John,ColumbiaUniversity
Page 18 of 18
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 17 August 2015