Van Evera lists 7 key criteria that determine the potential qualitative

applicability of a certain theory to real life circumstances. These criteria serve to

underscore the point that theoretical work in the political science arena is useless
unless it serves a true purpose in the event that a political science laboratory of
sorts makes itself available. Furthermore, these criteria provide a lens of analysis
that further dissects the proverbial theoretical bifocals with which one has already
adorned oneself upon e!amination of a certain political theorist"s work. #f the seven
criteria Van Evera lists, the $rst four seem to take the most pre%eminent role in
determinin& the &oodness of a certain theory. ' place &oodness in quotations
because this is not a critique based upon the traditional meanin& of &ood (i.e.
moral, ethical, imbued with a certain clarity of conscience, innocent, etc...).
The &oodness that Van Evera speaks to e!amines theories within the
conte!t of the $rst four of these seven aforementioned criteria (only the $rst four,
once a&ain, will be e!amined as they most clearly and succinctly speak to what
makes for a &ood theory, where the remainin& three point out features of a
&ood theory more clearly wrapped in ambi&uity). These $rst four criteria are* lar&e
e!planatory power, parsimony, satisfaction, and clear framin&. +ccordin& to Van
Evera, theories that clearly display these characteristics have ascended to the level
of the theoretical &ood, and consequently, can potentially be of &reat real%life
bene$t. Furthermore, these criteria can serve the useful purpose of actin& as the
lens throu&h which the competin& stren&th of theories can be e!amined. 't is for this
purpose that it will now be used as theoretical reasonin&s for the development of
political institutions and their actors, put forth by ,obert -ates in his .rosperity and
Violence* The .olitical Economy of /evelopment and 0amuel .. 1untin&ton in his
.olitical #rder in 2han&in& 0ocieties, are e!amined compared and contrasted with
the end &oal bein& the clear revelation that one more clearly e!empli$es the &ood
theory described by 0tephen Van Evera in his 3uide to 4ethods for 0tudents of
.olitical 0cience.
'n order to delve into some form of comparative theoretical analysis within a
set paradi&m, it becomes important to $rst de$ne the parameters of said paradi&m.
'n this case, the paradi&m is Van Evera"s concept of the &ood theory and the
parameters are the di5erent criteria de$nin& said &ood theory. The $rst of these
criteria listed before was that a &ood theory is required to have lar&e e!planatory
power. #n pa&e 67 of his work Van Evera states that this speaks to the ability to see
that the independent variables a5ect a wide ran&e developments over a wide
ran&e of conditions. 3overnin& the determination of a theory"s e!planatory power
are further sub%criteria such as* importance, e!planatory ran&e, and applicability.
'mportance speaks to the variance in the dependent variables that results from
a5ectin& the independent variable. For e!ample, it is a fact that &iven the law of
&ravity 7umpin& up will be preceded by landin& back on the &round. The
independent variable in this instance is 7umpin& up, or rather the force with which
one 7umps up, the independent variable is the amount of time one spends in the air
before one lands back on the &round. -ut, the amount of force required to remain in
the air for the same amount of time on earth and on the moon, &iven a di5erence in
&ravitational force of 8%to%one, varies &reatly. 4eanin& there are situations when
one a5ects the other more crucially, but, because there still e!ists a stron&
correlation between the force e!erted when 7umpin& up and the amount of time
spent in the air before one falls back down, the theory based upon the law of &ravity
that one acts upon the other retains it"s importance. E!planatory ran&e speaks to
the amount of phenomena that are directly a5ected by chan&es to the independent
variable of the theory, that thereby e!plain how the theory a5ects the phenomena it
a5ects. 9astly, the sub%criteria of applicability simple speaks to the prevalence of
the theory"s parameters within past and present situations. This relative prevalence
then speaks to the amount of phenomena it was able to e!plain, addin& to it"s
e!planatory power.
.arsimony speaks to a theory"s ability to clearly e!plain itself usin& few
variables in simple arran&ements. Van Evera states on pa&e 6: that, &ainin&
parsimony often requires some sacri$ce of e!planatory power. 0o with an increase
in .arsimony comes a relative decrease in the stren&th of a theory"s ability to
e!plain why it is a valid theory. This further reinforces the importance of maintainin&
a theory"s sense of balance.
'f a theory becomes too simple, it not only loses its e!planatory power but it
also be&ins to lack in the ne!t cate&ory determinin& whether or not it is a &ood
theory...namely, satisfaction. 'f a theory becomes too simply, too parsimonious, then
it be&ins to lose its ability to satisfy the desire of those e!aminin& the theory as a
means of understandin& why certain phenomena occur as they do. ;ow, .a&e 6: of
Van Evera"s work details the parameters of theoretical satisfaction. 1e states that,
a &ood theory is <satisfyin&"...satisfy=in&> our curiosity. Furthermore, he e!plicitly
states that if a bit of comple!ity is required for the causes of a proposed cause of a
theory to be satisfyin&ly e!plained, then a &ood theory will re?ect this need.
-asically, when a theory requires further elucidation in order to satisfy, it"s ability to
do so will be 7ud&ed based upon the relative distance between the cause and its
proposed e5ect. The $nal criteria of a &ood theory is whether or not it is clearly
framed. 'n order to most clearly de$ne this particular criteria of a &ood theory it
becomes helpful to use the central theses of the two theories bein& compared,
namely those of ,obert -ates and 0amuel .. 1untin&ton in their respective works.
'n .rosperity and Violence, ,obert -ates theori@es that there is a stron&
correlation between the risks of violence, the promise of economic rewards, and the
development of political institutions desi&ned to dole out these risks and rewards in
such way as to ensure further political and economic development as political
institutions are basically social constructions composed of human bein&s ascribin&
to like political ideas, and in the end, human bein&s respond to either carrots
(reward) or sticks (risk of violence). 1is central thesis further elucidates the point on
pa&e 6A of his work by statin& that development is dependent upon the formation of
capital (thin&s of worth) and the institutional or&ani@ation their economic systems
as well as the tamin& of violence and the dele&ation of authority to those who will
use power productively. ,eali&nin& this thesis into a variable%based e!planation
would &o as follows, 'f societies are able to form capital in such way as to allow for
economic institutionali@ation and are able to temper the use of violence and power
as needed, then said society will continue to develop. ;ow, the very fact that
-ates" central thesis required such re%ali&nment to $t into a more conventional
understandin& of a theory speaks &reatly to it"s framin&.
Bhen compared to pa&e C of 1untin&ton"s work, it becomes clear that in the
battle of the clearer framer, 1untin&ton comes out on top. 0amuel .. 1untin&ton
states that the central thesis of his .olitical #rder in 2han&in& 0ocieties is that the
reason for the violence and instability seen in developin& societies is the result of
rapid social chan&e and rapid mobili@ation of new social &roups into politics
combined with political institutions incapable of accommodatin& these new
chan&es. 1untin&ton has clearly de$ned independent and dependent variables, as
well as a clear structure outlinin& his thesis. #ne acts on the other in a
comprehensive way that can be very clearly e!plained without resortin& to a mass
reor&ani@ation of the ori&inal sentiment. Dnlike -ates, where the variables are more
so hidden behind layers of deceivin&ly simplistic prose, 1untin&ton"s sli&ht
allotment of comple!ity further brin&s to li&ht that which is to be kept in mind while
readin& and considerin& his work. 'n this way, 1untin&ton"s victory as it relates to
clarity of framin& &ives way to a subsequent victory in the arena of satisfaction.
1untin&ton"s theory may be more verbose than -ates", but takin& 7ust their
central theses as litmus tests, 1untin&ton"s theory is most de$nitely more
satisfyin&. 1untin&ton &oes to &reat len&ths to both de$ne and put in conte!t each
portion of his thesis. Bhere -ates mentions his and then moves on to the various
lon&itudinal cross%sections which conte!tuali@e his work, 1untin&ton makes sure to
cite /e Tocqueville in his elucidation of his central thesis in such way as to further
clarify the main points of said thesis. -ates makes no such e5ort. 1is thesis
mentions capital, but o5ers no e!planation as to what constitutes capital until much
later in the book. 1is thesis mentions the tamin& of violence, but it doesn"t
mention what constitutes violence, why it should be tamed, nor what the potential
outfall from not tamin& said violence could be. .lus, the last portion of his central
thesis, speakin& to the dele&ation of authority to those who will use power wisely, is
shrouded in ambi&uity. ;amely, as far as satisfyin& one"s curiosity, -ates falls short.
-ut, what he loses in satisfaction and framin&, he makes up for in parsimony.
-ate"s central thesis can be e!pressed in 68 words, 1umans, in developin&
political and economic institutions, respond to either risk of violence or economic
reward. 1untin&ton, simply put, requires more words. ;ow, one can potentially boil
down 1untin&ton"s theory to the bar minimums and create a sort of socio%political
equation where rapid social chan&e and rapid economic development combined
with weak political institutions creates violence and instability, but this boilin& down
is a consequence of losin& key parts of the &eneral theory which also encompasses
political parties, the importance of the de&ree of &overnment, and the role of
le&itimacy in maintainin& political development. +lso, 1untin&ton takes care to
di5erentiate between political and economic development and the role each has
played in the stren&th of political institutionali@ation.
;ow, as far as the test of e!planatory power proposed by Van Evera as one of
the criteria of a &ood theory, both -ates and 1untin&ton"s theories do quite well. For
-ates, the ambi&uity of the central thesis works to his advanta&e in servin& as the
theoretical foundation for his theory"s e!planatory fortitude. 0ince there is a certain
open%endedness to the key terms of his central thesis (capital, violence, authority,
power), it lends itself to the chan&in& nature of the e!emplary appropriation.
Bhether -ates speaks to traditional East +frican tribal political or&ani@ation,
serfdom, or the development of democracy in the Bestern Borld, his central thesis
and accompanyin& theories lend themselves to an e!planatory lens of analysis. +s
far as 1untin&ton &oes, his verbosity and focus on inductively $&urin& his
theoretical foundation has pre%emptively &uaranteed that there is a stron&
e!planatory power as far as his theories are concerned. 0ince it is almost self%
evident that both theorists are very stron& on the e!planatory factor, it is important
to consider the relative stren&th of the other criteria listed by Van Evera, and after
takin& all of these into consideration it is clear that 1untin&ton, overall, would be
considered to have the theory most closely resemblin& his view of the &ood
theory and ' personally a&ree.
' pled&e that ' have acted honorablyEEEEEEJ-Gnz.
The Theoretical Good
Joachim Uchechukwuka Ogodi
October 29, 2013