Skip to main content

Modular Comparisons: Grounding and Gauging Southeast Asian Governance

Buy Article:

$10.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

This paper argues that analytical tensions between comparability and distinctiveness, which often drive a wedge between disciplinary and area-studies debates, are not irreconcilable. Drawing on original research of public governance in Southeast Asia, I contend that modular comparisons—which blend different levels of analytical scope and abstraction—offer a valuable methodological instrument for cross-fertilizing empirical depth and breadth. To showcase modular comparisons in practice, I present four interconnected studies of public governance in Southeast Asia. The analysis combines in-depth city-level analyses and subnational cross-sections (that draw heavily on Indonesia's multilevel governance experience) with an intraregional governance comparison (that expands the focus towards the Philippines and Thailand). To shed further light on “what makes governments work,” the discussion traverses micro/macro-level confines and within-case/cross-case boundaries. In doing so, the concept of modular comparisons provides a systematic and contextually grounded perspective on Southeast Asian governance and a means for narrowing prevailing area-discipline divides.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: AREA STUDIES; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; DECENTRALIZATION; GOVERNANCE; SOUTHEAST ASIA

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: 2014-09-01

More about this publication?
  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
UA-1313315-28
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more