English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Swarthmore College I N THE LAST DECADE, the rapid emergence of new less developed states has precipitated interest among political scientists in problems of "political development." Going beyond mere historical accounts of the emergence of new governing institutions, various scholars have attempted to spell out the basic processes involved in political change and the creation of government.' Largely ignoring traditional indicators uch as constitutions, cholars have recently suggested variables such as capacity for responsiveness, division of political tasks, participation in decision-making and provision of welfare as key indicators of political growth and the formation of healthy and viable polities. A few researchers, influenced by these new formulations, have collected cross-national data on traits which seem related to political development. Their efforts have been aimed at refining, specifying, or testing relationships among suggested indicators and causal variables. Although an important focus of all types of studies has been on new dimensions of political development, it is not clear to what extent their ideas about political development are valid, useful, or in agreement. My purpose in this paper is to compare the results of some recent theorizing about political development with efforts to collect data on the subject. A basic problem in advancing our understand-

Aggregate Data and the Study of Political Development