Barrington Moore’s landed-class thesis fits eight cases but fails on extension

Evidence

More to the point here is Barrington Moore’s thesis that political outcomes (in Moore’s case, the nature of regimes, but, by implication, also political processes more generally) depend chiefly on the adaptation of the traditional landed upper classes to “bourgeoisification”—economic modernization, as most of us think of it (Moore, 1966, p. 429ff.). That famous thesis fits, post hoc, eight widely assorted cases. But it has run into trouble when extended to other cases (or when examined more closely): by Tilton (Sweden) and Rokkan (the smaller countries in general); note also the crushing critique by Skocpol (1973). Moore’s thesis can also be logically subsumed under either contingency theory, if change is emphasized, or inherency theory, if his argument is interpreted as hinging on choices of coalitions. Note, too, that despite the long vogue of “systems” theories in political science, operationally rigorous work on stress due to change, and adaptations to such stress, is just about nonexistent. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4346

Categorization

• XREF: Skocpol’s critique of Moore connects to her later work States and Social Revolutions, a canonical macro-historical alternative to contingency theory.