Regime typology work splits between principled and historical approaches

Evidence

Rather than criticizing, codifying, or synthesizing these various approaches to typification of regimes and regime transitions, let me reconstruct just two exemplary analyses, one on the Principle side of our continuum, the other closer to History’s end. For Principle, take Robert Dahl. For History, take S. E. Finer. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 95

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 95
• XREF: connects to: Classical regime mapping classifies by who rules and whether for common or private interest — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 74; Historical-political typologies are interpretive criteria, not rigid predicting schemata; Analyzing power requires simultaneously reworking both theory and historical method (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Historical-political typologies are interpretive criteria, not rigid predicting schemata #exemplifies (0.85)
• Analyzing power requires simultaneously reworking both theory and historical method #expands (0.75)