The current debate in political science over methods and fundamentaltheoretical stances recalls similar debates in other fields. Part ofthe debate focuses on the merits of the use of statistical methodsor the use of mathematics and quasi-mathematical reasoning, as ingame theory and much of rational choice. Among the critics of thosewho use these approaches are many who focus more on interpretiveapproaches to understanding social institutions and behavior. Insome ways, the debate seems dated in that the largest and mostcompelling body of quasi-economic work is broad studies of therelationships between political and economic development. Such work,often with relatively sharply defined statistical models, spans morethan two generations of scholars in political science. Such work hasgiven compelling answers to many questions about the workings andworkability of democracy. It typically abstracts from culture and itfits congenially with rational choice theory in its focus onmicrofoundations for various claims.