This article proposes four different types of research designs to highlight the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological value of an interactive sub-national cross-national approach: as a two-level interaction, as a hierarchical model, as a set of controls, and as quasi-experimental. These possibilities demonstrate the unique advantages of theorizing and empirically analyzing sub-national variation in its relation to the national superstructure. Using the example of the multi-level identities and institutions associated with religious organizations across sub-Saharan Africa, I demonstrate that the impact of religious leaders on their affiliated followers’ political orientations vary according to the interactive position of each group in their local and national context.
BooneC. (2003). Political topographies of the African state: Territorial authority and institutional choice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BrubakerR. (2002). Ethnicity without groups. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 43, 163-189.
7.
BruceS. (2003). Politics and religion. London, England: Polity Press.
8.
ChhibberP.KollmanK. (2009). The formation of national party systems: Federalism and party competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
DahlR. A. (1973). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
DickovickJ. T.RiedlR. B. (2014). African decentralization in comparative perspective. In DickovickJ. T.WunschJ. S. (Eds.), Decentralization in Africa: The paradox of state strength (pp. 249-276). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
11.
DunningT. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12.
EnglebertP. (2002). State legitimacy and development in Africa. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
13.
EnglebertP.TarangoS.CarterM. (2002). Dismemberment and suffocation: A contribution to the debate on African boundaries. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 1093-1118.
Firmin-SellersK. (2000). Institutions, context, and outcomes: Explaining French and British rule in West Africa. Comparative Politics, 32, 253-272.
16.
FishM. S. (2002). Islam and authoritarianism. World Politics, 55, 4-37.
17.
FoxJ. (2008). A world survey of religion and the state. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GibsonE. L. (2005). Boundary control: Sub-national authoritarianism in democratic countries. World Politics, 58, 101-132.
19.
GiffordP. (2015). Christianity, development and modernity in Africa. London, England: Hurst.
20.
GrossmanG.LewisJ. I. (2014). Administrative unit proliferation. American Political Science Review, 108, 196-217.
21.
Grzymała-BusseA. (2015). Nations under God: How churches use moral authority to influence policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
HassanM. (2016a). A state of change: District creation in Kenya after the beginning of multi-party elections. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 510-521.
23.
HassanM. (2016b). The strategic shuffle: Ethnic geography, the internal security apparatus, and elections in Kenya. American Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/ajps.12279
24.
HickenA. (2009). Building party systems in developing democracies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HoogheLiesbetMarksGary. (2004). “Does identity or economic rationality drive public opinion on European integration?.”PS: Political Science & Politics37.3: 415-420.
26.
LaitinD. D. (1986). Hegemony and culture: Politics and change among the Yoruba. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
LeitnerH.SheppardE.SziartoK. M. (2008). The spatialities of contentious politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33, 157-172.
28.
LiebermanE. S.SinghP. (2017). Census enumeration and group conflict: A global analysis of the consequences of counting. World Politics, 69, 1-53.
29.
MacLeanL. M. (2010). Informal institutions and citizenship in rural Africa: Risk and reciprocity in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30.
MasseyD. (1994). Place, space and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31.
McCauleyJ. F.PosnerD. N. (2015). African borders as sources of natural experiments: Promise and pitfalls. Political Science Research and Methods, 3, 409-418.
32.
MenchikJ. (2016). Islam and democracy in Indonesia: Tolerance without liberalism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MiguelE. (2004). Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania. World Politics, 56, 328-362.
34.
PosnerD. N. (2005). Institutions and ethnic politics in Africa. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RiedlR. B. (2014). Authoritarian origins of democratic party systems in Africa. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36.
RiedlR. B.DickovickJ. T. (2014). Party systems and decentralization in Africa. Studies in Comparative International Development, 49, 321-342.
37.
SautterG. (1982). Quelques réflexions sur les frontières africaines. [Some Reflections on African Borders.]Pluriel, 30, 41-50.
38.
SheppardE. (2002). The spaces and times of globalization: Place, scale, networks, and positionality. Economic Geography, 78, 307-330.
39.
SinghP. (2015). How solidarity works for welfare: Sub-nationalism and social development in India. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SinghPrernavom HauMatthias (2016). “Ethnicity in time: Politics, history, and the relationship between ethnic diversity and public goods provision.”Comparative Political Studies49.10: 1303-1340.
41.
StråthBo. (2002). “A European identity: To the historical limits of a concept.”European Journal of Social Theory 5.4: 387-401.
42.
VillalónL. A. (2006). Islamic society and state power in Senegal: Disciples and citizens in Fatick (Vol. 80). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43.
WoodberryR. D. (2012). The missionary roots of liberal democracy. American Political Science Review, 106, 244-274.
