¹ Almond, Gabriel A., “Comparative Political Studies,” Journal of Politics, XVIII (August 1956), 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Eckstein, Harry, Division and Cohesion in Democracy: A Study of Norway (Princeton 1966)Google Scholar; see esp. the preface, the introductory chapter, and the concluding chapter. See also Dahl, Robert A., ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven 1966)Google Scholar, which combines country studies with important theoretical argumentation by the editor. On the subject of the present review article, see also Dahl, , Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven 1971)Google Scholar, chap. 7, “Subcultures, Cleavage Patterns, and Governmental Effectiveness.”

³ Lijphart, Arend, “Typologies of Democratic Systems,” Comparative Political Studies, 1 (April 1968), 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Consociational Democracy,” World Politics, XXI (January 1969), 207–25.

⁴ Lehmbruch, Gerhard, “Konkordanzdemokratie im Politischen System der Schweiz,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, IX (December 1968), 443–59Google Scholar, esp. p. 449. A number of papers are brought together by McRae, Kenneth D. in Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies, The Carleton Library No. 79 (Toronto 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which also contains a number of articles discussing the relevance of the model to Canadian politics. See also Presthus, Robert, Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics (New York 1973)Google Scholar, in which the author specifically acknowledges his indebtedness to Lijphart's theoretical work.

⁵ This literature was first discussed in an international environment during the Brussels Congress of the International Political Science Association in September 1967, when Arend Lijphart presented his “Typologies …” (fn. 3), and Gerhard Lehm bruch gave a paper on “A Non-Competitive Pattern of Conflict Management in Liberal Democracies: The Case of Switzerland, Austria, and Lebanon.” A further discussion took place during the I.P.S.A. Round Table on Comparative Politics at Turin, September 1969, on the basis of an introductory report by Lorwin, Val R., “Segmented Pluralism: Ideological Cleavages and Political Cohesion in the Smaller European Democracies,” a revised version of which appeared in Comparative Politics, m (January 1971), 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ See the Preface and the jacket of Steiner, Kurt, Politics in Austria (Boston 1972).Google Scholar Also see section IV of this article.

⁷ Huyse, Lucien, De Niet-aanwezige Staatsburger (Antwerp 1969)Google Scholar, also published in a French edition, L'Apathie politique—étude sociologique (Antwerp-Brussels 1969); Steiner, Jürg, Bürger und Politik (Meisenheim 1969).Google Scholar

⁸ Lijphart, , “Class Voting and Religious Voting in the European Democracies: A Preliminary Report,” Acta Politica, VI (April 1971), 158–71Google Scholar; also published in a revised version as Strathclyde Occasional Paper No. 8 (Glasgow 1971).

⁹ Lehmbruch, (fn. 4), and “Das politische System Oesterreichs in vergleichender Perspektive,” Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, XXII (1971), 35–56.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Lembruch, , “Strukturen ideologischer Konflikte bei Parteienwettbewerb,” in Politische Vierteljahresschrift, x (September 1969), 285–313Google Scholar; also “Die Wahlreform als sozialtechnologisches Programm,” in Lehmbruch and others, Demokratisches System und politische Praxis der Bundesrepublik, Festschrift für Theodor Eschenburg (Munich 1971), 174–201, and “The Ambiguous Coalition in West Germany,” Government and Opposition, in (Spring 1968), 181–204. See also Steiner, Jürg, “The Principles of Majority and Proportionality,” British Journal of Political Science, 1 (January 1971), 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ See in particular Lehmbruch, , “Kondordanzdemokratien im internationalen System,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, X (1969), Sonderheft 1, 139–63.Google Scholar

¹² A comparative project on the problems of small modern states in which special emphasis is given to the impact of foreign factors is under way at the Hebrew University and the Jerusalem Planning Group at the initiative of S. N. Eisenstadt and odiers.

¹³ See, for instance, Macartney, C. A., National States and National Minorities (London 1934)Google Scholar; and Cobban, Alfred, National Self-Determinati on (London 1945).Google Scholar

¹⁴ One should contrast Lijphart's analysis with Daalder, “The Netherlands: Opposition in a Segmented Society,” in Dahl, , Political Oppositions … (fn. 2), 188–220.Google Scholar See also Daalder, , “On Building Consociational Nations: The Cases of the Nedierlands and Switzerland,” International Social Science Journal, XXIII, No. 3 (1971), 355–70.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Apter, David, The Political Kingdom in Uganda: A Study in Bureaucratic Nationalism (Princeton 1961), 24–25.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Lijphart, , “Typologies …” (fn. 3)Google Scholar, and his more detailed analysis of changes in Dutch politics in “Kentering in de Nederlandse Politiek,” Acta Politica, IV, No. 3 (1968–69), 231–47.

¹⁷ Although Stein Rokkan wrote a preface to Jürg Steiner's book on Switzerland, there is little evidence so far that the work on die consociational democracy model is being integrated with Rokkan's important work on comparative European development generally; Rokkan, cf. esp., Citizens, Elections, Parties (Oslo 1970)Google Scholar, passim.