The chapter aims to explain why comparative approaches to Democratic Innovations (DI) are important. I argue that DI scholarship needs to be aware of best practices and methodological developments in comparative political science, and that there are risks to particularising the study of democratic innovation. DI scholarship has sometimes struggled to negotiate the tension between its normative democratising project and the empirical work aimed at understanding democratic participation in practice. More comparison is a good answer to this problem. I trace developments of comparison in DI research using examples that compare both small and large numbers of cases. I argue that the conceptual haziness of DI has led scholars to favour case-studies or individual-level behavioural data (participant surveys or quasi-experiments) for comparison. Some opportunities for comparison are being missed. I suggest that now is time to mainstream systematic comparison in the study of DI.
Matt E. Ryan
This chapter explores the relationship between politics and entrepreneurship. While the aim of the U.S. House Select Committee on Small Business is presumably to increase entrepreneurial activity, state measures of entrepreneurship show the opposite effect as states with representatives on the committee have lower levels of entrepreneurship. This relationship between state committee representation and state-level entrepreneurship is examined by evaluating congressional dominance. The findings in this chapter suggest that politicians cannot spur entrepreneurship, and may even deter productive entrepreneurship. Keywords: Politics, entrepreneurship, congressional committees