Abstract
This review of Ran Hirschl’s Comparative Matters praises his proposed shift from comparative constitutional law to comparative constitutional studies, and wrestles more broadly with the possibilities and limits of social science analysis in this area. Juxtaposing Hirschl’s approach with the foundational work of Jon Elster, the essay concludes that normative work around constitution-making depends on empirical assumptions about plausibility.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
