Abstract.The utility of comparative politics has been questioned from time to time in two ways. Doubts have been cast upon its ability to offer genuine and useful generalisations, and these doubts have been reinforced by the appearance of studies which, while statistically adventurous, are not grounded upon a sufficiently sound theoretical base. In this paper we consider Alasdair MacIntyre's objections to the idea of a science of comparative politics, and discuss the nature of law‐like generalisations. We explore the extent to which MacIntyre's objections may be overcome, and indicate the form that generalisations about political stability could take. We also argue that studies of stability need a clear explanatory linkage between the empirical data they utilise and the hypotheses of a theory about political stability. This is often lacking in such studies, which seem to substitute a sophisticated statistical technique for genuine political theor