All students of democratization now agree that international factors matter. This recent consensus is the result of a long academic journey, starting with the study of Latin American transitions from authoritarian rule, passing through regime change in southern Europe, and climaxing in the attempt to make sense of the cascade of events in the East following the collapse of communism. This journey is a story of analytical adjustment to those enemies of Grand Theory, events. As democratization has travelled east, so it seems to have become more obviously entangled with international factors. Analyses of transition from authoritarianism in Latin America initially relegated the international dimension to a marginal role, one which deserved no more than passing reference. 1 Perhaps because their dependencia school predecessors had made sweeping generalizations about the centrality of the international, later students of transitions reacted by focusing overmuch on the domestic. Their myopia became increasingly visible when analysts reflected on Latin American transition from the perspective of regime change in Spain and Portugal. There the international context was too obvious and important to minimize. Subsequent work on Latin American transition, notably that of Laurence Whitehead, has produced a more rounded analysis which gives due weight to the international dimension. Similarly, one stage on, appreciation of the role international factors have played in southern European transitions has benefited from analysis of their more recent role in Eastern Europe. The way in which analysis of developments in different regions at different times has improved understanding across both dimensions is a good example of the value of comparative political studies, an instance of positive transregional influence in the academic sphere.