Comparative Politics

Question 1

What is the ‘Rational’ theoretical approach?

Answer 1

• It focuses on individuals e.g. President, PM, MPs, Senators etc
• Suggests that individuals are guided more by their own interests than those of groups or structures
• Comparing The powers of said individuals e.g. the power of the president and the PM, what authorities do they have as leaders of government based on their own personal views?
• MPs vs members of congress. How much do they ignore pressure from party or executive patronage to please their own constituents e.g. Remain Labour MPs in leave seats

Question 2

What is the ‘cultural’ theoretical approach?

Answer 2

• Focuses on groups: Pressure groups, voter groups, parties, fractions etc
• How much do these groups conform and have shared ideas, beliefs, values?
• How much influence do they have over the president or PM? Far more influential in the US
• How much of a level of party unity is there? U.S parties are less factionalised because of national division, but far more factionalised when it comes to choosing presidential nominees
• Do politicians act on the basis of party culture without considering their own rational self-interest?

Question 3

What is the ‘structural’ theoretical approach?

Answer 3

• Focuses on structures such as election processes, written vs unwritten constitutions, the legislative process, regional power, federal vs unitary state etc
• Actions of individuals and groups are largely limited and determined by these structures. E.g. the PM is constrained by Parliament
• How do constitutions determine the roles of the PM and president (Constitution clearly defines the roles of the president, the PM is a conventional role)
• Why are U.K. MPs limited far more by the executive than US congresspeople (the PMs power of patronage means it is far easier for MPs to be controlled compared to congresspeople)

Question 4

What are the main ways in which interest groups are more powerful in the US compared to the U.K.?

Answer 4

• US interest groups have more access points than U.K. Pressure groups due to the federalist system of government (e.g. city, state and federal level)
• US interest groups are more able and more likely to use the federal court court system due to amicus curiae (using experts) than U.K. pressure groups, and the Federal courts are able to interpret the constitution more loosely
• US interest groups are able to make direct links with US members of congress and the executive through the iron triangle and monetary donations, whereas it is far more regulated in the US with the Register of Members’ interests
• US interest groups are more able to use direct lobbying and electoral funding to help influence the political agenda, whereas regulations on funding are more strict in the U.K.
• The lack of party discipline in the US congress also gives US interest groups more opportunities to influence the political agenda, whereas in the U.K. the political agenda is controlled by the executive

Question 5

How does devolution in the U.K. differ from federalism in the US?

Answer 5

• Devolution is a recent phenomenon in the U.K., only being introduced in 1999, whereas federalism was one of the founding principles of the US’ Government
• Devolution was introduced by an act of Parliament in the U.K. and so can be undone at any time, whereas federalism in entrenched in the US constitution and so can’t
• Devolved bodies have a fusion of powers, whereas federalism enshrines separation of powers in the state governments
• Federalism is equal amongst the states, whereas W devolution is asymmetric in the U.K.. This means that the U.K. government can grant more powers to the devolved bodies, whereas the powers of states are enshrined in the aids constitution
• Legal sovereignty in the U.K. still remains with the central government, whereas in the US, legal sovereignty is shared between the state and federal governments

Question 6

What are the different legislative powers of the U.K. parliament and the US congress?

Answer 6

• The US congress has more significant legislative powers than the U.K. parliament as it has more independence from the executive due to separation of powers. (Greater ability to introduce legislation, ability to overturn presidential vetoes)
• Legislative power is shared equally between the US chambers, but the HoL is more of a revising chamber, rather than playing an equivalent role as the HoC, and is unable to block legislation
• The US congress has more control over financial legislation than the U.K. parliament. E.g the senate can introduce and block financial bills, whereas the HoL is unable to do either
• The US congress’ ability to pass legislation is hampered by gridlock more often than the U.K. parliament due to the separation of powers