Cpi Flashcards
(37 cards)
Comparative politics includes three traditions. Which?
(1) Country focus: (comparative) description of (aspects of systems) of countries
(2) Methodological focus: establish rules and standards for comparative analysis
(3) Analytical focus: combination of substance and method:describe/explain similarities and differences between cases
What does comparative politics do in practice?
(1) Describe similarities and differences → classifications, typologies
eg. describe the electoral system in Belgium and the UK
(2) Explain similarities and differences
→ test hypotheses
eg. Why is voter turnout lower in the Netherlands than in Belgium?
Predict which factors might cause specific outcomes
→ formulating predictions
eg. What would happen if voting was no longer compulsory in Belgium?
What is compared in this field?
! Seldom comparison of entire systems, rather components
(1) Structures:
• National political systems
• Sub-national political systems (regions)
• Supra-national units (supranational or international
organizations)
(2) Actors: voters, parties, social movements, …
(3) Processes: policymaking, government formation,
candidate selection, party finance regime
Comparative Politics before WWII
Mainly analysis of the state and its institutions
- 3 state powers (legislative, executive, judiciary)
- Formal analysis of constitutional texts and legal documents (legalistic study)
- Study of formal political institutions in West-Europe and North-America
- Idea of convergence towards Western models of political order
Comparative Politics in 1950’s 1960’s
Behavioural revolution + new cases
Shift away from institutions; politics in practice
Broadening geographical and historical scope:
• Communism, dictatorships, post-colonialism
• Other types of democracies (consensus) Consequences:
• Increased variety of political systems
• Role of non-formal institutions (parties, interest groups, media, etc)
• New methodology (empirical data, large N, statistics, systematic
data collection)
• A new “language“ (‘state’ ‘system’; systemic functionalism: Easton)
What does the new language in Comparative Politics mean?
It belongs to systematic functionalism.
Many of the concepts and categories used in traditional comparative politics did not fit the “new cases“
• Western concepts did not travel well
Search for more general and universal categories
eg. State → political system (Easton)
Comparative politics since 1967..
High level of abstraction of systemic approach leads to counter-reactions -> back to institutions.
Shift of substantial focus: new focus on states and their
institutions (new institutionalism):
- Historical institutionalism
- Sociological/normative institutionalism
- Rational choice institutionalism
-Narrowing of geographical scope (importance of historical structures, cultural elements, etc.):
Mid-range theories
grounded theory
-Change of methodology:
case-oriented
back to small “N”
- Theoretical turn to ‘rational choice theory’:
focus on actors as rational and self-interested
institutions as constraining actors’ possibilities
Methods in comparative politics differ with respect to:
–>Research design:
• Intensive research design: small N, many variables
• Extensive research design: large N, few variables
–>Dimensions:
• Spatial comparison (cross-sectional/synchronic)
• Functional comparison (cross-organizational)
• Longitudinal comparison (cross-temporal/diachronic)
–> Unit of analysis: single actors, institutions, processes
–>Focus on similarities or differences (cf. infra)
Cyclical process in methods in comparative politics:
--> Before behavioural shift: • Small N, case-oriented --> Behavioural revolution: • Large N, variable oriented •‘Quantified’, statistical techniques --> More recently: • Return to small N, case-oriented • AND focus on parsimonious explanatory designs
Two types of data:
Aggregate or ecological data:
available at some territorial level (e.g. election results)
Individual data:
information attributable to an individual
Recovery of ecological data from 1970s onwards:
• Creation of international networks and datasets for
comparable ‘hard data’ worldwide
• Individual data have limitations as compared to
aggregate data sets:
• highly subjective
• very costly
• lack of long time series
Towards a combination of both type of data
At the broadest level, political theories can be
categorized as:
- Positivist: Facts are real and observable
* Constructivist: Facts are socially constructed
Why is theory the best friend of comparative researchers?
• Necessary for interpreting & generating analytical insights
• Provides links between empirical facts, between micro- and
macro-behaviour
• Provides scholars with puzzles to be addressed
Theory is worst enemy of comparative researcher
- Theory is a blinder; tendency to find support for it
- Theories cannot provide full, comprehensive explanation
- Need for triangulation
- Testing multiple theories is costly
Grand theories =
encompassing, claim to integrate all cases (eg. structural functionalism, systems theory,
Marxism, …)
• Limited explanatory capacity
Middle-range theories =
apply to a more specific geographical, political and historical context
• Generalize within well-specified boundaries
What are the theoretical approaches of comparative politics, explaining politics in comparative perspective?
The five "I"s = main approaches • Institutions • Interests • Ideas • Individuals • International environment
The five approaches interact with each other
Main approac: Institutions
Structures matter
institutions shape and constrain behaviour of individuals
Institutional analysis = the root of comparative politics, cf.
initial focus on central state institutions & constitutions
political sociology, more focus on behaviour
New institutionalism: centrality of institutions
• Normative/sociological institutionalism
• Rational choice institutionalism
• Historical institutionalism
Institutionalist approaches stress importance of initial
structures and choices (incrementalism)
•BUT weak in explaining change
Main approach: Interests
Narrow and deterministic interpretation:
- rational choice analysis: Individuals are selfinterested utility maximizers and engage in political
action to receive benefits and avoid costs
(of lesser interest to comparative politics)
Broader interpretation:
- Mixture of individual and collective interests (identity)
- Corporatism: strong involvement of societal interest
groups in developing policy (direct access) in return for
reliability (no strikes) leads to less conflict
( = importance of societal interests)
- Network theory, different approaches:
- Self-organising networks now provide governance,
as governments are no longer able to
-Forms of interest involvement in governing
- Consociationalism: elites representing different
communities come together around the need to govern, even in case of severe social divisions (Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Columbia)
Main approach: Ideas
Ideas matter for outcome: How should society look like?:
- Political culture (e.g. trust and distrust)
- Ideologies (communism, fascism, neoliberalism)
- Policy ideas (Keynesian economics, welfare state)
But effect of ideas is difficult to measure, political culture often ‘residual’ explanation
Example: Importance of social capital in explaining
regional differences in Italy (Putnam)
Main approach: Individuals
Elite level
• Individual leaders are important for understanding
governing
• Importance of personality, social roots, recruitment
• A prominent approach in political psychology (e.g.
presidential styles)
Mass level
• Sociological approaches stress the importance of social
backgrounds (eg. cross-national voting behaviour)
Main approach: International environment
In comparative politics focus is on individual countries
BUT: countries function in globalized environment, so
impossible to understand system in isolation
Patterns can be mimetic or coercive (EU membership
criteria)
Quid globalization, hierarchy of countries, diffusion, multilevel governance?
-> the Galton problem
How to improve quality of research?
Theory-building for comparing micro-level behaviour of individuals with macro-level behaviour of institutions.
Use of multiple theories and methodologies when
analysing the same phenomenon
Case studies that focus on complex interactions and
dynamics of political processes and their environments
–>Stronger focus on:
Processes
- Emphasis on dynamics and underlying processes of
politics (instead of static analysis of institutions, ideas,
etc.)
- eg. candidate selection processes
Outcomes
Dependent variables in CP vary according to
approaches
‘Governance’ as ultimate dependent variable?
What is the TRIAD?
The research design (RD) can be considered to be a
“bridge” between research question (RQ) and the research answer (RA).
