Comparative Political
Institutions
,CHAPTER 1: The relevance of comparative politics
Introduction: What should comparative politics be relevant for?
To answer a question like ‘Is comparative politics relevant?’ certainly demands that a more basic issue
is solved, namely for what, whom, or when should this knowledge be relevant?
First, comparative politics could be relevant for informing the elite: giving advice to parties on how to
win election campaigns, how politicians should best act so as to get enough support for their policies
in legislative assemblies, and how they should interact with strong interest groups such as business
organizations and labour unions.
in this approach, comparative political science act as consultants, advisors, or even so-called
‘grey eminences’ to politicians.
One problem is that most public policies are connected to a specific ideological and/or political
orientation, and many argue that science should be about finding out what is the truth and not about
supporting any specific ideology or group interest.
Second, comparative politics could be relevant for informing the general public: giving public lectures,
writing op-ed articles, and commenting upon current political affairs in the media.
in this approach, comparative political science act as the public intellectual.
One argument for this approach is that everything else being equal, it cannot be a disadvantage to the
quality of debate about public policies in a democracy if people with more knowledge choose to
participate.
A fear of being seen as ‘normative’ seems to hinder many from becoming engaged in issues that many
citizens care deeply about. Another problem is paternalism: should the choice of policies in a
democracy not be left to the citizens? A way out of this paternalism problem has been suggested by
Amartya Sen. His theory of justice (the ‘capability theory of justice’ or ‘capability approach’) rests on
the idea that a just society provides people with effective opportunities to undertake actions and
activities that they have reason to value, and be the person that they have reason to want to be. It
implies that the problem of justice is not to equalize economic resources or social status as such, but
to ensure for all individuals a set of basic resources that will equalize their chances to reach their full
potential as humans.
In addition to the ‘hard’ objective measures from population health, there is now an abundance of
interesting subjective measures: these include perceptions of the level of corruption in one’s country,
perceptions of social trust, and whether people report satisfactions with their lives.
One answer to the question, ‘For what is comparative politics relevant?’ can thus be ‘its potential for
increasing human well-being’.
Key points :
, - A discussion of the potential relevance of comparative politics has to start by asking the
question ‘Relevant for what?’
- Comparative politics can be relevant for informing the public debate and also for giving
advice to politicians and governments agencies about public policies.
- Comparative politics also has a potential for serving more general goals, such as increased
social justice and improved human well-being.
Political institutions and human well-being
The political institutions were seen as a superficial reflection or as the ‘superstructure’ of underlying
structural forces, and thus had no or very little impact on the overall prosperity or well-being of a
country. This changed in economics, sociology , and political science during the 1990s ‘the
institutional turn’. Douglass C. North was amongst the first to point to the importance of institutions,
understood as ‘the rules of the game’, for explaining why some countries were much more prosperous
than others ‘new institutionalism’ or ‘historical institutionalism’. Comparing societies with almost
identical structural conditions revealed that they could be dramatically different in their ability to
produce human well-being, and the scholars in the various institutional approaches could empirically
show that what explained the differences was the variation in political, legal, and administrative
institutions.
The institutional turn and comparative politics
The implication is that for comparative politics to be policy relevant, it is not necessary to side with a
specific political ideology or special interest group. The capability approach to social justice is a
normative theory, but based on the generally held idea that most people would prefer to live in a
country where few newborns die, people have access to safe water, the percentage of people living in
severe poverty is low etc. More than anything else, the ability to become a ‘successful society’ in this
sense is decided by the quality of the society’s political institutions (including the administrative and
legal institutions).
achieving broad-based human well-being for the population depends on the quality of
government!
Relevance of comparative political science = the extent to which it can contribute to increased human
well-being by (a) specifying which political institutions are most likely to increase human well-being
and (b) how such institutions can come about.
Institutions rule–but which?
There is now almost a consensus about the importance of institutions and the quality of government
in terms of impact on development and human well-being. However, there is little consensus on which
particular political institutions matter, how they matter, how they can be created where they are now
absent, or how they can be improved if dysfunctional. In addition, the importance of the informal
institutions (ex. social trust) in society should not be overlooked and the importance of formal
institutions has often been exaggerated. If people in a society perceive that ‘most other people can be
trusted’, this has a positive impact on overall prosperity and most measures of human well-being. The
issue of which institution is not confined to the division of formal and informal. There is also a large
, discussion about whether the institutions that regulate the access to power are more important than
the institutions that regulate the exercise of power.
The many faces of democracy
Research in democratization has been very high on the comparative politics agenda. One problem is
that we tend to speak about democracy as a single political institution, when in fact it is a system that
is built on multiple separate institutions (ex. electoral system, degree of decentralization, decision-
making process etc.). Democratic theory does not provide precise answers to how these institutions
should be constructed.
At least 10 such institutional dimensions can be identified in every representative democracy :
Type of institution Institutional variations
electoral system proportional vs majoritarian
legislative assembly unicameral vs bicameral
government structure unitarian vs federalist
central executive parliamentarism vs presidentialism
judicial review strong vs weak judicial review
local governments weak vs strong local autonomy
civil service spoils recruitment vs merit-recruitments
protection of minorities strong vs weak protection
referendums regularly used vs not used
consultation of experts routine vs ad hoc
In theory, everything can be combined. There are at least 1,024 ways of constructing a representative
democracy (210 = 1,024). Since many of these dimensions are not dichotomous, but to varying extents
gradual, the possible variation is in fact much larger than 1,024, if not endless. To be concrete, the
Swiss, Danish, and British democracies are institutionally configured in different ways. And while there
is some ‘clustering’ in these dimensions, there are also surprising differences.
Another important institutional variation is the extent of so-called veto points in a democratic system.
Some combinations give rise to many such veto points that can make it difficult for governments to
act in a determined and responsible way. If there are many uncoordinated actors (ex. the executive,
the courts, the legislative assemblies, organized interest groups etc.), the democratic machinery may
be unable to produce coherent and effective policies.
From the institutionalist-capabilities perspective : which institutional configuration of a representative
democracy is most likely to produce a high level of human well-being? Since the number of democratic
countries is +/- 100, finding a solution to this ‘1,024’ problem is empirically difficult.
Institutions
,CHAPTER 1: The relevance of comparative politics
Introduction: What should comparative politics be relevant for?
To answer a question like ‘Is comparative politics relevant?’ certainly demands that a more basic issue
is solved, namely for what, whom, or when should this knowledge be relevant?
First, comparative politics could be relevant for informing the elite: giving advice to parties on how to
win election campaigns, how politicians should best act so as to get enough support for their policies
in legislative assemblies, and how they should interact with strong interest groups such as business
organizations and labour unions.
in this approach, comparative political science act as consultants, advisors, or even so-called
‘grey eminences’ to politicians.
One problem is that most public policies are connected to a specific ideological and/or political
orientation, and many argue that science should be about finding out what is the truth and not about
supporting any specific ideology or group interest.
Second, comparative politics could be relevant for informing the general public: giving public lectures,
writing op-ed articles, and commenting upon current political affairs in the media.
in this approach, comparative political science act as the public intellectual.
One argument for this approach is that everything else being equal, it cannot be a disadvantage to the
quality of debate about public policies in a democracy if people with more knowledge choose to
participate.
A fear of being seen as ‘normative’ seems to hinder many from becoming engaged in issues that many
citizens care deeply about. Another problem is paternalism: should the choice of policies in a
democracy not be left to the citizens? A way out of this paternalism problem has been suggested by
Amartya Sen. His theory of justice (the ‘capability theory of justice’ or ‘capability approach’) rests on
the idea that a just society provides people with effective opportunities to undertake actions and
activities that they have reason to value, and be the person that they have reason to want to be. It
implies that the problem of justice is not to equalize economic resources or social status as such, but
to ensure for all individuals a set of basic resources that will equalize their chances to reach their full
potential as humans.
In addition to the ‘hard’ objective measures from population health, there is now an abundance of
interesting subjective measures: these include perceptions of the level of corruption in one’s country,
perceptions of social trust, and whether people report satisfactions with their lives.
One answer to the question, ‘For what is comparative politics relevant?’ can thus be ‘its potential for
increasing human well-being’.
Key points :
, - A discussion of the potential relevance of comparative politics has to start by asking the
question ‘Relevant for what?’
- Comparative politics can be relevant for informing the public debate and also for giving
advice to politicians and governments agencies about public policies.
- Comparative politics also has a potential for serving more general goals, such as increased
social justice and improved human well-being.
Political institutions and human well-being
The political institutions were seen as a superficial reflection or as the ‘superstructure’ of underlying
structural forces, and thus had no or very little impact on the overall prosperity or well-being of a
country. This changed in economics, sociology , and political science during the 1990s ‘the
institutional turn’. Douglass C. North was amongst the first to point to the importance of institutions,
understood as ‘the rules of the game’, for explaining why some countries were much more prosperous
than others ‘new institutionalism’ or ‘historical institutionalism’. Comparing societies with almost
identical structural conditions revealed that they could be dramatically different in their ability to
produce human well-being, and the scholars in the various institutional approaches could empirically
show that what explained the differences was the variation in political, legal, and administrative
institutions.
The institutional turn and comparative politics
The implication is that for comparative politics to be policy relevant, it is not necessary to side with a
specific political ideology or special interest group. The capability approach to social justice is a
normative theory, but based on the generally held idea that most people would prefer to live in a
country where few newborns die, people have access to safe water, the percentage of people living in
severe poverty is low etc. More than anything else, the ability to become a ‘successful society’ in this
sense is decided by the quality of the society’s political institutions (including the administrative and
legal institutions).
achieving broad-based human well-being for the population depends on the quality of
government!
Relevance of comparative political science = the extent to which it can contribute to increased human
well-being by (a) specifying which political institutions are most likely to increase human well-being
and (b) how such institutions can come about.
Institutions rule–but which?
There is now almost a consensus about the importance of institutions and the quality of government
in terms of impact on development and human well-being. However, there is little consensus on which
particular political institutions matter, how they matter, how they can be created where they are now
absent, or how they can be improved if dysfunctional. In addition, the importance of the informal
institutions (ex. social trust) in society should not be overlooked and the importance of formal
institutions has often been exaggerated. If people in a society perceive that ‘most other people can be
trusted’, this has a positive impact on overall prosperity and most measures of human well-being. The
issue of which institution is not confined to the division of formal and informal. There is also a large
, discussion about whether the institutions that regulate the access to power are more important than
the institutions that regulate the exercise of power.
The many faces of democracy
Research in democratization has been very high on the comparative politics agenda. One problem is
that we tend to speak about democracy as a single political institution, when in fact it is a system that
is built on multiple separate institutions (ex. electoral system, degree of decentralization, decision-
making process etc.). Democratic theory does not provide precise answers to how these institutions
should be constructed.
At least 10 such institutional dimensions can be identified in every representative democracy :
Type of institution Institutional variations
electoral system proportional vs majoritarian
legislative assembly unicameral vs bicameral
government structure unitarian vs federalist
central executive parliamentarism vs presidentialism
judicial review strong vs weak judicial review
local governments weak vs strong local autonomy
civil service spoils recruitment vs merit-recruitments
protection of minorities strong vs weak protection
referendums regularly used vs not used
consultation of experts routine vs ad hoc
In theory, everything can be combined. There are at least 1,024 ways of constructing a representative
democracy (210 = 1,024). Since many of these dimensions are not dichotomous, but to varying extents
gradual, the possible variation is in fact much larger than 1,024, if not endless. To be concrete, the
Swiss, Danish, and British democracies are institutionally configured in different ways. And while there
is some ‘clustering’ in these dimensions, there are also surprising differences.
Another important institutional variation is the extent of so-called veto points in a democratic system.
Some combinations give rise to many such veto points that can make it difficult for governments to
act in a determined and responsible way. If there are many uncoordinated actors (ex. the executive,
the courts, the legislative assemblies, organized interest groups etc.), the democratic machinery may
be unable to produce coherent and effective policies.
From the institutionalist-capabilities perspective : which institutional configuration of a representative
democracy is most likely to produce a high level of human well-being? Since the number of democratic
countries is +/- 100, finding a solution to this ‘1,024’ problem is empirically difficult.
