Introducing Comparative Politics – Politicologie
Chapter 1: Introduction
Comparative politics: What is it? Why study it? How to study it?
Politics = the process by which human communities make collective decisions
Political science = the systematic study of politics and power
Comparative politics: one of the major subfields of political science, in which the
primary focus is on comparing power and decision making across countries
Political theorist Steven Lukes (1974) usually categorized power into three dimensions.
First dimension of power = the ability of one person or group to get another person or
group to do something it otherwise would not do
Second dimension of power = the ability not only to make people do something but to
keep them from doing something
Third dimension to do something the ability to shape or determine individual or group
political demands by causing people to think about political issues in ways that are
contrary to their own interest
The focus of the first dimension is on behavior and active decisions. -> making someone do
something.
The second dimensions argued that the key element of political power is the ability to keep
certain groups and issues out of the political arena by controlling the political agenda and
institutions to allow certain groups to participate and voice their concerns while preventing or
at least discouraging others from doing so. -> if it takes a large amount of money to run for
office, poor people are likely not to try
The third dimensions argued that the ability to influence how people think produces the
power to prevent certain political demands from ever being articulated. -> if workers making
the minimum wage believe that raising it will result in fewer jobs, they won’t demand a higher
wage in the first place
What is Comparative Politics?
Comparative politics focuses primarily on power and decision making within national
boundaries. Politics among national governments and beyond national boundaries is
generally the purview of the field of international relations, and although comparativists
certainly take into account the domestic effects of international events, we do not try to
explain the international events themselves. Comparativists systematically examine political
phenomena in more than one place and during more than one period, and we try to develop
a generalizes understanding of and explanations for political activity that seem to apply to
many different situations.
Why study Comparative Politics?
Studying comparative politics has multiple benefits:
- Interested in understanding political events and developments in various countries
- Systematic comparison of different political systems and events around the world can
generate important lessons from one place that can apply in another
- It helps us develop broad theories about how politics works.
Theory = an abstract argument that provides a systematic explanation of some
phenomenon
Empirical theory = an argument explaining what actually occurs; empirical theorists
first notice and describe a pattern and then attempt to explain what causes it
Normative theory = an argument explaining what ought to occur rather than what does
occur; contrast with empirical theory
How do Comparativists study politics?
,Political scientists do not have a controlled laboratory because we certainly cannot control
the real world of politics. In political science, political actors think about the changes going on
around them and modify their behavior accordingly.
Comparativists use the scientific method to try to gain as systematic evidence as possible.
Research methods = systematic processes used to ensure that the study of some
phenomena is as objective and unbiased as possible
Single-case study = research method that examines a particular political phenomenon
in just one country or community and can generate ideas for theories or test theories
developed from different cases
Comparative method = the means by which scholars try to mimic laboratory conditions
by careful selection of cases
Quantitative statistical techniques = research methods used for large-scale studies
that reduces evidence to sets of numbers so that statistical analysis can systematically
compare a huge number of cases
A single case can never be definitive proof of anything beyond that case itself, but it can be
suggestive of further research and can be of interest to people researching that particular
country.
Two approaches for comparative studies are common:
1. The most similar systems design selects cases that are alike in a number of ways but
differ on the key question under examination
2. The most different-systems design looks at countries that differ in many ways but are
similar in terms of the particular political process or outcome in which the research is
interested
Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages:
- Single-case study: allows a political scientist to look at a phenomenon in great depth and
come to a more thorough understanding of a particular case
- Comparative method: gains the advantage of systematic comparison from which more
generalizable conclusions can be drawn
- Quantitative techniques: can show broad patterns but only for questions involving
evidence that can be presented numerically, and they provide little depth on any
particular case. These techniques are best at showing the tendency of two resources,
which can provide greater depth to see the direct connections involved
No theory will ever become a universal and unchanging law, like the law of gravity, the
political world simply is not that certain. Comparative politics will also never become a true
science because political scientists have their own human passions and positions regarding
various debates they study.
What explains political behavior?
The core activity in all political science is explaining political behavior: why do people,
groups, and governments act as they do in the political arena?
Political actor = any person or group engaged in political behavior
Political scientists have developed three broad answers to the question of what explains
political behavior:
1. Interest -> Rational choice theory
2. Beliefs
3. Structures
Rational choice theory = an explanation for political behavior that assumes that
individuals are rational beings who bring to the political arena a set of self-defined
preferences and adequate knowledge and ability to pursue those preferences
Rational choice theorists are not interested in the second or third dimensions of power, they
examine behavior, not institutions that prevent behavior, and they do not ask how and why
,people have certain preferences. They accept people’s preferences and actions as given and
then ask how they can be explained via rationality.
- Criticism of rational choice theories: they can’t explain preferences in advance so can’t
predict political behavior in advance.
Psychological theories = explanations for political behavior based on psychological
analysis of political actors’ motives
Psychological theories are often interested in the third dimension of power: influences on the
formation on individual political demands.
- Critics of the psychological approach argue that the inherent focus on the individual that
is fundamental to psychological theories makes them irrelevant to explaining group
behavior, thus their political science is limited.
Political culture = a set of widely held attitudes, values, beliefs, and symbols about
politics
Political socialization = the process through which people, especially young people,
learn about politics and are taught a society’s common political values and beliefs
Modernists = theorists of political culture who believe that clear sets of attitudes,
values, and beliefs can be identified in each country that change very rarely and
explain much about politics there
Civic culture = a political culture in which citizens hold values and beliefs that support
democracy, including active participation in politics but also enough deference to the
leadership to let it govern effectively
Subcultures = groups that hold partially different beliefs and values from the main
political culture of a country
Postmaterialist = a set of values in a society in which most citizens are economically
secure enough to move beyond immediate economic (materialist) concerns to ‘quality
of life’ issues like human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, and
moral values
Structuralism = approach to explaining politics that argues that political behavior is at
least influenced and limited and perhaps even determined by broader structures in a
society, such as class divisions or enduring institutions
Institutionalism = an approach to explaining politics that argues that political
institutions are crucial to understanding political behavior
Rational choice
- Political actors bring a set of self-defined preferences, adequate knowledge, and ability to
pursue those interests and rationality to the political arena
- Critiques:
o Some difficulty predicting future behavior
o Hard to explain variation across cases
Psychological theory
- Nonrational influences explain political behavior
- Critiques:
o Difficult to verify connections between internal state and actions, particularly for
groups
Political culture
- A set of widely held attitudes, values, beliefs, and symbols about politics shapes what
actors do
, - Critiques:
o Political culture is not a monolithic, unchanging entity within a given country
o Cultural values are not necessarily the cause of political outcomes
o The causal relationship may be the other way around
o If everything is subject to interpretation, then how can anything be explained or
predicted?
Political ideology
- Systematic set of beliefs about how the political system ought to be structured
- Motivated political action
- Critiques:
o Focus on ideology obscures what may be underlying motives, or the real
explanation, for political behavior
Marxism
- Economic structures determine political behavior
- Production process creates distinct social classes – groups of people with the same
relationship to the means of production
- Critiques:
o Ignores noneconomic motives
o Ignores groups other than social classes
Institutionalism
- Political institutions are widely recognized and accepted rules, norms, or standard
operating procedures that structure and constrain individuals’ political action
- The rules of the game
- Critiques:
o Difficult to determine if institutions rather than self-interest or culture limit behavior
Elite theories = theories arguing that societies are ruled by an economic, gender,
racial, or other small group that has effective control over virtually all power; contrast
to pluralist theory
Chapter 2: The Modern State
Chapter 1: Introduction
Comparative politics: What is it? Why study it? How to study it?
Politics = the process by which human communities make collective decisions
Political science = the systematic study of politics and power
Comparative politics: one of the major subfields of political science, in which the
primary focus is on comparing power and decision making across countries
Political theorist Steven Lukes (1974) usually categorized power into three dimensions.
First dimension of power = the ability of one person or group to get another person or
group to do something it otherwise would not do
Second dimension of power = the ability not only to make people do something but to
keep them from doing something
Third dimension to do something the ability to shape or determine individual or group
political demands by causing people to think about political issues in ways that are
contrary to their own interest
The focus of the first dimension is on behavior and active decisions. -> making someone do
something.
The second dimensions argued that the key element of political power is the ability to keep
certain groups and issues out of the political arena by controlling the political agenda and
institutions to allow certain groups to participate and voice their concerns while preventing or
at least discouraging others from doing so. -> if it takes a large amount of money to run for
office, poor people are likely not to try
The third dimensions argued that the ability to influence how people think produces the
power to prevent certain political demands from ever being articulated. -> if workers making
the minimum wage believe that raising it will result in fewer jobs, they won’t demand a higher
wage in the first place
What is Comparative Politics?
Comparative politics focuses primarily on power and decision making within national
boundaries. Politics among national governments and beyond national boundaries is
generally the purview of the field of international relations, and although comparativists
certainly take into account the domestic effects of international events, we do not try to
explain the international events themselves. Comparativists systematically examine political
phenomena in more than one place and during more than one period, and we try to develop
a generalizes understanding of and explanations for political activity that seem to apply to
many different situations.
Why study Comparative Politics?
Studying comparative politics has multiple benefits:
- Interested in understanding political events and developments in various countries
- Systematic comparison of different political systems and events around the world can
generate important lessons from one place that can apply in another
- It helps us develop broad theories about how politics works.
Theory = an abstract argument that provides a systematic explanation of some
phenomenon
Empirical theory = an argument explaining what actually occurs; empirical theorists
first notice and describe a pattern and then attempt to explain what causes it
Normative theory = an argument explaining what ought to occur rather than what does
occur; contrast with empirical theory
How do Comparativists study politics?
,Political scientists do not have a controlled laboratory because we certainly cannot control
the real world of politics. In political science, political actors think about the changes going on
around them and modify their behavior accordingly.
Comparativists use the scientific method to try to gain as systematic evidence as possible.
Research methods = systematic processes used to ensure that the study of some
phenomena is as objective and unbiased as possible
Single-case study = research method that examines a particular political phenomenon
in just one country or community and can generate ideas for theories or test theories
developed from different cases
Comparative method = the means by which scholars try to mimic laboratory conditions
by careful selection of cases
Quantitative statistical techniques = research methods used for large-scale studies
that reduces evidence to sets of numbers so that statistical analysis can systematically
compare a huge number of cases
A single case can never be definitive proof of anything beyond that case itself, but it can be
suggestive of further research and can be of interest to people researching that particular
country.
Two approaches for comparative studies are common:
1. The most similar systems design selects cases that are alike in a number of ways but
differ on the key question under examination
2. The most different-systems design looks at countries that differ in many ways but are
similar in terms of the particular political process or outcome in which the research is
interested
Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages:
- Single-case study: allows a political scientist to look at a phenomenon in great depth and
come to a more thorough understanding of a particular case
- Comparative method: gains the advantage of systematic comparison from which more
generalizable conclusions can be drawn
- Quantitative techniques: can show broad patterns but only for questions involving
evidence that can be presented numerically, and they provide little depth on any
particular case. These techniques are best at showing the tendency of two resources,
which can provide greater depth to see the direct connections involved
No theory will ever become a universal and unchanging law, like the law of gravity, the
political world simply is not that certain. Comparative politics will also never become a true
science because political scientists have their own human passions and positions regarding
various debates they study.
What explains political behavior?
The core activity in all political science is explaining political behavior: why do people,
groups, and governments act as they do in the political arena?
Political actor = any person or group engaged in political behavior
Political scientists have developed three broad answers to the question of what explains
political behavior:
1. Interest -> Rational choice theory
2. Beliefs
3. Structures
Rational choice theory = an explanation for political behavior that assumes that
individuals are rational beings who bring to the political arena a set of self-defined
preferences and adequate knowledge and ability to pursue those preferences
Rational choice theorists are not interested in the second or third dimensions of power, they
examine behavior, not institutions that prevent behavior, and they do not ask how and why
,people have certain preferences. They accept people’s preferences and actions as given and
then ask how they can be explained via rationality.
- Criticism of rational choice theories: they can’t explain preferences in advance so can’t
predict political behavior in advance.
Psychological theories = explanations for political behavior based on psychological
analysis of political actors’ motives
Psychological theories are often interested in the third dimension of power: influences on the
formation on individual political demands.
- Critics of the psychological approach argue that the inherent focus on the individual that
is fundamental to psychological theories makes them irrelevant to explaining group
behavior, thus their political science is limited.
Political culture = a set of widely held attitudes, values, beliefs, and symbols about
politics
Political socialization = the process through which people, especially young people,
learn about politics and are taught a society’s common political values and beliefs
Modernists = theorists of political culture who believe that clear sets of attitudes,
values, and beliefs can be identified in each country that change very rarely and
explain much about politics there
Civic culture = a political culture in which citizens hold values and beliefs that support
democracy, including active participation in politics but also enough deference to the
leadership to let it govern effectively
Subcultures = groups that hold partially different beliefs and values from the main
political culture of a country
Postmaterialist = a set of values in a society in which most citizens are economically
secure enough to move beyond immediate economic (materialist) concerns to ‘quality
of life’ issues like human rights, civil rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, and
moral values
Structuralism = approach to explaining politics that argues that political behavior is at
least influenced and limited and perhaps even determined by broader structures in a
society, such as class divisions or enduring institutions
Institutionalism = an approach to explaining politics that argues that political
institutions are crucial to understanding political behavior
Rational choice
- Political actors bring a set of self-defined preferences, adequate knowledge, and ability to
pursue those interests and rationality to the political arena
- Critiques:
o Some difficulty predicting future behavior
o Hard to explain variation across cases
Psychological theory
- Nonrational influences explain political behavior
- Critiques:
o Difficult to verify connections between internal state and actions, particularly for
groups
Political culture
- A set of widely held attitudes, values, beliefs, and symbols about politics shapes what
actors do
, - Critiques:
o Political culture is not a monolithic, unchanging entity within a given country
o Cultural values are not necessarily the cause of political outcomes
o The causal relationship may be the other way around
o If everything is subject to interpretation, then how can anything be explained or
predicted?
Political ideology
- Systematic set of beliefs about how the political system ought to be structured
- Motivated political action
- Critiques:
o Focus on ideology obscures what may be underlying motives, or the real
explanation, for political behavior
Marxism
- Economic structures determine political behavior
- Production process creates distinct social classes – groups of people with the same
relationship to the means of production
- Critiques:
o Ignores noneconomic motives
o Ignores groups other than social classes
Institutionalism
- Political institutions are widely recognized and accepted rules, norms, or standard
operating procedures that structure and constrain individuals’ political action
- The rules of the game
- Critiques:
o Difficult to determine if institutions rather than self-interest or culture limit behavior
Elite theories = theories arguing that societies are ruled by an economic, gender,
racial, or other small group that has effective control over virtually all power; contrast
to pluralist theory
Chapter 2: The Modern State
