IRO - Introduction to comparative politics

Introduction to comparative politics
ICP

Exam
Grade is made up of the exam (60%) and two written assignments from
the workgroup (40%)
The exam is fully multiple choice – content on the lectures and readings
(emphasis is on the lectures)
Exam has around 40 questions with a duration of 2 hours
Only concepts and classifications are part of the exam not the country
examples

Lectures
Are recorded but not made available until the last revision session

Lecture 1 – comparative politics and methods

Comparative politics
A subfield of political science, that studies political structures
Comparative politics ask normative questions
Level analysis is the state level

= a subfield of political science, studying political structures, actors and
process within a political system, analysing them empirically by exploring
their similarities and differences across political systems

Compares either the substance or the method

Comparative politics is one of the most important sub-fields of political
science

Why comparison
Gain knowledge about other countries – if you know about other countries
your horizon broadens (less ethnocentrism), you learn about your own
country by looking at other countries

Description/classification/typologies – comparative politics allows us to
create classification, comparative politics clusters phenomena and
differences on the bases of their commonly shared attributes.
Classification/typology are important because they are the bases of a
sound explanatory analysis

Hypothesis testing – it allows us to test hypothesis, hypothesis is a
proposed explanation for something, which is something that needs to be
tested.

Prediction – if you have a good sound hypothesis you can better predict
the future. In the social sciences there is more focus on explanation than
on prediction. But for politician’s prediction is very important

,Issues in comparative politics
Comparative politics focuses on very different units of analysis
 Distinction between unit (your focus) and level (ranges from country
to sub-national level) of analysis

There is not one comparative method – it is characterised by a variety in
methods
Methods in comparative politics
Comparative methods – rules and standards of comparative analysis

Different methods of comparative politics;
 Case study method – focus on a single case
 Comparative method – small N method, focus on a small number of
cases
 Statistical method – very large N method, uses statistical methods to
study relations and data
 Experimental method – used in the hard sciences, not so much in the
social sciences

The book makes a distinction between qualitative and quantitative
methods instead of case study and comparative method (small difference)
follow lecture concepts

Case study method
Case study method – intensive examination of one particular case and the
context in which it exists

Case study methods are interpretive orientated studies

Two types of case studies;
1) Deviant case study – identifies and examines an exception to what is
generally expected from an established theory, are important for
theory building
2) Theory-testing case study – probing a theory in a new empirical context
to which it is supposed to apply, we can never be really sure of case
studies until we probe it

Comparative method
Comparative method (small N) – a systematic analysis of a small number
of cases

Comparative method studies are interpretive orientated studies

Problems of a small-N comparison
 Too few cases, too many variables – can be solved by increasing the
number of cases (N) or employ MSSD (most similar system design)
 Increasing the number of cases is hard because we run out of cases

, MSSD for your comparative analysis you should only use very similar
cases, to try to single out the thing that is different
 Selection on dependent variable
 MDSD (most dissimilar system design) you select all possible different
countries, you try to isolate the one factor that they have in common

Statistical method
Statistical method – comparative method based on a large N of cases,
using statistical techniques to examine relationships between variables

You draw your conclusions from a statistical analysis perspective




Lecture 2 – the state and democracy

I the state

Modern state
The state is characterised by;
 Territory – each state has a territory that it considers its own
 Sovereignty – state has an ultimate authority over a territory
 Internal sovereignty (autonomous from other internal forces) &
external sovereignty (sovereignty recognised by other states) ->
distinction makes it easier to explain failed/quasi-states
 Monopoly of the means of violence – the state has exclusive
entitlement to employ organised violence

State emergence
Theories of (European) state formation;
Warfare – war made the state, and the state made war (Tilly)
 You needed money to buy guns/gunpowder – beginning of taxation
 Needed people for war – beginning of registration

Patterns of state emergence;
Transformation – a process of global change of an already independent
strong monarchy into a strong state
Unification – process of unification between interdependent states into
one large entity
Secession – the act of becoming independent and no longer part of a state
(so splits off)
Decolonisation – a process probably responsible for the large numerical
growth of states

Power of states
Despotic power of states – actions the state can take without consulting
society, ability of rulers to declare wars, confiscate your privacy, etc.

,  States can have high or low despotic powers -> in liberal democracy
despotic power fairly constricted
 Even the most despotic non-democratic regimes, have less despotic
powers than in the past -> their despotic power has declined

Infrastructural power of states – capacity of the state to impart decisions
on society
 Immense increase of infrastructural power of the state over time
 Even the least infrastructural developed states now, have more
infrastructural power than the most powerful states of history had

Despotic Infrastructural power
power low high
Low feudal democracy
high imperial Single - party




II (representative) democracy

Originally most citizens had lived under some form of despotic rule, non-
democracies were the norm

Democratic regimes – liberal (full) democracy, electoral (flawed
democracy), representative democracy, direct/deliberate democracies
Non-democratic regimes – authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes,

Representative democracies
Rulers are chosen in competitive, free, and fair elections

People (demos) rule indirectly, by electing their representatives, and
holding them accountable during the next elections

Two dimensions of democracy (Robert Dahl);
 Contestation – refers to the extent to which citizens have unimpaired,
unlimited opportunities to formulate their political preferences, to
express their political preferences in individual/collective actions, and
have these preferences translated in governments
 Inclusiveness – refers to the proportion to the population that is
entitled/allowed to participate on a more or less equal level in the
process of the government

Robert Dahl tried to make two points;
1) You don’t need only elections, but also extensive sets of freedoms and
rights (alternative sources of information, freedom to organise and
express yourself) to make elections meaningful