Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
SUSS POL 203 Study Unit 1: Foundations of Comparative Politics (discuss…
SUSS POL 203 Study Unit 1: Foundations of Comparative Politics
Explain the primary aims and approaches of the comparative politics subdiscipline
What is Comparative politics
the field within political science that
focuses on domestic politics
and analyses
patterns of similarity and difference
among countries
Magstadt explains the goal of comparative politics is to build and test
mid-level theories
theories focusing on specific features
of the political world such as institutions, policies, or classes of similar events such as revolutions or elections.
Categories of comparisons
some of the most common categories of variables that appear in the works of comparative politics scholars include:
Differences in
institutions
: political systems, government bodies, constitutions
Differences in
social and economic factors
: social classes, wealth, inequality
Differences in other
collective identities
: gender, race, region, religion, etc.
Differences in political ideas and
political culture
appreciate the strengths and limitations of comparative politics and the
comparative method
The Benefits of Comparative Politics
Learning about the way politics works in other countries as well as the reasons why it works that way can be beneficial for a few reasons.
Comparison can
help educate
. What the public believes can have a significant impact on what the government does, especially in democratic countries
Comparison is a
useful way to evaluate
what we see and hear about the world
beyond our shores
, as well as our own society.
Comparison can help
debunk myths
. Political myths may be used to prop up policies that have outlived their usefulness, to the detriment of the nation (and possibly the world).
An attempt to identify and explain the fundamental patterns of political behaviour across different societies and cultures may
help us arrive at useful theoretical generalisations
.
By comparing our own political institutions, processes, ideas and traditions with those of others, we can
learn more about ourselves/ existing assumptions
The Limitations of Comparative Politics
Cannot tackle normative issues
– comparative politics, as an empirical social science, is not able to answer certain fundamental normative questions about the political world.
what it can do is “provide supporting evidence to make a reasoned normative decision
comparative politics scholars are
unable to neatly and definitively control variables
to the same extent as chemists, physicists, and even psychologists.
Issue of
uniqueness
. comparativists
cannot subscribe to complete relativism
and suggest that a political development in one country is the complete manifestation of domestic historical and cultural factors that have no relation to other countries
demonstrate an understanding of the main methodological approaches within
the sub-discipline
Comparative method
The comparative method, also known as
Mill’s methods
involves the systematic search for the necessary and sufficient causes of political phenomena.
The comparative method comprises the Most Similar Systems Design
(MSSD)
and the Most Different Systems Design
(MDSD)
”
Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD)
Mill’s Method of Difference”.
highly similar political systems
are chosen in order to
identify the underlying difference
that is assumed to explain the presence or absence of the dependent variable in one case.
Most Different Systems Design (MDSD)
“Mill’s Method of Similarity”
highly different political systems
are chosen in order to identify the
underlying similarity
that is assumed to explain the presence or absence of the dependent variable in some cases and not others.
Large-N vs. Small-N Designs
Large N: Quantitative Comparison
“large n” refers to the use of
many cases
In order to test whether there is a
statistical correlation
between the dependent and independent variables under study,
variables must first be quantified
– that is, be assigned a measurable numerical form.
Once quantitative data is collected on each of the variables across a large number of cases (usually between 20 and 30) using these measures,
statistical tests can be used to determine how strongly or weakly the variables are correlated
.
Deductive method
large-N, quantitative studies also typically involve the use of the deductive method.
large-N quantitative studies are
thus fundamentally centred on
theory testing
Strength
Strong external validity
- because it is able to test hypotheses across a large number of cases and thus provides a great deal of empirical support, it is able to establish reasonably valid generalisations about the political world
Replicable
- replication of individual studies can be easily conducted, allowing for accepted hypotheses to be re-tested on new cases and new sets of data
Weakness
Difficult to quantify all variables
- Some developments in the political world happen as a result of a combination of complex, intertwined social and institutional processes that cannot easily be quantified
Correlation, not causation
- quantitative comparative studies often fail to adequately explain the causal mechanisms that link the independent variables to the dependent variable
Highly dependant on data
- If a researcher is unable to obtain data or the obtain is unreliable, the researcher will not be able to paint a reliable and an internally valid picture of the political phenomenon using quantitative techniques
Small-N: Qualitative Comparison
referred to as the “case-oriented approach”
the main aim is to
understand
the workings of
actual processes
within a few countries
Inductive method
the inductive approach to learning starts with a set of observations and then
tries to ascertain a pattern in the observations
that can be used to generate an explanation for the observation.
With induction, observation precedes theory
Strength
Holistic approach
- qualitative studies offer to scholars and students of comparative politics is its holistic approach. By analysing cases holistically, it is possible to
understand how particular combinations
of circumstances at particular points in time can
produce particular outcomes.
Causation
- qualitative approaches are highly focused on identifying and explaining causal mechanisms
Weakness
Poor external validity
- because qualitative studies involve an in-depth analysis of a handful of cases, their findings are not generalisable
Susceptible to bias
- because qualitative studies rely heavily on the researcher’s own interpretation of key events and processes within the chosen case studies, there is
greater possibility of observer’s bias in qualitative studies
than quantitative ones
discuss how globalisation has had an impact on the study of comparative politics
Does Comparative Politics Make Sense in a Globalised World?
although linkages in globalisation cannot be denied, the majority of comparative politics scholars would argue that there are good reasons for comparative politics to remain as a separate sub-discipline
most of the
phenomena that matter for comparativists occur at the state-level
Issues such as representation, regime types and transitions, and political and institutional development fundamentally involve the state apparatus and the bodies of government within it.
As such, while globalisation certainly has had an impact on the outcomes of these domestic issues,
globalisation has most definitely not rendered them non-issues.
The secondly,
globalisation has impacted individual countries in different ways
and to varying degrees.
Since the degree of embrace versus resistance has not been the same in every country, the
comparative method can serve as an important tool to explain why
Globalisation and Domestic Politics
one of the most significant changes that has taken place
in Asia as a result of globalisation has been the
spread of Western values
and institutions.
the adoption of Western values tended to
undermine Asia’s social and political traditions
Asian states have had to craft their own responses to the infiltration of western values
particular in the realm of governance.
Since these responses have been different from the West as well as from each other, the responses of Asian states and societies to pressures from the West has also been central to the work of many regional corporativists.
Globalisation
the intensification of
worldwide interconnectedness
associated with the increased speed
and magnitude of cross-border flows
of trade, investment and finance, and processes of migration,
cultural diffusion
and communication
Globalization
makes domestic issues more subject to international influence
and makes local events more influential around the world, blurring the lines between comparative politics and international politics
explain the origins of the modern state from different theoretical perspectives
Rise of the Modern State
Historical Origins and Development of the State
In contemporary politics, the
state remains the most important political entity
.
One important fact to remember, however, is that the pervasiveness of the state in human lives (I.e
public political influence on private
personal lives) is a
fairly recent
development.
Prior to the 17th century
, the notion of sovereignty – a prerequisite for any state’s dominance – was not central to political organisation and, as a result,
the world was divided
along the lines of city-states, empires, princedoms and tribes, many
with overlapping loyalties
.
One major area of research within comparative politics, thus, has been to explain how the modern state superseded these previous political organisations and became today’s dominant form of political organisation.
Development of modern state
According to Newton and Van Deth the
three major ways
that states have
formed in the modern world, are:
Transformation
Unification
Secession
While these processes have not occurred in a neat chronological order, one can note that
transformation processes mostly occurred in the 17th and 18th century,
unification processes in the 19th and early 20th, and
secession processes from the mid-20th century to the present day
Secession
Secession is the one
process
through which most of the
new states were created
secession should simply be understood as an umbrella term for a whole host of similar paths that some states took on their way to statehood.
The first of these major steps was to
break up longstanding empires
.
This process began in Europe after the First World War, when many states in Central and Eastern Europe were granted independence after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
In more recent times, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Yugoslavia brought about an even greater number of independent states in Central and Eastern Europe.
Transformation
Those polities that achieved modern statehood through a transformation process
typically saw medieval monarchies gradually transform
themselves over several centuries
into centrally organised states
.
In these cases, what were once looser political entities took on the form of modern states with centralised bureaucracies and the full control over the territory within its borders (sovereignty).
Countries within Europe who took this path included Britain and France.
Although most scholars see the state as fundamentally a European export, it can be argued that Japan and Thailand also gradually transformed their traditional political apparatus into a modern state in response to the rise of the European imperial powers in the 19th century
Unification
For the same reason that Japan and Thailand found it necessary to
forge modern states in response to threats from rivals
, some other political communities also found it necessary to merge with each other.
In Europe, Germany and Italy were the products of former small kingdoms and fiefdoms being forged into a singular political unit.
From this point forward, these states initiated the same processes of centralisation and professionalisation, both of the civil service and the military, as Britain, France, and others.
Tilly: War Making and State Making
Tilly's view on state
the
state
resembles an extortion racket in that it
demands tribute
(taxes and obedience)
from citizens
within its jurisdiction in return for protection from, among other things
because the state
possesses a monopoly of force
within the territory it controls, it inevitably
poses the biggest threat to its citizens
, especially since the state is able to extract resources from those residing within its territory in the same way that an organised crime group can
Modern states were only able to
overcome their equivalence to piracy
, banditry, and gangland activity because they
emerged victorious over their competitors
4 primary state activities
As Tilly suggests, in order to remain in power, kings and lords engaged in four primary activities that established institutions we associate with the modern state.
proto-states under kings and nobles who were able to conduct these four activities more successfully than their competitors were able to eventually incorporate their opponents’ territory, material resources, and human population into their own
State making
Eliminating or
neutralising their rivals inside
those territories.
This had the effect of creating institutions for surveillance and control, including the police.
Protection
Eliminating or
neutralising the enemies of their clients
.
This had the effect of creating courts and representative assemblies.
War making
Eliminating or
neutralising their own rivals outside
the territories in which they had clear and continuous priority as wielders of force.
This had the effect of creating armies, navies, and various supporting services.
Extraction
Acquiring the means
of carrying out the first three activities.
This had the effect of creating the required fiscal and accounting structures
Rokkan: State Formation and Nation Building
For Rokkan, the
formation of modern states proceeded in four chronological phases
, each of which was closely linked to basic societal cleavages and conflicts.
As Rokkan suggests, few states experienced these stages in neat and orderly ways and at times, there was a great deal of overlap. Likewise, dramatic political events such as war, occupation, and revolution interrupted some of the stages in multiple states..
Welfare states
period of “redistribution” / cleavage between rich and poor
Nation building
period of “standardisation” / cleavage between national identity in
the centre and peripheral identities
State formation
period of “penetration” / cleavage between urban elites and rural/
peripheral masses.
Mass democracies
period of “equalisation” / cleavage between political elites and disenfranchised masses
demonstrate an understanding of how different types of states have aided or
impeded economic development
Political Economy: The Role of the State in Development
Two of the most renowned theories which explain Political Economy and Development are
modernisation theory
dependency theory
Similarities between both theories
Both theories had one key element in common: neither of them saw the state and, more specifically, the functions of its institutions as a potential problem.
state and state institutions not a problem to economic development
Modernisation view on state and development
Indeed, for the modernisation theorists, underdevelopment was the result of the state having yet to go through the necessary stages of social change that could spur economic growth.
With the
modernisation theorists diagnosing
a lack of development
at the social and cultural level
rather than the institutional level, the performance of state institutions did not feature heavily in their explanations
Dependency view on state and development
Dependency theory, with its neo-Marxist understanding of how the state could be used to move former colonial societies away from a dependent economic relationship with the core, gave much more weight to the potential role of the state in development.
Despite this, however,
dependency theorists did not provide a thorough explanation
of the
type of state required for successful economic development.
As a result, rather than discussing characteristics of good states versus bad states,
dependency theorists tended to frame the issue as the state versus the market
, with the former being viewed as the ultimate cure for the ills of the latter
appreciate how the concepts of democracy and dictatorship are usually
conceptualised and measured within the sub-discipline