Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Comparative politics and public sector - Coggle Diagram
Comparative politics and public sector
Introduction to comparative politics
Causation VS Correlation
Fundamental problem of causation : we can ever only see one of the two outcomes
Correlation : if we look at the world as it is, A and B
tend to appear together
CORRELATION :red_cross: CAUSATION
However, A and B being correlated can mean that
B causes A
C causes both A and B
A causes B
Causation requires thinking
counterfactually
: What would happen if... ? How would the world be without... ?
This leads to
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES
Under
control
Under
treatment
Data Analysis : Regression
Regression
Realize a scatterplot with these two variables (X, Y)
Draw a line that fits following certain criteria (closer to many points of the scatterplot for example)
Take two variables (e.g. : X : GDP per capita and Y : Child mortality)
Realize a
regression table
from the data of the scatterplot
Regression table
Y-intercept of the line
Slope of the line
Coefficient (if >0 when X rises Y as well, but if <0 when X rises Y falls)
Stars to indicate statistically significant data
In Poli-Sci, some data can not be manipulated
Unfeasable
Unethical
We can base our observations over naturally occuring variation in Data
Poli-Sci often include both Positive and Normative analysis
Positive : as things are
Normative : as things ought to be
What's politics ?
The "efficient" way of doing things always costs something to someone
Reasonable disagreement is normal even between people who share the same goals
There is no single "correct way" of doing things in politics
States
Failed states
Those who fail at the core tasks of the state (health care, education etc...)
Some examples would be Libya, Somalia
Often filled with non state actors and contested sovereignty which leads to
generalized violence
The state of nature
Theorized by
HOBBES
as the "war of all against all"
People sign a contract with the state : exchange some freedoms for security/order (
social contract
)
What states do ?
States do many things : Education, Health care, Produce goods, regulate private activities
However, states vary in how well they perform those tasks
Very hard to tell apart a well functioning mafia from a state
Some terminology
State :
Organization that has specific ways of obtaining compliance and reaching its goals
Nation-State :
Specific type of state that rules over a nation
Nation :
group of :silhouettes: sharing more or less common mythical ancestry
Other definitions of the state
WEBER
: "Organization that successfully claims monopoly on legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"
COLLINS
: "The state is first and foremost the army and the police
TILLY
: "Centralized differentiated organization that claims control over main means of violence"
DOUGLAS NORTH
: Violence + Tax
Country :
group of :silhouettes: + a territory
Political regimes
DEMOCRATIC REGIMES VS NON-DEMOCRATIC REGIMES
Democratic regimes
Non procedural definitions
Liberty
Social equality
Justice
Secular
Pro-Western
Procedural definitions
DAHL
: Equality between opinions of citizens
SCHUMPTER :
Teams of politicians in competition. Citizen influence :no_entry: after elections
Modernization theories
Naive modernization theory : All countries go through the same stages
Survival story : Likelihood of becoming democracy independent from revenue, but rich countries are more likely to sustain it
Endogenous democratization : Likelihood of democratization rises when income rises
In a democracy, the poorer majority has the possibility to decide on
tax rates
and
redistribution policies
Rich elites are often opposed to democracy because of taxation and redistribution
Modernization and democracy
Development is not just an increase in income : it's a change in te structure of economy
Shift from
immobile
assets to
mobile
assets to
non-expropriable
assets (skills)
Resource curse : Explication to why countries with rich natural resources (oil) are less likely to democratize
Elites want to keep exclusive control over those resources (e.g. Saudi Arabia)
Two visions of democracy
Proportionate influence
Discussion and bargaining are more convenient in smaller bodies
Legislative bargaining leads to policies in line with citizens preferences
Legislature is a mirror (or sample) of opinions and interests in society (reflects all citizens' preferences)
Majority control
Unconstrained policy making
Party that controls the government has majority support in elections
Create strong single party majority government
Competition leads party to converge towards center
Consensus view : All policies have to be discussed by representants of each major community (seats allocated in consequence)
These two visions are hypothetical
Criteria to evaluate democracy
Accountability
: the possibility for voters to reward/punish politicians at each election
Clarity of responsability (transparency)
: Who truly decides
More COR = More punishments for poor performances
More COR = Less corruption
Helps citizens to better direct their votes
Majority control systems have more COR than proportionate influence systems
Congruence
between policies and citizens' preferences
Making median voter happy
Pass "popular" policies
Avoid "unpopular" ones
Median : the point that leaves 50 % of voters on one side and the other 50 on the other side
In practice, this leads to more centrist policies
Non-democratic regimes (Autocracies)
AUTHORITARIANISM
:red_cross:
TOTALITARIANISM
Authoritarianism
Allow some social and economic pluralism but control tightly politics
IDEOLOGY is less central : state does not require mass mobilization from people
Totalitarianism
Eliminate social, Political and Economic Pluralism
IDEOLOGY is central, and we often have a charismatic leader
Total control over every aspect of society
Types of autocratic regimes
MILITARY Dictatorships
SINGLE-PARTY Regimes
PERSONALIST Dictatorships
Autocracies
: political regimes where power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or group not properly elected
Some other caracteristics
Challenges to autocratic rules
Elite bargaining (balance between the interests of competing elites)
Threat of coups (coup-proofing)
Institutions in Non-Democratic regimes
Control the opposition
Legitimization of the regime (buying more credibility)
Co-opting elites : allow to include/reward elites
Elections in autocracies
Gather informations about opposition, popularity of the ruling regime among population etc...
Create the appearance of a democracy, thus reducing international and intern pressure
Divide the opposition : identify and weaken it
Hybrid regimes
Blend the characteristic of both democratic and non democratic regimes
Often maintain the facade of democratic institutions
Set of rules, norms, institutions that determine how the government is constitued, organized, and how major decisions are made.
Understanding state-behavior
Predatory states :
prioritize extracting resources for the benefit of the elites (don't care about welfare of citizens and public goods)
Benign states
: Focus on provision of public goods and services and social development (although still extract resources)
Stationary VS Roving bandits
Roving bandits : no long term vision, plunder resources for their own benefit and go
Stationary : some warlord collect regular taxes on a specific land
Measuring Democracy
Key of a good measure : TRANSPARENCY and REPLICABILITY
PRZEWOSKI
: system of government where elections work with 3 characteristics
Ex ante uncertainty : we don't know who's gonna be elected in advance
Ex-post irreversibility : after the results, you can't change who won
Replicability : the process is to be repeated in the exact same way
Many attempts to measure democracy
Dependent variables : Outcome/effect studied
Explanatory variables : Factor thought to influence or explain changes in the dependent variable
Electoral systems
Explicit and implicit thresholds
Impact electoral outcomes by determining how hard it is to gain representation
Implicit thresholds : determined by the district's magnitude. Not formally set but based on the number of seats allocated per district
District with low magnitude : only parties with high % have seats
District with high magnitude : parties with smaller % can have seats
SMD, very high implicit threshold (lowest magnitude possible)
Explicit thresholds : formal rules that set a minimum percentage of votes a party must receive to qualify for seats in the legislature
They are used to limit fragmentation in the legislature
Increase disproportionality : can exclude smaller parties regardless of the fact they might have meaningful support
How votes are counted is as important as how voters cast their votes
Voters cast their votes understanding how votes are counted
Disproportionality : difference between % of votes received and % of seats allocated
All systems are based on districts
Results of pure geographical division
Makes geographic heterogeneity essential
Gerrymandering can swing elections
Packing
Cracking
Single Member Districts (SMD) = only one person elected/district
Sincere VS Strategic Voting
Sincere voting :
I vote for the party I like the most
Strategic voting :
since the party I like the most is hopeless, I don't want to waste my vote so I take into account other voters expected behavior
Duverger's law
SMD leads to two-party systems
Reformulated : in SMD; at most two parties are viable at district level
Generalized : electoral system of magnitude M can sustain at most M + 1 parties
Strategic votes :
UNAVOIDABLE
In two round systems : voter might vote strategically in first round to avoid having two disliked candidates in the second
Open list VS Closed list elections
Open list elections : In addition to party list, voters can express preferences for candidates (which may create internal conflict in parties)
Closed list elections : the party decides the order in which candidates are picked
Culture and Democracy
A long standing question : Does democracy require a specific set of beliefs/values ?
Problem : culture perceived as
primordial and unchangeable
: that's
FALSE
When people interact, they create in a way their "own culture"
LIPSET
: there's a link between democratic instability and catholicism (1959) =
WRONG
Measuring culture
With
cross-national surveys
World values survey
Afrobarometer, Eurobarometer
RWA and LWA scale
Surveys want people to answer honestly their questions, so they adapt to the reality
But problem : if you adapt to reality, more likely to have biased results/answers
It's sufficiently easy to measure culture
CIVIC CULTURE
ALMOND AND VERBA
: Civic culture backed from answers to surveys
Interpersonal trust in society
Gradual change (as opposed to revolution)
Perceived influence (from voters)
Support for current political system
We need some type of "civic culture" in order for democracy to work
INGLEHART
adds
Post-materialist values
Political discussion
Life satisfaction
Protestants
While civic culture correlates with well functioning democracy, it might be various things
Democracy creates its own culture
Economic development affects both culture and regime
Culture actually helps democracy
Political Parties
Organizational continuity
PRI in Mexico is an authoritarian party in full control of the state → becomes just one competitor after democratization
National Fascist party competes in election of 1924→ Becomes a single party after the transition to autocracy
A group of people who hold office + those who help win and keep it (the office)
The main objective of political parties is to compete in elections (and ultimately to win them)
What parties do ?
Mobilize voters (make collective action possible and/or easier)
Create long-horizon policy makers
Party ID : attachment to party, form of “perceptual screen”. Central part of your identity (almost religious attach) as it reflects (to a certain degree) your ideology and opinions
Help elected representatives achieve collective action
Provide “informational shortcuts” for voters
Party discipline and logrolling
Party discipline
= ability of a political party to ensure that its members vote according to the official party line or agenda.
Logrolling
= “I vote for your proposal if you vote for mine”
Party systems
Qualitative classifications
Dominant party system (authoritarian Mexico, post-war Japan....)
Two-party system (USA)
Single-party system (North Korea)
Multi-party system (Belgium)
Problem : biased, based on judgment
People have tried to come up with classifications for party systems (really difficult)
Quantitative classification
Formula :
With
Pi = vote share (effective number of electoral parties)
OR
Pi = seat share (effective number of legislative parties)
Equal to the nominal number of parties K if all parties have an equal share, and less than K if support is lopsided
Based on the effective number of parties (ENP)
Other notions about parties
Salience of issues
Perception among voters of what the most critical problem or issue is.
Some parties make particular issues look more salient for them to appear competent
Social cleavages
Cross-cutting cleavages
When cleavages are not confirmed (in a way)
Effects
Mechanical and strategic effects
Strategic effect :
e.g. third parties in SMD or parties likely below thresholds in PR
Mechanical effect :
some votes are not “counted” e.g. second party in SMD system
Additional effect : strategic entry
Political parties decide whether to form (or stay alive) depending of the political environment
If the electoral system is not permissive (e.g. high thresholds) they often chose to not form at all
Reinforcing cleavages
When cleavages are strong and create numerous and small communities
Number of cross cutting cleavages determines the max number of parties
But remember, in systems with districts of magnitude M, max M + 1 viable parties
Number of parties is the smallest between those two options :
Number of (significant) groups that emerge from cross cutting cleavages
Number of viable parties according to the electoral system
Measuring ideological stance of parties
Behavioral measures → What parties DO, not SAY (obviously when they are in office)
Voter based strategy : ask voters of each party where they stand on critical issues (average of the voters is where the party stands) OR simply ask voters to place parties (as “lay experts”)
Text based strategy : analize what parties say
Expert based strategy : ask political scientists for their opinion
Where do parties come from ?
Parties emerge from social conflict
Parties engage in competition, politicize issues
