Comparative Politics

Purpose: Theorizing “political” by using comparative method

Definition: Systematic & Conscious comparison to Identify, analyze, explain the

similarities & differences across political systems.

Units of Comparison: Two or more countries/ Political systems same country

under different times

Origin : Integral to Political Science as a method of theory building.

Nature : Dynamic

Scope

1. State to Politics as a process.

2. Eurocentric to global

Features of Comparative Method

1. Selection of Issue
2. Selection of Unit
3. Data Collection
4. Organisation/ Classification of data
5. Hypothesis Formulation
6. Testing -> Prediction
7. Generalisation

Utility

1. Helps in understanding political behaviour/ reality

2. Integral to the formulation of hypothesis testing and theory building
3. Brings credibility, reliability, precision validity
4. Give political theories, scientific rigour
5. Study political phenomenon in larger framework of human behaviour
6. Deepen & broaden our understanding.
Challenge

1. Ethnocentrism
2. Lack of standard terminologies and concepts
3. Difficulty in data collection (Authoritarianism)
4. Political behaviour can’t be value free
5. Loss of identity of the discipline

Evolution

Aristotle to 1950’s : Traditional -> Eurocentric Speculative

1950’s : Behavioural , Scientific, Quantitative, Objective, Empirical

1960’s – 70’s : Developmentalism, Modernisation

1980’s : Return of State, Third Worldism, dependency

1990’s : Globalisation

• Traditional
• Normative
• Static-legal Institutional
• Configurative
• Eurocentric
• Speculative

Modern Behaviouralism → Easton Coleman Deutsch

1. Powerful critique of institutionalism

2. Nature of political broadened : Systemic view
3. Decline in centrality of state
4. Development of frameworks facilitate comparison on large scale
i.e. western – Non western
 Shift away from Eurocentrism to III world

Single universalistic framework applicable across cultural & Ideological

boundaries for explaining politics everywhere

5. Broadening scope – Political Socialisation, Cultural Recruitment, Interest

Aggregation, Interest Articulation

1960s – 1970’s Developmentalism in tune of Foreign Policy

Development : Lucian Pye, Riggs

Modernisation : S.P. Huntington ; K. Organski

1970s Developmentalism → Dependency class division in institutional sphere

1980s

• Return of state : Theda Skocpol

• Authoritarianism
• Smaller Units Imp

1990s

• Globalisation
• Grand – contextual theories
• Importance of historical enquiries
• Focus on Civil Society
• Large scale comparison
• Diversification in the field – eco linkages

Traditional v/s Modern

Comparative Govt. Comparative Politics

State Social-Political-Eco System

Institutional Informal

Normative Scientific

Eurocentric Global Cross Cultural

Speculative Verifiable

Institutional Approach

Focus : Govt institution + Organised pattern of behaviour

Features

• Legalistic – formalistic
• Eurocentric
• Speculative, Normative, historical coverage – Limited
• Contributors : Aristotle, Bryce Finer

Advantage

Base of Modern Approach Helped in Institutional evolution/ Institutional

building in developing countries

Limitations

Descriptive rather Analytical Non Contextual

Historical Approach

• Comparing historical trajectories to find cause – effect relations.

• Genealogical approach = Historical as genetic process

Ex. : Theda Skocpol compared French Revolution, Russian Revolution

Drawbacks

• Speculative
• Prejudiced
• Superficial Comparisons

Normative

• Pre-political
• Normative – Ideal State
• Abstract Reasoning
• Moral Arguments

Drawback

• Political subordinate to ethics

Drawbacks of Traditional Approaches

• Narrow
• Formal – legal
• Subjective
• Descriptive
• Prescriptive
• Speculative
• Configurative – Eurocentric
• Ethnocentric

Political System

• Source : GST – Biology

• Political System : Self regulating, dynamic
 • System : Allows to study extra-legal factors
o : Non west world
• Advantage : From legal formal to contextual macro comparisons possible

1st Model Input – Output David Easton

Political System

• Patterned relations among actors & institution

• Authoritative allocation of values

Nature Pattern Maintenance

Regularized pattern of relation

Dynamic Conversion

Limitations:

• Macro
• Abstract – general
• Pattern maintenance
• Eurocentric
• Normative
• Political System as a black box
• Not reveal policy process

Structural – Functional :

• Gabriel Almond & Powell

• Influence → Radcliffe Brown + Malinowski
• Almond : All political system have structures performing respective
functions with some variability
• Distinctive Feature : Use of Legitimate Coercion
 • Input Functions
• Output Functions

Basic Question : What structures perform what basic functions under which
conditions?

Feature

1) Dominant tendency of Political System is stability , yet it is adaptive &

reflect incremental changes
2) Recurring functions
3) All political system are multi-functional

Structural Functional Approach

• Introduced new conceptual tools offered new insights

• Attempts to decipher black box
• Micro analysis

Weakness

1. Feedback mechanism gets only passing reference

2. Focus on status quo.
3. Undue focus on input
4. No analysis of interactions among numerous structures and functions

Cultural Relativism

• Political Culture . Almond & Verba

• Study of popular beliefs, altitudes, ideologies

Cognitive
Understand Affective

Evaluative

• Almond & Verba : Tangible + Intangible as peds

• Culture Specific : opposes universalization
• Almond & Verba
• Parochial
• Subjective
• Participative
• Civic Culture

Advantage

• Helps in understanding the context in which politics operate

• Different groups
• Provide resources for political mobilization
• Help understanding political stability & changes
• More meaningful comparisons
• Institution operate in specific cultural context

Weakness

Politics is too dynamics, culture may be stable.

Culture is a residual category to be used as other theories may not explain a

particular theme. Not defensible on its own.

New Institutionalism

What are institutions

Norms + practices + patterned behaviour

Institute V/s Organisation

Assumption

Institute matter because they shape political behaviour

Study features, origin evolution of institutions in different socio-culture context.

Old V/s New

Formal Formal + Informal

Descriptive Analytical

Normative Objective

Philosophy, law & history Socio-culture philosophy

Integration of Institute & Behaviour

Institute shape behaviour

Behaviour Institution

Agent Structure

• Strands
• Rational Choice
• Institutions are created by rational individuals according to cost benefits
analysis
• Institute offers incentive structure which affect cost benefits and shape
behaviour & decisions of rational person

Cultural Institute: Institutes are embodiment of culture & individual behave

according to the norms of culture in given institutional roles

Structural / Sociological

Caste- class, demography, tech etc. shape institutional structure which in turn
shape identity.
New institute brings state back into focus, Macro to Micro structure

Understand polity by studying Institutional economical system

It is inter disciplinary - culture, Anthropology, Sociology

Less ethnocentric

Contextual

March & Olsen : New Institutionalism