Scribd
Upload
24 views

Bài 1 - Introduction To Comparative Politics

The document provides an overview of comparative politics as a subfield of political science. It discusses key concepts like most similar systems design and most different systems design for comparing countries. Most similar systems design examines countries that are similar on most factors except the independent variable being tested, while most different systems design examines countries that are different on most factors except the independent variable. The document also provides examples of how these designs can be used to analyze differences in outcomes like voter turnout rates or charitable giving across countries.

Uploaded by

Tường Cát
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views

Bài 1 - Introduction To Comparative Politics

The document provides an overview of comparative politics as a subfield of political science. It discusses key concepts like most similar systems design and most different systems design for comparing countries. Most similar systems design examines countries that are similar on most factors except the independent variable being tested, while most different systems design examines countries that are different on most factors except the independent variable. The document also provides examples of how these designs can be used to analyze differences in outcomes like voter turnout rates or charitable giving across countries.

Uploaded by

Tường Cát
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 34

VU THANH CONG, MPP.

Sitting Exam (30%): Week 5


▪ 30 min

▪ Two questions (from the lecture 2, 3, 4)

Requirement
Evaluation Criteria (100%)
▪ Constructive and Respectful
• Idea: 40%
▪ Plausible Analysis and Argument
• Analysis + argument: 40%
▪ Logical Structure
• Evidence: 20%
▪ Good Content from Reliable Sources
relations across boundaries of nation-states

The four main subfields of political science:

Political
Science

Comparative International
Political Theory Public Policy
Politics Relations

• Deals with • Deals with • Deals with • Deals with


normative and empirical policy issues interactions
theoretical questions and and the across
questions procedures of boundaries of
interactions within
policy making nation-states
political systems
• The study of the domestic politics, political institutions, and conflicts of
countries.
• Often involves comparisons among countries and through time within
single countries, emphasizing key patterns of similarity and difference.
• A comparative study may focus on a small number of countries (two or
more) or it may attempt to incorporate the analysis of a very large range
of countries.
• Countries need not be the only unit of analysis, sub-national, regional
political units or supra-national units may also be the focus.
▪ Distinction between CP and IR
▪ CP studies domestic political institutions, processes, policies, conflicts,
attitudes in different countries
▪ IR studies foreign policies and interactions among countries, role of
international organizations, influence of global actors
➢ Studies overlap

▪ Comparative approach focuses on selected institutions and processes when


analyzing similarities and differences among countries
▪ Should look at two or more cases to isolate common and contrasting
features, in order to make reliable statement.
▪ May analyze broad issues or institution, policy, process through time
▪ Better understand our own system

▪ See what other options are available

▪ Understand why certain choices were and are made

▪ Understand causation
▪ Plato and Aristotle, while usually considered political theorists, were
engaged in the process of comparing different political regimes:
➢ Aristocracy (P), republic, oligarchy, democracy, monarchy (A), tyranny

▪ Modern comparative politics can be traced back to (among others):

➢ Machiavelli (R), The Prince, 1532.

➢ Montesquieu, On the Spirit of the Laws, 1748

➢ Alexis de Tocqueville, On Democracy in America, 1835


Plato’s forms of government:

• Rule by one person in the interest of all is monarchy;

• Rule by one person in his own interest is tyranny.

• Rule by a minority in the interest of all is aristocracy;

• Rule by a minority in the interest of itself is oligarchy.

• Rule by a majority in the interest of all is “polity”;

• Rule by a majority in its own interest—i.e., mob rule—is “democracy.”


▪ Aristocracy is a form of government that places strength in the hands of a
small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats.
▪ A monarchy is a form of government in a state is ruled by an individual
who typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until
abdication.
▪ Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests
with a small number of people.
▪ Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the
eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
▪ In a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then
enact policy initiatives. In direct democracy, people decide on policies
without any intermediary.
Democracy vs Republic: The key difference between a democracy and
a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has
implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use
a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians
to represent their interests and form the government.

▪ Democracy: Rule by majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any


group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against
the power of the majority. In variations, people may also elect
representatives.

▪ A republic: is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written


constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being
completely unrepresented or abused by the majority.
▪ Countries and states are the two critical units for comparative analysis
▪ One approach is to develop causal theories
▪ Hypotheses expressed as “If X happens then Y will be the result”
▪ Include factors (independent variables) that are believed to influence
the outcome (dependent variables)
▪ X causes Y = X → Y
▪ Even without hypotheses try to identify similarities and differences to
discover patterns
▪ Limits on “scientific” political science
▪ Social sciences study people who have free will
▪ Choices made in context of material constraint, institutions,
culture which can be studied
▪ Experimental techniques cannot isolate factors
▪ A correlation does not mean that there is
causation. As you know, correlation
means that there is a relationship between
two variables.
▪ Causation means that if you see a change
in your explanatory (independent)
variable, it should cause a change in the
response (dependent) variable.
▪ Even if a correlation is very strong, this is
not by itself good evidence that a change
in x will cause a change in y
CORRELATION VS. CAUSATION EXAMPLE

14
Trade-off between the level of abstraction
and the scope of countries

Focus on the cases instead of variables


alone (Ragin 1987)

It usually involves small-N research (= only


a few cases)
▪ The comparative method. Based on J.S. Mill’s System of Logic (1843).

1) Most-similar systems (MSS) method (“method of difference”).


2) Most-different systems (MDS) method (“method of agreement”).

3) Method of concomitant variation


4) Case study methods (when N = 1)
▪ The most-similar systems method is the most common approach to small-N
research problems in political science.
▪ Examine a handful of cases that are as similar as possible, except on the
outcome of interest (the dependent variable).
▪ Similarity of cases means we control for many alternative explanations.

▪ Look for a variable that is the only thing that varies systematically with the
dependent variable.
▪ If one factor is different between cases, and outcome is different, this is our
probable cause for the outcome.
How to Compare?
Using MSSD to Explain Why Turnout Rates Vary in
Three Countries

Country 1 Country 2 Country 3


Features
Culture A A A
GNP/Capita B B B
Pres v. Parl C C C
Regis. Rules D D D
Key Exp. Factor: Multi-party Multi-party Two-party
Party System

Outcome: Turnout T.O. > 75% T.O. > 75% T.O. < 55%
▪ We generally treat the independent variables as something simple (yes/no,
for instance).

➢ The more complicated the operationalization, the harder this method is to


do deterministic causality.

▪ Multiple causal factors and causal complexity are hard or impossible to


determine.

▪ External validity is low.


2. MOST DIFFERENT SYSTEMS (MDS) DESIGN/
METHOD OF AGREEMENT

▪ This is the opposite of the most-similar method (method of difference).

▪ Examine a handful of cases that are as different as possible, except on the


outcome of interest (the dependent variable), which is the same.

▪ Difference of cases means we control for many alternative explanations.

▪ If one factor is the same between cases, and outcome is the same, this is
our probable cause for the outcome.
▪ If, within the systems we are comparing, the phenomenon we are interested
in explaining have only one of several possible causal circumstances in
common, then the circumstance in which all the instances agree is the cause
of the phenomenon.

▪ The key to this type of design is to understand that very different units/cases
have the same outcome (Y variable). The search is then for a key
explanatory variable common to the cases that all appear very different from
each other.

▪ Graphically:
How to Compare?
Using MDS to explain high levels of charitable giving.

Israel Iran U.S.

Features

Major Religion A D G

GNP/capita B E H

Tax codes C F I

Key explanatory factor: religiosity X X X

Outcome to be explained: level of High High High


giving
▪ As with the most-similar method, we can’t use complicated variable
codings, multiple causal factors are hard or impossible to determine and
external validity is low.

▪ Deterministic causality.

▪ Case selection on the dependent variable - without variation on the


dependent variable determining causality is extremely difficult.

▪ This method is more useful for ruling out necessary causes than
determining causality.
▪ “Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another
phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect
of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of
causation.”
▪ These are methods of examining a single case.

▪ In a sense we have an N of 1, but we must make some kind of comparison


in order to make a causal inference, either within or across cases. This
comparison can be implied.

▪ Internal and measurement validity very high. External validity


(generalization) very low.

▪ We know a lot about one case, but very little about how our observations
will generalize.
Thank you very much!
▪ [email protected]

You might also like