The Science of State Comparison

1
The Science of State Comparison

• PO 201 Introduction to International Politics
  and Political Science

2
The Comparative Politics Subfield

• Thus far, this course has focused on the
  development of political thought throughout
  history, and how that political thought has been
  applied to create and modify the American polity
• Obviously, however, the American polity is but
  one of many throughout the world
• These polities differ greatly in form, substance,
  style, and political outputs

3
The Comparative Politics Subfield

• In essence, the subfield of comparative politics
  involves the study of similarities and
  dissimilarities amongst several or all states,
  with the overarching purpose of testing the
  general applicability of theories about domestic
  governance across those states

4
Questions Addressed by Comparativists

• What are the major differences in the types of
  political systems across states? What
  differentiates democratic polities from other
  types of polities?
• How do these differences develop?
• How do the inputs of political system structure
  and culture lead to different political and
  economic outputs? (Easton)
• What is the role of the governed in each?
• How do political systems change within states?
• How do states become democracies or autocracies?
• What are the roles of economic, social, and
  cultural factors in these changes?
• How does the process of change differ across
  states?

5
Aristotle The Earliest Comparativist

• In Aristotles Politics, we see the earliest
  known academic attempt to categorize and classify
  states
• Aristotle sought to classify known governments
  based (a) on the size of the groups governing
  states, and (b) whether the form of government is
  true (concerned with the interests of the
  commonality) or perverse (exclusively concerned
  with the interests of the rulers)

6
Aristotles Classification Scheme
Rule by One Rule by Few Rule by Many
True Form Royalty Common Interests Paramount Aristocracy Common Interests Paramount Constitutional Common Interests Paramount
Perverse Form Tyranny Monarchs Interests Paramount Oligarchy Interests of Wealthy Paramount Democracy Interests of Needy Paramount
7
Aristotle and Contemporary Comparative Politics

• Interestingly, some of the criteria used by
  Aristotle in his classification are at the heart
  of the comparative study of politics today

8
Aristotle and Contemporary Comparative Politics

• States are defined as separate, sovereign
  entities, no matter how much their trade,
  security, etc., are interdependent
• While states may be interconnected in many ways,
  it is still possible and favorable to treat them
  as distinct, and to analyze their similarities
  and differences accordingly
• Thus, the recent growth of interdependence should
  not affect analysis in any drastic way, insofar
  as that interdependence does not result in the
  demise of domestic governance
• Collections or associations of people without a
  constitution (for Aristotle, government) are
  outside the realm of comparative politics
  constitutions make states

9
Aristotle and Contemporary Comparative Politics

• States have different forms of government that
  are determined by both the size of the governing
  group AND functional differences within those
  governing groups
• The rule by one, few, and many still determines
  our differentiation/comparison of system type
  (e.g., autocracy, democracy)
• Comparativists still construct typologies within
  these size categories to arrive at further
  distinctions
• Unlike Aristotle, who based his subgroup typology
  on justness, modern comparativists base their
  subgroup typologies on differences in structure
  and function (e.g., parliamentary vs.
  presidential democracies)

10
Aristotle and Contemporary Comparative Politics

• Of these forms of government, Aristotles
  constitutional arrangement is considered by
  many comparativists to represent the ultimate
  form of political development
• There is an intense focus in comparative politics
  on democracy and the democratization of
  states
• There exists a general assumption that democracy
  or any movement towards is, in a modern sense,
  conducive to the good life, though there is not
  much evidence that concern for common interest
  regularly supersedes the interests of the needy
• May represent an important subjective bias in the
  discipline

11
The Comparative Method

• Though the substance of comparative politics is
  important and sets the subfield apart from
  others, several political scientists have claimed
  that the subfield is historically defined as much
  by its particular method of analysis as by its
  subject matter

12
The Comparative Method

• Lijphart Describes the comparative method as
  being one of several basic research strategies
  (the others being experimental, statistical, and
  case study) which seek to ascertain empirical
  relationships

13
The Comparative Method in Context

• The Experimental Method
• Juxtapose results when one group (experimental)
  is exposed to a stimulus of interest, while the
  other group (control) is not, holding all other
  variables constant (e.g., determining effect of
  economic development on democratization by
  allowing one state to develop and precluding an
  otherwise identical state from developing)
• Most useful in ascertaining the isolated effects
  of independent variables on outcomes (dependent
  variables), but is almost impossible to use in
  political science due to practical and ethical
  impediments
• The Statistical Method
• Mathematical manipulation of empirical data to
  arrive at partial estimates of the effect of
  some independent variable on a dependent variable
  (e.g., looking for the statistical effects of
  measures of development on measures of
  democratization across time and states)
• Partializing for purposes of control can be
  accomplished by dividing the sample either
  actually or statistically based on the values
  of other, less controllable variables (e.g.,
  separate analyses of imperial and colonial
  states)
• Approximates the experimental method, but control
  of extraneous factors not as complete

14
The Comparative Method in Context

• The Case Study Method
• No attempt to ascertain the general applicability
  of a hypothesis across any groups amounts to
  thick, descriptive, historical accounts of the
  occurrence of some phenomenon within one case
• May be scientific, but no possibility of speaking
  to the validity of results outside of case (e.g.,
  determining the effect of development on
  democratization in the British historical
  experience)
• Thus, by itself, least useful to comparative
  politics
• The Comparative Method
• Same logic as experiments and statistics, but
  limited in that the number of cases it deals with
  is too small to control systematically or
  determine even probabilistic generalizations
• Essentially, the comparison of the findings of
  specific case studies to one another to
  determine a hypothesis comparative applicability
  (e.g., determining effects of development on
  democratization in the British, French, and
  German cases Moore)

15
The Comparative Method in Context

• Thus, Lijphart views methods that best
  approximate experimentation as being most
  favorable
• When data are scarce, the comparative method is
  the least imperfect way by which to arrive
  scientific generalizations
• Moreover, the comparative method provides at
  least one potential advantage over statistical
  methods (greater capacity to identify confounding
  influences internal vs. external validity)
• Such data scarcity has, however, become less of a
  problem in recent times
• Many contemporary comparativists have gathered
  enough data to employ statistical methods in
  their studies (Lijphart would approve)

16
Conclusion

• Comparative politics seeks to find the general
  applicability of theories to as many polities as
  possible (logical and practical extension of the
  study of theory and the American polity)
• The defining method of this endeavor is, of
  necessity and by comparativists own admission,
  suboptimal
• However, the method itself offers some benefits
  over the comparison of larger numbers of cases
  (internal vs. external validity)
• Next time Overarching theoretical approaches to
  the science of state comparison