Comparative Politics Method

[Crystle Rike]

Comparativepolitics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and between countries. Substantively, this can include questions relating to political institutions, political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic development. When applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may be referred to by other names, such as comparative government (the comparative study of forms of government).

Comparative politics is the systematic study and comparison of the diverse political systems in the world. It is comparative in searching to explain why different political systems have similarities or differences and how developmental changes came to be between them. It is systematic in that it looks for trends, patterns, and regularities among these political systems. The research field takes into account political systems throughout the globe, focusing on themes such as democratization, globalization, and integration. New theories and approaches have been used in political science in the last 40 years thanks to comparative politics. Some of these focus on political culture, dependency theory, developmentalism, corporatism, indigenous theories of change, comparative political economy, state-society relations, and new institutionalism.[1] Some examples of comparative politics are studying the differences between presidential and parliamentary systems, democracies and dictatorships, parliamentary systems in different countries, multi-party systems such as Canada and two-party systems such as the United States. Comparative politics must be conducted at a specific point in time, usually the present. A researcher cannot compare systems from different periods of time; it must be static.[1]

While historically the discipline explored broad questions in political science through between-country comparisons, contemporary comparative political science primarily uses subnational comparisons.[2] More recently, there has been a significant increase in the interest of subnational comparisons and the benefit it has on comparative politics. We would know far less about major credible issues within political science if it weren't for subnational research. Subnational research contributes important methodological, theoretical, and substantive ideas to the study of politics.[3] Important developments often obscured by a national-level focus are easier to decipher through subnational research. An example could be regions inside countries where the presence of state institutions have been reduced in effect or value.[3]

The name comparative politics refers to the discipline's historical association with the comparative method, described in detail below. Arend Lijphart argues that comparative politics does not have a substantive focus in itself, but rather a methodological one: it focuses on "the how but does not specify the what of the analysis."[4] Peter Mair and Richard Rose advance a slightly different definition, arguing that comparative politics is defined by a combination of a substantive focus on the study of countries' political systems and a method of identifying and explaining similarities and differences between these countries using common concepts.[5][6]

Comparative politics is significant because it helps people understand the nature and working of political frameworks around the world. There are many types of political systems worldwide according to the authentic, social, ethnic, racial, and social history. Indeed, even comparative constructions of political association shift starting with one country then onto the next. For instance, India and the United States are majority-rule nations; nonetheless, the U.S. has a liberal vote-based presidential system contrasted with the parliamentary system used in India. Even the political decision measure is more diverse in the United States when found in light of the Indian popular government. The United States has a president as their leader, while India has a prime minister. Relative legislative issues encourage us to comprehend these central contracts and how the two nations are altogether different regardless of being majority rule. This field of study is critical for the fields of international relations and conflict resolution. Near politics encourages international relations to clarify worldwide legislative issues and the present winning conditions worldwide. Although both are subfields of political science, comparative politics examines the causes of international strategy and the effect of worldwide approaches and frameworks on homegrown political conduct and working.

Harry H. Eckstein traces the history of the field of comparative politics back to Aristotle, and sees a string of thinkers from Machiavelli and Montesquieu, to Gaetano Mosca and Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels, on to James Bryce - with his Modern Democracies (1921) - and Carl Joachim Friedrich - with his Constitutional Government and Democracy (1937) - contributing to its history.[9]

Philippe C. Schmitter argues that the "family tree" of comparative politics has two main traditions: one, invented by Aristotle, that he calls "sociological constitutionalism"; a second, that he traced back to Plato, that he calls "legal constitutionalism"".[10]

Gerardo L. Munck offers the following periodization for the evolution of modern comparative politics, as a field of political science - understood as an academic discipline - in the United States:[12]

While many researchers, research regimes, and research institutions are identified according to the above categories or foci, it is not uncommon to claim geographic or country specialization as the differentiating category.

The division between comparative politics and international relations is artificial, as processes within nations shape international processes, and international processes shape processes within states.[14][15][16] Some scholars have called for an integration of the fields.[17][18] Comparative politics does not have similar "isms" as international relations scholarship.[19]

While the name of the subfield suggests one methodological approach (the comparative method), political scientists in comparative politics use the same diversity of social scientific methods as scientists elsewhere in the field, including experiments,[20] comparative historical analysis,[21] case studies,[22] survey methodology, and ethnography.[23] Researchers choose a methodological approach in comparative politics driven by two concerns: ontological orientation[24] and the type of question or phenomenon of interest.[25]

Since the turn of the century, many students of comparative politics have compared units within a country. Relatedly, there has been a growing discussion of what Richard O. Snyder calls the "subnational comparative method."[27]

The study of comparative politics has been primarily concerned thus far with the formal institutions of foreign governments, particularly of Western Europe. In this sense it has been not only limited but also primarily descriptive and formalistic. Its place in the field of political science has been ill-defined. Is the student of comparative politics properly concerned primarily with description of the formal institutions of various polities, or with undertaking comparisons? If with the latter, what is the meaning of comparison? Is it confined to the description of differences in various institutional arrangements? If comparison is to be something more than description of formal institutional differences, what are its aims, scope, and methods? Should the student of comparative politics attempt to compare total configurations? If not, then he has to develop a precise notion of what can be isolated from the total configuration of a system or systems and compared.

In general, two points of view were expressed throughout the seminar discussions. The first saw the need of a conceptual scheme that not only precisely defines the categories under which data may be collected, but also indicates the criteria of relevance to be adopted and the variables that are to be related hypothetically for the purpose of comparative study. According to the other view, given the present state of comparative studies, comparability ought to be derived primarily from the formulation of problems with limited and manageable proportions. This disagreement should not obscure the area of agreement reached by the members of the seminar.

The members of the seminar, therefore, substantially rejected the arguments in favor of uniqueness, and argued that comparison between institutions not only is possible but may eventually provide, through a multiple approach, a general theory of politics and a general theory of political change. Before this development can be realized, the following research approaches should be emphasized and undertaken in as orderly a way as possible: (1) elaboration of a tentative and even rough classificatory scheme or schemes; (2) conceptualization at various levels of abstraction, preferably at the manageable level of the problem-oriented approach; (3) formulation of single hypotheses or hypothetical series that may be suggested by the formulation of either a classificatory scheme or sets of problems; (4) constant reference of hypotheses to empirical data for the purpose of falsification and the formulation of new hypotheses.

But the legitimacy myth only defines the conditions of obedience. Within its framework there is the political process itself, through which numerous groups having political aspirations (policy-aspiration groups and power-aspiration groups) strive for recognition and elevation to the position of legitimacy. The factors that determine which power-aspiration group is to be invested with legitimacy, to the exclusion of all others, are the effective power factors in the system.

3a8082e126