Transcript Slide 1

Lecture 2
The Comparative Method
Why and how to
compare countries;
description –
classification –
hypothesis-testing –
prediction
problems of
comparisons
Objectives
to know and understand the basics of the
comparative method; its applications; its
scope and limitations
Research traditions in comparative
politics
Early example of CP:
Aristotle’s Politics (350 BC): compared
constitutions of Greek city states
Growth in the Discipline Post WW2:



Doubling of Independent states
south-east Asia, Middle East, north Africa and Africa
south of the Sahara
WE since 1990: more than a dozen new cases for
comparing liberal-democracy
SUBJECT and METHOD
Comparative Politics as a Subject

Examines domestic politics and government within
numerous countries, whereas international politics
looks at relations between different countries.
Comparative Politics as a Method


Comparative political analysis
Various ways of analysis
Trends in the Comparative Discipline
Jean Blondel Comparative Government
Three main phases in the study of CP:
1. Constitutionalist phase (Aristotle –
1900s)
2. Behaviouralist phase (1940s-1960s)
3. Institutionalist phase (1970s-)
Why compare?
What does a comparative approach bring to
the study of politics?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Knowledge
Classification
Formulate and test hypotheses
Generalisations and predictions
Hague and Harrop 2001; Landman 2003
1. Knowledge
the simplest and the best reason
In 1925, Munro described the purpose as
aiding’ the comprehension of daily news
from abroad’.
Background information about foreign
governments not only helps to interpret
new developments, it also enables us to
view our own country in a fresh light.
2. Classifications
The classification of executives into
presidential and parliamentary types,
allows to look at the origins and effects of
each.
Comparative method allows to observe
variations of a concept or model
Without a classification of governments,
we have nothing to explain
3. Formulate and test hypotheses
We can develop and scrutinize questions as:


Do plurality electoral systems always produce a twoparty system?
Do revolutions only occur after a country has suffered
defeat in war?
Without comparison we would lack general
knowledge of politics and therefore the ability to
explain particular observations.
‘You cannot be scientific if you are not
comparing’. The American political scientist James Coleman
4. Generalisations can generate predictions
Example:

If we find that the plurality method of election always
produces a two-party system, we can predict that
countries which switch to this formula will probably
witness a fall in the number of parties represented in
their parliaments.
Studying one case leads to studying several
cases, upon which a theory can be built
A theory allows to explain singular cases again
Additional benefits
To help us address the
counterfactuals – ‘what if…?’
to avoid ethnocentrism
Mackie and Marsh, 1995; Dogan and Pelasy, 1990
The difficulties of comparison
a) Conceptual stretching
b) interdependence
c) too many variables too few cases
d) selection bias
Cases, units of observation,
variables, and observations
Cases: The countries that we study
(France, Nicaragua, Egypt)
Units of observation: The `things’ that we
study (trade unions)
Variables: The features of the `things’ that
can vary (legal status, membership
figures)
Observations: The data points (CGT in
France 1982)
a) Conceptual stretching
Countries must be compared against a common
concept but the meaning of that concept may
itself vary:

The connotation of ‘national pride’ differs considerably
between, say, Germany and, Greece
Analyzing political behavior across countries
depends on the conventions of the country
concerned

E.g. an EP voting against his/her own government
Use more abstract concepts
b) Interdependence
Countries do not develop separately from each
other
They copy, compete with, influence and
(sometimes) invade each other in a constant
process of interaction



The spread of Napoleon’s Code Civil
The impact of industrialization
The impact of the European Union (Europeanization)
Galton’s problem: the difficulty of testing whether
similarities between nations are caused by
diffusion across countries or alternatively by
parallel but independent development
c) Too many variables, too few countries
a major problem for scholars:
The small-N problem (not enough cases at
hand)
Only a handful of cases in WE politics
How can we isolate one factor to test our
hypothesis?


E.g. Why do we find the strongest communist parties
in France and Italy?
Possible answers: strong catholic church OR late
inclusion of working class into political process OR
Both
For more valid explanations more cases would
be necessary, but are simply not there
c) Too many variables, too few countries
Often a problem even if the number of cases
exceeds the number of variables:
Variables must indeed vary over countries
Does PR lead to multi-party systems?
Cannot be tested if all countries have PR and
a MPS, no matter how many countries are
compared
d) Selection bias
when the choice of what to study, or even how to study
it, produces unrepresentative results
when generalizations cover only a small number of
countries
often an unintended consequence of a process of case
selection that is arbitrary but not truly random:

E.g. choosing countries which speak the same language, or
which we have personal relations/experiences with,
The result is that findings of comparative politics are
often weighted


toward consolidated developed democracies (actually a rare
form of polity in the expanse of human history)
Large, powerful countries.
Only covering a large number of countries reduces the
selection bias risk.
If the study covers all countries, selection bias
disappears
Further Pitfalls of Comparing
Pitfalls:
1. Description is not Comparison (Macridis, 1955)
2. The persistence of ‘Cultural Idiosyncrasies’
(Mayer, 1972; Ragin, 1987)
3. Trade-off between number of cases and level
of detail
4. Ecological and individual fallacies
Ecological Fallacy
Support for the Extreme Right in the
German General Election of 1990
concentrated in areas with high proportion
of foreigners
Conclusion: Foreigners supported the
Extreme Right – WRONG
Lesson: Do not use macro level data for
inferences about micro level behaviour
Individual Fallacy
Do not use micro data to make statements about
the macro level
Unless macro features are analytical, i.e. simply
aggregate measures
Does a prevalence of individual authoritarian
attitudes render a society authoritarian?


Yes if `society’ is defined as distribution of individual
features (cf. Almond/Verba)
No if `society’ includes institutions, works of art etc.
Case study: Causes of a Revolution
Hypothesis:
"Revolution is caused by the combination of three
factors:
1. High income inequality,
2. conflict within the governing group,
3. defeat in war."
Whenever and wherever "1", "2", and "3" are present
revolution will occur – a comparative (general)
statement.
Method of Agreement
Case 1
a
b
c
d
e
f
Case 2
Revolution
a
b
c
g
h
i
Revolution
Method of Difference
Case 1
Case 2
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
d
e
f
g
Revolution
No Revolution
Strategies for Comparison
For large number of cases, use regression or
other statistical techniques
For small number of cases


Method of differences leads to Most Similar Systems
Design (MSSD, popular in area studies)
Method of agreement leads to Most Different Systems
Design (MDSD)
Both methods focus on one key explanatory
variable, others constant or varied
Useful, but cannot overcome the basic problem
of small n (third variables)
MSSD vs. MDSD
Compare how?
Case studies:
Representative cases –the study of a typical,
standard example of a wider category.
Prototypical cases – a topic is chosen not
because it is representative but because it is
expected to become so
Deviant case –to cast light on the exceptional
and the untypical; can provide the variation
without which well-founded explanation is
impossible
Crucial case – seeks initial support for a theory
by testing it in favorable conditions.
Conclusion
The comparative method is both a subject
and a method
It allows the researcher to gain knowledge
on other countries/systems, to provide
classifications, to test hypotheses and to
make predictions
The advantage of the method is surplus
knowledge compared to single case
studies