Comparing Political Systems

1. Comparing Political Systems

2. Why Compare • To develop perspective on the mix of constants and variability which characterize the world’s governments and the contexts in which they operate • Comparison is fundamental to all thought and constitutes the methodological core of the scientific method • It is the only way to fully understand one’s own political system.

3. Why Compare • In societies researchers cannot design and perform experiments and observe the effects. • Examples: (1) Social Revolution – could never start one and attempt to observe the outcome. (2) Military escalation – could not initiate an escalation simply to see if it would lead to war.

4. Comparison Allows … • The description and explanation of different combinations of political institutions and events across societies. • Eg: comparison of democracies – what combination of conditions and characteristics are associated with that form of government? • Encourages the development of theories of political relationships – which are testable via comparisons of the experiences of many institutions and settings.

5. How to Compare • Description, explanation, prediction • Stage One: Description • Need a conceptual framework • Stage Two: Explanation • Identify relationships between political phenomena • Stage Three: Prediction • Putting political relationships in causal terms to systematically identify causes and effects of relationships.

6. How to Compare • Conceptual frameworks, relationships and causality = theory building and testing. • Research question: what is the relationship between democracy and peace? • Theoretical construct: countries are peaceful because they are democratic • Causal relationships/statements: • Only authoritarian governments start wars. • Democracy guarantees peace • Authoritarian governments tend to be more warlike than democracies.

7. Theories • An interrelated set of hypotheses that express a relationship between variables. • Theories are testable and falsifiable • Theories can never be “proved” they can fail to be falsified. • “God created the earth” is a statement of faith not necessarily a theory of creation. • Why?

8. Good theories • Theories are good when they hold up (or fail to be falsified) to repeated testing. • Eg: anthropology – the study of the fossil record – the entire discipline dedicated to testing the theory of evolution (in one sense). • Theories are more or less testable in the comparative context when we can examine a number of cases • Large N versus Small N studies • Sufficient number and variety of cases to allow a full examination of the relationships between variables…versus the absence of this.

9. Comparative Methodological Approaches • Case Study • intensive study of a single instance • Provides a detailed account of an episode or theme falling into a wider category • Focused Comparisons • intensive comparison of a few instances • Statistical Approaches • quantitative assessment of the impact of variables

10. Statistical versus Case studies • Statistical studies are large N studies. • Statistical studies allow precise numeric explanation of variable relationships. • Case studies are small N studies. • Case studies allow in-depth understanding of variables and their relationships. • Case studies allow better hypothesis testing at the statistical level (eg; have we developed the best hypothesis for testing?).

11. Problems with Comparison • Conceptual Stretching • Concepts are not equal across societies • Functional equivalents exist and must be identified (coup vs election). • Selection Bias • Tendency is to study what we know (west) • Problems emerge with our ability to generalize • Too Many Variables, Too Few Countries • 180 states • All 180 are different • Interdependence • Model of statehood diffused from Europe • Historic transitions: industrialization>colonialism>decolonialism>democratization>marketization>globalization

12. Conceptual Frameworks: Systems • Structural-Functional approach • Identify the system, the structures and the functions of structures • Political systems are comprised of sets of institutions interacting to formulate the collective goals of a society. Governments form the policymaking elements of these systems (separate from members of society).

13. Conceptual Frameworks: Structure • Governments have component parts – agencies or STRUCTURES • Parliaments • Bureaucracies • Administrative agencies • Courts Policies are the goals; structures are the means Political Regimes: the structural-functional configuration of governments at different times.

14. Conceptual Frameworks: Functions • Functions – the service or activity performed by the component of the political system • Is structural-functionalism a strong approach to political analysis? • Biased in favor of status quo? • Allows application despite space and time • Does not provide the why (explanation is absent) • Provides the foundational information about systems without which researchers cannot begin to formulate and answer to the Why question.

15. Functions (notes and implications) • Function implies both direct and indirect purpose • System Functions: • Political socialization, recruitment, communication (comparison is possible across these variables) • Process Functions: • Interest articulation, interest aggregation, interest adjudication • Policy Functions: • Impact on society, economy, culture; interaction with international environment, extraction, regulation of behavior, distribution

16. The Policy Level • Performance, outcome and evaluation • Is the policy relevant to the needs/interests of society • Evaluation of performance • Response to value change • Degree of stability or adaptability