Download Introduction to Comparative Politics

Intro to Comparative Politics
Sept. 22
Lecture Overview

Focus of comparative politics

The “science” of political science?

Quick history of comparative politics
Focus of Comparative
Politics
What is the focus of comparative
politics?
Focus of Comparative Politics
Internal Power Structures:
“Comparative politics does not ignore external
influences on internal structures, but its
ultimate concern is power configurations
within [political] systems” (Caramani, 2008:
3).
Focus of Comparative Politics
often simply means studying foreign
countries
- the use of case studies
- area specialists
It need not be explicitly comparative.
The editor of our textbook doesn’t endorse
such an approach (Caramani, 2008: 4).
-
Focus of Comparative Politics
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, in fact, need not be the unit of
analysis, sub-national regional political units
or supra-national units may be the focus.
The “science” of political science?
“the intent of comparative politics is that of a
rigorous scientific and empirical field of study:
description, explanation, and prediction
(Caramani, 2008: 20).
Is political science a science?
Do social sciences differ from natural sciences?
How and why?
The “science” of political science?
Daniele Caramani suggests (2008: 3) that,
“Whereas political theory deals with
normative questions (about equality,
democracy, justice, etc.), comparative politics
deals with empirical questions.”
 “Even though comparative political scientists
are of course concerned also by normative
questions, the discipline as such is empirical
and value-neutral”
The “science” of political science?

Is it possible to create a value-free or ‘neutral’
political science?

Is it desirable to create a value-free or
‘neutral’ political science?
Origins of comparative politics

Plato and Aristotle, while usually considered
political theorists, were engaged in the
process of comparing different political
regimes:

aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny
Origins of comparative politics
Modern comparative politics can be traced
back to (among others):
 Machiavelli, The Prince, 1532.
 Montesquieu, On the Spirit of the Laws, 1748
 Alexis de Tocqueville, On Democracy in
America, 1835
Formal-legal, institutional approach

First half of the 20th century, the emerging
discipline of political science focused on the
formal-legal institutions of the state.
Political Behaviour, Political Culture



In the 1950s and 60s, attention turned toward
the study of the political behaviour and
political attitudes of the public.
The “behavioural revolution”
This was facilitated by developments in
survey techniques and emerging
computerization. This greatly increased the
possibility for number-crunching among
social scientists.
The reaction against
the behavioural revolution

The new form of empirical political science
still has its proponents today, but by the late
1960s it was under attack from a variety of
directions and for a variety of reasons.
The Politics of
Political Science Methodology
York University, 1969:
“Fifty student radicals converged on a
meeting of the Canadian Political Science
Association…to denounce what they called
the methodology of political science.”
Protesters “walked into the Vanier College
dining hall carrying balloons, flowers and
signs denouncing [David] Easton’s systems
analysis theory.”
See: http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/pdfarchive/1969-70_v10,n06_Chevron.pdf
A Return to Institutions


By the 1980s, various scholars were
attempting to ‘bring the state back in’ to the
centre of their analysis.
This form of institutionalism often portrays
state actors as having a degree of autonomy
and different state structures as influencing
political outcomes.
B. Guy Peters, chapter 2 (next week):

The 5 ‘I’s:

Institutions,
Interests,
Ideas,
Individuals,
International environment

a bonus, 6th - interactions



