Comparative Politics 8_31

What is Comparative Politics? - CP is the subfield of Political Science, which is the systematic study of politics - Other subfields: International Relations, Political Theory, American politics, Public Law - CP focuses mainly on power and decision-making within national boundaries - Comparison is key; CP examines political phenomena in more than one place and during more than one period to develop a generalized understanding of and explanations for political activity that seem to apply to many different situations Why study comparative Politics? - To understand political events and developments in various countries, which can help formulate better foreign policy - To be able to provide systematic comparison of different political systems and events to generate important lessons that can apply in other places - To develop broad theories about how politics works. - Empirical Theory - Normative Theory How do Comparativists study politics? - Perfect scientific conditions do not exist; no controlled laboratory - Research Methods: systematic processes used to ensure that the study of phenomena is as objective and unbiased as possible; each research method has its own advantages and disadvantages - Single case study : a particular phenomenon in just one country or community - Can generate new ideas for new theories or can test existing theories developed from different cases - Cannot provide a definitive proof - Can deepen our knowledge about particular countries - Comparative method : examining the same phenomenon in several cases - The most similar system design: cases that are alike in a number of ways but different on key question under examination - The most different system design: cases that differ in many ways but are similar in the terms of the particular process or outcome under study (like revolution - common) - Quantitative statistical method : When evidence can be reduced to sets of numbers, statistical methods can be used to systematically compare a huge number of cases - Provide little depth - Can only work for questions involving evidence that can be quantified - In recent years, use of mixed methods is more desirable - CP can never be a true science: no universal and unchanging laws; normative positions influence the questions we ask What are the key questions in Comparative Politics? - What explains political behavior? - Who rules? Who has power in a particular country, institution, or political situation and

why? - Where and why do particular types of political behavior occur? Rational Choice Theory : Individuals are rational and that they bring a set of self-defined preferences into the political arena. Borrows heavily from the field of economics, which makes the same assumptions in analyzing behavior in the market Seek to explain group behavior: Political scientists use this theory to explain political behavior and its results by making assumptions about political actors’ preferences, modeling the political context in which they pursue those preferences, and demonstrating how political outcomes can be explained as the result of the interactions of those actors in that context. They model group behavior from their assumptions about the preferences of individual members of groups. Group behavior is considered a result of the collective actions of rational individual actors in the group in a particular context. Can’t explain preferences in advance so can’t predict political behavior in advance. Many comparativists also ask whether rational choice theories can explain the different political behaviors seen around the world. Psychological theories also focus on individual interests but question the assumption of rational action and are particularly interested in how political preferences are formed. They explain political behavior on the basis of individuals’ psychological experiences or dispositions. Comparativists who study individual leaders have long used this approach, trying to explain leaders’ choices and actions by understanding personal backgrounds and psychological states. More recently, political scientists have examined the role of emotions in explaining political behavior. Psychological theories are often interested in the third dimension of power: influences on the formation of individual political demands. Critics of the psychological approach argue that the inherent focus on the individual that is

questioning the assumption that one clear set of values can be identified that has a clear meaning to all members of a society. Political discourse: meaning the ways in which a society speaks and writes about politics. They argue that a culture has a set of symbols that, through a particular historical process, has come to be highly valued but is always subject to varying interpretations. Criticism: Postmodernists respond that the discourses themselves matter by setting symbolic boundaries within which political actors must engage to mobilize political support. The ability of political leaders to interpret these symbols to develop support for themselves and their policies is a central element to understanding political activity in any country. Political ideology: A systematic set of beliefs about how a political system ought to be structured. Political ideologies typically are quite powerful, overarching worldviews that incorporate both normative and empirical theories that explicitly state an understanding of how the political world does operate and how it ought to operate. Political ideology is distinct from political culture in that it is much more consciously elaborated. Advocates proclaim their vision: of just and good society. Conscious and well-developed sets of beliefs: Comparativists Evelyne Huber and John Stephens (2001), for instance, argued that the strength of social democratic ideology in several northern European governments partly explains why those states have exceptionally generous welfare policies. Underlying motives of ideology: as the real explanation for political behavior: Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1971) argued ideology is a means by which the ruling class convinces the population that its rule is natural, justified, or both (see the “Who Rules?” section on page 00 for a discussion of the ruling class). Clearly, this ties directly to the third dimension of power. Structuralism: Structuralists argue that broader structures in a society at the very least influence and limit, and perhaps even determine, political behavior. Marxism: Karl Marx argues that economic structures largely determine political behavior. Karl Marx contended that the production process of any society creates discrete social classes groups of people with distinct relationships to the means of production. Key classes: Bourgeoisie: owns and controls capital. Proletariat: owns no capital and must sell its labor to survive. Economic structure explains political behavior: The bourgeoisie uses its economic advantage to control the state in its interest, and the proletariat will eventually recognize and act on its own,

opposing interests. These groups are acting on their interests, but those interests are determined by the underlying economic structure. Institutionalism: Institutionalists argue that political institutions are crucial to understanding political behavior. Political institution: most commonly defined as a set of rules, norms, or standard operating procedures that is widely recognized and accepted and that structures and constrains political actions. Major political institutions often serve as the basis for key political organizations such as legislatures or political parties. Can be informal or even outside government. Rational choice institutionalists: follow the assumptions of rational choice theory outlined earlier. They argue that institutions are the products of the interaction and bargaining of rational actors and, once created, constitute the rules of the game within which rational actors operate, at least until their interests diverge too far from those rules. Barry Weingast (1997), for instance, claimed that for democracies to succeed, major political forces must come to a rational compromise on key political institutions that give all important political players incentives to support the system. Rational choice institutionalists argue that political actors will abide by a particular institution only as long as it continues to serve their interests. Therefore, a changed context requires institutions to change accordingly or face dissolution. By looking at institutions and their effects, however, they often include the second dimension of power in their analyses, in contrast to the rational choice theorists mentioned earlier who focus solely on the first dimension of power. Historical institutionalists: Institutions play an even bigger role in explaining political behavior. They argue that institutions not only limit self-interested political behavior but also influence who is involved in politics and shape individual political preferences, thus working in all three dimensions of power. By limiting who is allowed to participate, institutions can determine what a government is capable of accomplishing. Strong executive and coherent party system: Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman (1995), for example, argued that two key institutions, a strong executive and a coherent party system shaped political participation in ways that allowed certain countries in Latin America and East Asia to respond positively to economic crises in the 1980s and 1990s, improving their economies and creating stable democracies. Criticism: institutions are rarely actual explanation for political behavior. Interests, beliefs, and structures: are used to analyze the same political event. Pluralist Theories: contend that society is divided into various political groups and that power is dispersed among them so that no group has complete or permanent power. When pluralists look at political groups, however, they look at far more than just parties. 9/7/22

- He argued that in practice most legitimate authority is the combination of the three - Bureaucracy - A large set of appointed officials whose function is to implement laws - Bureaucracy central to modern state and rational-legal legitimacy - Effective bureaucracy strengthens sovereignty - Weak legitimacy and weak bureaucracy are two key causes of state weakness in the contemporary world Historical Origins of Modern States Modern States in Europe - Feudal states (prior to 1500) - Distinct from modern states: feudal states neither claimed nor had undisputed sovereignty - At the heart: relationship between the lord and vassal: piece of land in exchange for tax and political/military loyalty - Involved multiple and overlapping sovereignties: individuals subject to the sovereignty of not only their immediate lord but also at least one higher lord & often others - Catholic Church claimed a separate universal religious sovereignty Modern States in Europe - Absolutism (1500-1848) - Rule by a single monarch who claimed complete, exclusive sovereignty over a territory and its people - Had rudimentary forms of bureaucracy: standing army, diplomatic service, taxation - Legitimacy based on tradition and heredity. State and monarch not separated (“The state, it is me”). - Competition among absolutist states helped create modern nations. States that survived were those that had developed more effective systems of taxation, more efficient bureaucracies, stronger militaries, public education - Glorious Revolution in Britain in 1688, French Revolution 1789, New Democratic Republics 1848 - Modern state emerged as the state came to be separated from the ruler - Liberalism provided the theoretical justification for limiting power of the officials to ensure rights of the individual - Subjects were transformed into citizens of the state Premodern States Outside Europe - Outside Europe, premodern states existed What are we learning about? - Relationship between a state and its people - Political regimes , with formal and informal institutions that define the type of

government, shape that relationship between a state and citizens - Regimes can be defined/justified based on their distinct political ideologies , which are normative claims about the appropriate relationship between the state and people (balance between freedom and equality - Who should be allowed to participate, how should they participate, how much power and what kind of rights should they have? Liberal Democracy - Definitions of democracy vary - Liberalism produced social contract theory (Hobbes, Locke, Montesquiee, Rousseau) - In the original state of nature all men lived freely - Only government could be justified (legitimate) was one where free and autonomous individuals join in a contract to permit representatives to govern over them in their common interests - Central Doctrine : all citizens should be considered free and equal; government will arise only if it preserves core liberties: life, liberty, and property - Key characteristics: - Limited government enhances individual freedoms - REpresentative democracy as a universal form of liberla governance - Key guarantees (Robert Dahl) : freedom of association, expression, righ to vote, broad citizen eligibility for public office, free and fair elections, institutions depend on votes - Liberal democracy is NOT the only form of democracy COMMUNSIM -Marxism: economics determines politics - Historical materialism: the assertion that material (economic) forces are tehe prime movers of history and politics> As material forces in society change so too will the political, social, and ideological systems Liberal democracy: shift from feudalism to capitalism; Liberal rights are “equal rights for unequal people”; serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, capitalism’s ruling class - All modes of production ultiately create contradictions they cannot overcome, leading to social revolution - Proletariats would lead the revolution - Socialism: 1st (transitional) stage of revolution: dictatorship of the proletariat - Private property and a profit-based economy would be replaced with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of productions (mines, mills, factories) and the natural resources of a society - Communism: inevitable and final stage of human historical evolution - Classless, egalitarian society would emerge: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (communist utopia) - Political opposition and civil society would no longer be needed

as Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire, achieved notable economic progress, while many others did not - Military Regimes : frequently took power in postcolonial states via coup d’etat; they often justified elimination of the previous government in terms of modernizing authoritarianism. Often citing prolonged economic stagnation or growing social unrest as their impetus, military leaders argued that they would “clean up the mess” of the prior government and get the country at least started down the road to development before returning it to civilian and democratic rule, 9/19/22 Importance of identity politics - Why do identities emerge and how/why do they become salient? - How do IP affect the relations between the state and people within society? - What are the different political issues? - An individual’s social identity indicates who they are in terms of the groups to which they belong - Identity groups are based on the physical, social, and mental characteristics of individuals - Identity politics typically revolve around groups based on nationalism, ethnicity, class, religion, gender, and sexual orientation - Why do states care about identity politics? - Political impact and importance of identity groups (their political salience) vary widely across countries and over time. Understanding identity - Primordialists see identity groups as ‘natural’ or ‘God-given’ and as having existed since time immemorial - Constructivists argue that the complex process of social construction creates identities - Imagined communities: they exist because people believe they do; people come to see themselves as parts of particular communities based on particular traits - Elites mobilize people using the discourse and symbols of any one of several identities in a particular time and place. - Interpretation and reinterpretation of symbols and stories through families, the media, public education,; the state plays an important role in this process What do identity groups demand from the state? - Legal equality not enough - Other policies are needed: - Recognize and actively support the preservation of distinct cultures - Grant some degree of governing autonomy to particular groups - Reform representative institutions such as electoral systems and political parties to enhance or guarantee participation and representation for members of particular groups

- Actively intervene to improve the socioeconomic status of distinct groups, usually via government intervention in the market Different approaches to identity demands - Assimilation: - The goal of eventually integrating immigrant or other minority cultures into the larger culture of the whole society; it is criticized for failing to guarantee equal rights and participation - Multicultural integration: - Accepts that ethnocultural identities matter to citizens, will endure over time, and must be recognized and accommodated within institutions. - Consociationalism : - Accepts ethnically or religiously divided groups and political parties and grants each some share of power in the central government. Switzerland, Northern Ireland, and Belgium are examples of this system. Arguments against group rights - Can respecting cultural differences undermine individual rights? Are there cultural practices that violate fundamental rights? - “Special” group rights or preferences undermine the norm of equal citizenship, serve to perpetuate a group’s distinct and therefore unequal position, and threaten the common identity and bonds on which citizenship and national identity are based. - Classical liberal position: - Only individuals can have rights - Group rights undermine political stability and democracy NATIONALISM - What is a nation? Is it an “imagined community”? Did the state create the nation or the nation the state? - What is the relationship between nationalism and liberal democracy? Can the two be compatible with each other? Different Types of Nationalisms - Cultural Nationalism: national unity based on a common cultural heritage - Legal definition of citizenship based on jus sanguinus : blood rather than residence - Civic Nationalism: automatic citizenship regardless of cultural differences - Legal citizenship based on jus soli : residence on the state’s soil