What is Comparative Politics? › uploads › 8 › 1 › 5 › 7 › ...(1) Monday, 3 February...

1Discover the world at Leiden University

What is Comparative Politics?

Kevin Koehler, PhD | Leiden University Spring 2020

2

Prologue: What is Comparative Politics?

Political Science

Political Theory

Comparative Politics

International Relations

Comparative Politics as subfield

The social scientific study of political activity and behavior

Studies the philosophical

foundations of politics:

What is a good polity?

The systematic study of domestic politics across

different cases.

How do political systems function?

Studies politics among states and non-state

actors on the international stage.

How do states interact with each other?

3

Prologue: What is Comparative Politics?

Comparative Politics as method

Why are some countries democracies while others are not?

Democratic countries tend to be wealthy

Non-democratic countries tend to be poor

Seymour M Lipset (1959):“The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.”

4

Ground Rules• The basis for the exam are the readings and the lectures• Readings consist of material from the textbook in addition to three academic articles

which you will work with in the workgroups• All class presentations will be made available to you on blackboard• You are nevertheless encouraged to take notes during the lecture• Use the review sessions to ask for clarifications• Do not hesitate to also ask questions during the lecture• In the beginning of each lecture, I will give you a number of objectives• A good way of keeping up with the lecture is to ask yourselves after each lecture whether

you have achieved the objectives• If not, go back to the readings, the slides, or ask me during our meetings• The workgroups are linked to the lecture, but they are not where you revise the material

we cover here. If you have questions, ask me!

5

Grading Rules• The final grades are composed of two basic elements:

• 60% final exam- multiple choice

- 24 March 2020

- Re-sit: 9 June 2020

• 40% Workgroup- Assignment 1: 40%

- Assignment 2: 40%

- Participation: 20%

6

How to Do Well?• Carefully read the textbook and articles before the respective session• Take notes while reading, ask if the lecture does not answer your question• Review the objectives after the lecture: Do you feel you reached the objectives?• Take note of questions you might have. You can always ask during the lecture—larger

issues will be dealt with during the review sessions

7

What to expect?Week # Date Topic Readings

6(1) Monday, 3 February Course Intro: Comparative Politics HHM, Chapters 1 - 3

(2) Thursday, 6 February The State HHM, Chapter 4

7(3) Monday, 10 February Democracy and Democratization HHM, Chapter 5;

(4) Thursday, 14 February Authoritarian Rule and Backsliding HHM, Chapter 6 Levistky& Way (2002)

8(5) Monday, 17 February Political Participation HHM, Chapters 12 and 13

(6) Thursday, 20 February Parties and Party Systems HHM, Chapter 16; Mair (2006)

9(7) Monday, 24 February Elections and Electoral Behavior HHM, Chapters 15 and 17

(8) Thursday, 27 February Review Session I

10(9) Monday, 2 March Constitutions and Courts HHM, Chapter 7; Hirschl

(2002)

(10) Thursday, 5 March Legislative-Executive Relations HHM, Chapter 8 and 9

11(11) Monday, 9 March Multilevel Governance HHM, Chapter 11

(12) Thursday, 12 March Interest Groups and Social Movements HHM, Chapters 18

12(13) Monday, 16 March Political Economy HHM, Chapter 20

(14) Thursday, 19 March Review Session IITuesday, 24 March Exam

Tuesday, 9 June Re-Sit Exam

8

Objectives

After this lecture, you should be able to

1. Define and outline the differences between the key concepts of politics, power, and authority

2. Recognize different theoretical approaches in comparative politics and discuss the role of comparison

9

Agenda1. Key Concepts

1. Why government?2. Politics, power and authority

2. Comparative Politics: Approaches and Methods

1. Four stories about political change2. Governments3. Political systems4. Regimes5. States

10

Why Government?

11

Please go to: http://ivp_intro.presenterswall.nl

12

What is Politics?

13

What is Power?

14

Power vs Authority

Authority is rightful rule, i.e. domination accepted as legitimate by the ruled.

Weber distinguished three types of authority:1) Traditional2) Charismatic3) Legal-rational

15

Please go to: http://ivp_intro.presenterswall.nl

17

Theoretical Approaches

18

Why Theory?

19

Why Theory?“Theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes or effects of classes of phenomena” (Stephen van Evera 1997, 7-8)

Theory supports explanatory reasoning: What are plausible explanations?2

Theory serves as a filter: Which element(s) of reality are important, which are not?1

Theory enables (cautious and probabilistic) prediction: Is likely to happen next?3

20

Basic Notions“Theories are general statements that describe and explain the causes or effects of classes of phenomena” (Stephen van Evera 1997, 7-8)

A B For example: Economic development causes democracy

The claim that A causes B is a hypothesis

A and B are both variables; they can take on different values (e.g. levels of income or democracy)

In this example, A is the independent variable (the cause), while B is the dependent variable (the effect): the effect depends on the cause

22

Why Compare?

Experimental controlWe design an experiment such that we can observe what happens if we vary one variable while holding all others constant

Statistical controlWe mathematically estimate the effect of a change in a variable given the variation in other (control) variables

Comparative controlWe carefully select cases in order to eliminate potential alternative explanations Arend Lijphart

23

Comparative Research Methods

24

Single Case Studies

According to Lijphart, there are different single case studies:

1) A-theoretical (description)2) Interpretative (application)3) Hypothesis building (formation)4) Theory infirming or confirming (test)5) Deviant case study (refinement)

Arend Lijphart

25

Comparative Research MethodsJohn Stuart Mill (1806-1873)- Method of agreement:

“If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon.”- Method of difference:

“If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance save one in common, that one occurring only in the former; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.”- Method of concomitant variation:

“Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation.”

26

Most Dissimilar Systems Design

• Mill’s method of agreement• Cases vary in everything except the outcome and

the cause - (cause and outcome “agree”)

• Example: Theda Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions

27

Comparative Research MethodsJohn Stuart Mill (1806-1873)- Method of agreement:

“If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon.”- Method of difference:

“If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance save one in common, that one occurring only in the former; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.”- Method of concomitant variation:

“Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation.”

28

Most Similar Systems Design

• Mill’s method of difference• Cases are similar in all respects except the

cause and the outcome- (Cause and outcome both “differ”)

• Example: Peter Evans in Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation

29

Comparative Research MethodsJohn Stuart Mill (1806-1873)- Method of agreement:

“If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon.”- Method of difference:

“If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs, and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance save one in common, that one occurring only in the former; the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or cause, or a necessary part of the cause, of the phenomenon.”- Method of concomitant variation:

“Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner, is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation.”

30

Scatterplots, Correlation, and Regression Lines

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

-11-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Wea

lth

Democracy

Saudi Arabia

United StatesNetherlands

MoroccoEgypt

IndiaPhilippines

Qatar

31

Historical Methods

Why do institutions differ?

Example: Ruth Berins Collier and David Collier (1992): Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement and Regime Dynamics in Latin America.

Main question: What explains differences in political regimes across Latin America?

Argument: Differences in the initial incorporation of the working classes created lasting legacies.

32

Historical Institutionalism

Emergence of labor movement raises the

“social question”

Mobilization of labor by a political party

Electoral mobilization by a traditional party

Militarization of the state: Colombia and

Uruguay

Labor populism (electoral mobilization +

organizational links)

Stalemated party system; coups likely: Argentina and Peru

Radical populism (electoral mobilization +

organizational links + incorporation of

peasantry)

Integrative party system; long-term

stability: Mexico and Venezuela

Labor incorporation by the state

Multi-party polarizing system; coups likely:

Brazil and Chile

The historical argument:

Critical Juncture Production Legacy

33Discover the world at Leiden University

Questions?