Chapter 0: Introduction to comparative politics - Caramani
One of three main fields (with political theory and international relations)
Deals with internal political structures, individual and collective actors, processes
Goal = describe, explain, predict similarities and differences
Large-scale or mini analyses, diachronic or synchronic, qualitative and quantitative
[A] INTRODUCTION
Long-term comparative study of politics
Politics = making authoritative (binding + compulsory) and public (whole society) decisions
Politics = acquiring and exercising power
[B] WHAT IS COMPARATIVE POLITICS?
1. A science of politics
Empirical: no value judgment, but classification  value-neutral
Interactions within (not between) political systems: between groups, organizations, classes, ... within
sovereign system  study of domestic politics
2. Types of comparative politics
Three different traditions:
 Study of single countries
Study of foreign countries, case studies: Spanish politics, German politics, ...
 Methodological
Establishing rules and standards of comparison
Description + prediction, conceptual – logistical – statistical techniques of analysis
 Analytical
Combination empirical and methodological: identification + explanation differences, explanatory
Description, classification, typologies, explanation, hypotheses, predictions
[C] SUBSTANCE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS
1. What is compared?
Political systems at national level compared, but also: sub-national + supra-national
Comparison of single elements or components rather than the whole system
2. From institutions to functions...
Before WW II: focus on state, institutions, bureaucracy of Western Europe and North America
1920-1960: golden age comparative politics: behavioural revolution, away from institutions
New regimes (communist, fascist) + de-colonization, couldn’t be understood in narrow categories of
western institutions  new categories + concepts: attention to ideologies, belief systems, ...
 Conditions for democratic stability? Political culture? Social capital? Traditions of authority?
1960s: Anglo-Saxon bureaucratic supremacy questioned, other forms also viable
No competition between elite but consociational pattern, amicable agreement, accommodation
Broader geographical scope and historical experiences
 Increased variety of political systems
 Agencies > institutions
 New methodology
Analysis of behaviour and roles based on empirical observation
Extensive global large-scale comparisons
Statistical techniques of analysis + systematic data collection, archives, ...
 New framework: systemic functionalism
Travelling problem: concepts and categories applied to cases different from those around which they
have originally been created  other meanings + misinterpretation
No more focus on state but general and universal categories: no more ‘state’ but ‘political system’
3. ... and back to institutions
Transcultural and transportable concepts: extreme high level of abstraction
Understanding of concrete cases impossible  counter-reaction in 1967
 Shift of substantial focus: bringing the state back in (book p.8 table I.1)
 Narrowing of geographical scope: grounded/middle-range theories
 Change of methodology: case-oriented analysis: from N to n
 Theoretical turn: rational choice theory: from sociological to economical influence
Actors are rational, order alternative options, maximize utility
Did not lead to redefinition op COP because doesn’t offer a metatheory specific to politics
Institutions constraint actor’s behaviour
[D] METHOD OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS
1. A variety of methods
Intensive or extensive – synchronic or diachronic – cross-sectional or functional – longitudinal
Similarities or differences 2. From cases to variables...
Behavioural revolution: more cases, more data, new indicators  quantitative
From intensive to extensive research, from n to N  variable-oriented
3. ... and back to cases
Back to n, case-oriented research
4. From aggregate to individual data...
Aggregate: available at some territorial level, e.g. voting results
 You don’t know who votes for whom, but you know aggregate result
Behavioural revolution: statistics may be manipulated  large data sets independent from politics
Surveys to collect individual data, computerization of data
1950: ecological fallacy: macro data say nothing about micro level
5. ... and back to aggregate data
More solid than individual-level data for long-term comparisons
[E] CONCLUSION
1. From divergence to convergence...
1950s: convergence to western liberal democracy model predicted
Now: homogenization, migration, external influence, interconnectedness, N = 1 ???
2. ... and back to divergence?
Also divergence: renewed role religions, alternative populist democracies, ...
Chapter 2: Approaches in comparative politics - Peters
[A] INTRODUCTION
Positivism: fact value distinction, observable + verifiable facts, measure, theory, hypotheses
Constructivism: facts socially embedded and constructed, no objectivity, context
[B] USES OF THEORY IN COMPARISON
Much research at micro-level to understand individual choice (e.g. rational choice theory)
But: too individualist = irrelevant, bigger picture needed
Theory necessary to interpret, predicts behaviour, ... but dare to be honest and reject them instead
of trying to find support for them
Grand theories often too general, could not produce meaningful predictions  middle-range better
 Structural functionalism: compare performance functions political system, best models
 Systems theory: structure = open system with extensive input + output (Easton)
 Marxism: class conflict due to differences political system, dictatorship proletariat
 Corporatism: central role state, social interests influence policy
 Institutionalism: structures shape politics and behaviour, normative structures
 Governance: role social actors in making and implementing decisions
[C] ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES: THE FIVE ‘I’s
1. Institutions
Understand government performance, seek to improve, focus on structures and institutions
Differences in constitutions, law, formal structures, ... to predict performance of government
Individualistic: differences due to individual choices and not due to institutional differences
Decisions are product of member’s preferences
Now revival of institutionalism:
 Normative institutionalism: institutions exist of norms + rules, shape individual behaviour
 Rational choice institutionalism: institutions = aggregate of (dis)incentives, influence choice
 Historical institutionalism: role of ideas and persistence, even when dysfunctionality
 Initial decision often persists for centuries, even when it turns out bad
Institutionalism explains persistence but not change, stability approach = big constraint
2. Interests
Interests that actors pursue through political action, ‘who gets what?’
Rational choice theory, corporatism (access interest groups to decision-making, be loyal in return)
 Less conflict than in plural systems
Now: not corporatism but rather networking (connected actors try to influence policy)
Individuals and groups define interests in terms of identity and ethnicity  consociationalism
 Elites represent different communities
Interests are basis for conflict, institutions must manage conflict
3. Ideas
Political culture influences politics, measured by surveys
Culture = tension hierarchy vs equality , liberty vs coercion, loyalty vs commitment, trust vs distrust
Grid (hierarchy) vs group (constraints due to membership group)
GROUP
GRID
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
FATALIST
EGALITARIAN
LOW
HIERARCHICAL
INDIVIDUALIST
Political ideas can be ideologies: communism, fascism
But: no clash of ideologies but of civilizations, religions, cultures, ...
4. Individuals
Importance of background, recruitment, social roots
5. International environment
Economic dependence can create political dependence, influence by UN, World Bank, NATO, ...
EU: multi-level governance, globalization, integration
6. Add a sixth I: interactions
[D] WHAT MORE IS NEEDED?
1. Political process
Explained by institutions
2. Outcomes
Impact of social and economical conditions
Ultimate variable for outcomes = governance: capacity of governments to direct societies,
establishing goals, finding means to reach goals, learn from success or failure
Chapter 3: Comparative research methods - Keman
[A] INTRODUCTION
RQ: research question RA: research answer RD: research design / method
Dependent variable: what needs to be explained << >> independent: explanatory factors
RD = bridge RQ and RA. Design should enable to answer question – answer ought to meet scientific
standards: reliable, valid, generalizable – ...
[B] THE ROLE OF VARIABLES IN LINKING THEORY TO EVIDENCE
Use of typologies, dichotomy variables, causality,
Descriptive inference: relationship independent & dependent variables based on observation, allows
generalization over and beyond the cases of the review  externally valid
Internal validity: descriptive inferences from set of cases correct for most/all cases under inspection
External: result also relevant for other cases not in the research
Trade-off: more cases included in analysis, more robust result (external), fewer cases = more
coherent conclusion for set of cases included (internal)
[C] COMPARING CASES AND CASE SELECTION
What to compare – which cases – how – how many – ...
1. Cases
Units of observation, compared at certain level of measurement : individual (unit) or group (level)
Observations: values of a variable under investigation
Two-dimensional matrix: variables in columns, cases in rows
2. Case selection
Intensive strategies: many variables, few cases (analysis few consociational democracies that exist)
Extensive strategies: few variables, many cases (analysis of welfare states)
Longitudinal analysis: if time is a relevant factor
3. The single case study
No external validity, but used for post hoc validation: check if findings hold up in more detailed
analysis or to study a deviant case, pilot for generating hypotheses, confirming theories.
4. Closed universe
Few cases compared at different points of time, based on external change (war, new law)
5. Cross-section
Several classes compared simultaneously, constant circumstances but variables vary
6. Pooled analysis
Pooling cases across time and systems  cases too much alike, no meaningful differences
[D] THE LOGIC OF COMPARISON: RELATING CASES TO VARIABLES
Most different system design (MDSD) << >> most similar system design (MSSD)
Maximize experimental variance – minimize error variance – control extraneous variance
 Experimental variance
Variance of dependent variable across cases and/or over time
No variance = impossible to tell if variable makes a difference or not
 Error variance
Random effects unmeasured variables  select variables carefully + increase number of cases
 Extraneous variance
Control extraneous variance: no control for other influences = possibility that relation is caused by
another (unknown) cause  due to omitted variables
Spurious relationship: third variable affects both independent and dependent variable
[E] THE USE OF METHODS OF AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE IN COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Book page 59 table 3.1
[F] CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD
1. Conceptual stretching
Concept developed for one set of cases, extended to another set of case with other features
Sartori’s ladder of generality: more extensive = less intensive  less validity
2. Family resemblance + radial categories
Book page 60 figure 3.4
3. Interpreting results
 Galton’s problem
Observed difference and similarities caused by exogenous factor common to all selected cases
Explanation corrupted by a common cause not included in the research answer
 Individual and ecological fallacies
Ecological: data measured on aggregated level used to explain individual or group level behaviour
Individual: vice versa
Chapter 5: Democracies - Mair
[A] INTRODUCTION
1950s: 75% not democratic, lots of variations in non-democratic regimes (now: 75% democratic)
Variations also among democracies, very large and heterogeneous group
[B] COMPARING DEMOCRACIES
1. The comparison of regimes
Majoritarian vs consensus democracy  book page 86 table 5.1
2. The third wave of democratization
Democratization in waves: 1826-1926, countered by fascism and authoritarianism in 1920s-1930s
Second wave after WW II, reversed in 1960s-1970s. Third wave from 1974 (Portugal), explosive
waves after the fall of the wall
3. Neo-institutionalism
Since 1980s: institutions as independent variables, direct impact on outcomes and behaviour,
regardless of social and economic context  lot of variation, potential capacities, different impact on
performance, effectiveness and legitimacy  why do some systems perform better than others?
[C] DEFINING DEMOCRACY
1. Procedural vs substantive democracy
Procedural definition: organisation, representation, accountability, legitimacy
 Free competition for a free vote
Substantive definition: goals + effectiveness
 Realisation of common good by making people decide through elections
2. Polyarchy
Dahl: no democracies but polyarchies: elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage,
right to run for office, freedom of expression, associational autonomy, alternative sources of info
Schmitter: democracy = system of governance, rulers are held accountable for their actions in public
domain by citizens acting indirectly through competition and cooperation of elected representatives
Thin version: democracy almost solely about elections (Schumpeter)
 Actual participation in political life by at least some of the civilians
Thick version: constitutional guarantees + control on executive power
 Enforceable set of rights and opportunities, right of association + belief + freedom expression
3. Liberal and illiberal democracy (since third wave)
Liberal democracies: polyarchy as mentioned above
Illiberal democracy: popular democracy + government by people combined with restrictions and
limitations on individual freedom and rights. Formal establishment of democratic electoral process,
but shortcoming in constitutional liberties and limits on arbitrary exercise of executive power
Strongly majoritarian, voters expected to be passive cheering audience, remarkably enduring
New democracies only democratized in terms of elections, not constitutional and in liberties
Better if first constitutional rights are established and only then participation rights
40% of countries have both nowadays (score 1-2 on Freedom House scales)
Nowadays: liberal and democratic, or illiberal and non-democratic (very few combinations left)
[D] DEVELOPING DEMOCRACY
Three milestones in development democracies: incorporation, representation, organized opposition
First two waves: achieved step by step << >> third wave: all together established
1. Incorporation
Mass citizenry admitted into political society, right to participate by voting
Restrictions before universal suffrage:
 Census voting: only wealthy people
 Capacity voting: only educated people
 Race: only white males
 (sometimes) plural voting: rich, educated people had more votes
2. Representation
Right to organize parties + participate on equal level
Voting systems proportional since success new parties, to avoid socialist dominance
3. Organized opposition
Right to appeal for votes against the government, to ‘throw the rascals out’
Achieved when executive is fully responsible to the legislature and can be dismissed by majority
Full scale alternation very rare because of coalitions in multiparty system
<< >> two-party system: total alternation very frequent, opposition clearly defined and mobilized
4. Paths of democratization
Transformation to mass democracy along two dimensions
 Liberalization: right to be represented and to mobilize opposition
 Inclusiveness: participation and voting
Inclusive hegemonies: fascist and communist regimes
Competitive oligarchy
Mass democracy
Liberalization
Closed hegemony
Inclusive hegemony
Inclusiveness
Zakaria: constitutionalism should precede participation
Otherwise, it may lead to the establishment of an illiberal democracy
Path and pace define durability and sustainability of democratization
[E] TYPOLOGIES OF DEMOCRACY
1. Majoritarian vs consensus democracies
Social and cultural divisions could be tempered by certain types of political institutions and behaviour
Working multiparty systems in e.g. Belgium control highly conflictual cleavages by consensus-seeking
Only applicable to societies with fragmented political cultures
Elite behaviour
Coalescent
Adversarial
Structure of society
Homogenous
Plural
Depoliticized democracy Consociational democracy
Centripetal democracy
Centrifugal democracy
1980s: distinction majoritarian vs consensual democracies, geographically wider applicable
 Majoritarian: limitless power to winner, exclusive power, authority hardly constrained
 Consensus: power shared, minorities included, limited by courts + chambers, decentralized
Problem: many mixed forms, very difficult to make a good typology
2. Decentralist vs centripetal democracies
Decentralist: diffusion of power, broad political participation, limits on governmental action,
separation of powers, strong limits on executive authority, fragmentation of power  USA
Centripetal: inclusive authoritative institutions, responsible party government, strong unified
government, majoritarian + PR, centralized interest groups, well-organized parties  Sweden
 Both result from mixed Lijphart’s mixed cases
3. The problems of holistic models
Attempt to model democracies as whole systems
Lijphart prefers consensus, Gerring prefers centripetal, both give same weight to different features
Problem: not one democracy is totally one type, all are mixed forms
Postcommunist democracies: wanted to build state and ensure survival at same time
 Double-headed strategy leads to different institutional arrangements
Also cross-national learning and porous borders  more and more diffusion
Democracies not closed or self-containing systems , never completely coherent systems
[F] AUDIENCE DEMOCRACY?
Widespread dissatisfaction with aspects of democracy + declining participation levels
World of politics more and more separated from world of citizenry  audience democracy
Audience moved by spectacle, but indifferent and passive
Citizens withdraw from politics, decision-making becomes more depoliticized, bigger role for judges,
banks, international organizations, EU, agencies, ...
Countered by referendums, primaries, ... ??
Chapter 6: Authoritarian regimes - Brooker
[A] INTRODUCTION
Until modern times: states ruled by authoritarian regimes; mostly hereditary monarchies
Looked primitive in competition with democracies, replaced by dictatorships by organization / leader
Personal dictatorship: leader of army (Bonaparte) or of organization (Stalin)
One-party rule claiming permanent monopoly over power: Russian Tsars, fascism  later personal
 Russian revolution (1917): Bolshevik Red Army
 Chinese revolution(46-49): rural revolution, People’s liberation army, control except Taiwan
 Iranian revolution (1979): mosque-mobilized revolution of Muslims, ayatollah Khomeini
[B] WHO RULES?
1. Dictatorial monarchs
Ruling monarch = personal dictator << >> reigning monarch = constitutional + ceremonial
Only left in Middle East, not due to tradition because created after WW I
Why endurable? Rentier state, exploit rents from oil industry, no taxes  no need for representation
Other reason: dynastic monarchies: no primogeniture, can put someone powerful in place
Very large families, engage in military, government, civil service  take all key posts
Desert democracy: lack democracy compensated, possibility to say grievances personally to monarch
2. Monarchical dictators
Personal dictators ruling for life (Mao) and succeeded by son or brother
No agents of military or party, degree of independence and autonomy  loose principal-agent
Sultanism: not ideological, buying off key persons + intimidating  privatization of public power
Presidential monarchy: personal dictators, institutionalize their rule in monarchical post of president
 Pinochet, Assad, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu
Populist presidential monarchy: autogolpe / self-coup of “elected” president
 Corrupt elections, but claims to be installed by people and to be legitimate (Chavez)
3. Military rule
Rule by distinctive organization: own uniforms, barracks, career construction, legal system
Very unstable, lifetime of years (exception: Burma)
 Open military rule
Military coup results in junta acting as country’s supreme government
 Disguised military rule
Civilianized: “ending” of military rule by installing president (which belongs/belonged to army)
Indirect: control behind scenes, continuously or intermittently (only budgets and security)
Page 109 figure 6.1
4. One-party rule
More long-lasting, through dictatorial party after revolution or corrupt elections
But: one-party state =/= one-party rule  may be instrument of authoritarian military or monarch
 Communist: often disguised personal dictatorships, only core survived (China, Vietnam, Laos)
 Third world: African one-party systems after decolonization
Won elections, then abused power, overthrown by military coups or evolved in dictatorships
[C] WHY DO THEY RULE?
Claim to exercise legitimate authority giving a right to rule and subjects a duty to obey
1. Religious and ideological claims to legitimacy
 Religion
Claims to rule by ‘the grace of god’ or ‘the divine right of kings’, now only in Middle East + Vatican
1979: Islamic republic in Iran, ayatollah Khomeini in power, veto laws that distort with Islamic law
Supreme religious judge + leader of revolution that outranked president of state  spiritual leader
 Ideology
No tradition like religion, so use of media, education system, mass-mobilization, youth, unions, ...
- Leader claims prophetic legitimacy
- Party claims ideological right to rule
Military ideological rule only in Egypt (Nasser) and Libya (Gadhafi) but not successful in general
2. Democratic claims to legitimacy
Democratic claim takes institutional form: use institutions or prepare to (re)introduce them  after
military coup after corrupt, undemocratic, incompetent government
Claim that their power is temporary and preparing way for democratic rule
Sometimes institutions held to keep form of legitimacy (Reichstag held under Hitler)
Mostly only semi-competitive elections
[D] HOW DO THEY RULE?
1. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism
 Totalitarianism
Mussolini: everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state
Change human nature through totalitarian organization of all aspects of life
Internal control of hearts and minds, external control by secret police
Mass organizations for youth, workers, leisure activities, personality cult (North-Korea)
 Authoritarianism
Four differences with totalitarianism
- Presence of limited political pluralism
- Absence of ideology used to guide the regime
- Absence of intensive or extensive political mobilization
- Predictably (instead of arbitrary) leadership by small group or individual
2. Exercising control
Secret police force against potential or actual disloyalty, junta + martial law (in military regimes)
Political parties used to gain support and making facade
3. Policies
Often very alike with democracies
Distinctive cases: Nazis’ anti-Semitic policy – collectivization in Soviet Union – great leaps in China
Different social policy: Middle East women’s discrimination
[E] CONCLUSION
 Extinction interpretation
Authoritarian regimes = political dinosaurs in democratic world
Have evolved in new species and subspecies but won’t survive
 Evolution interpretation
Continuous survival highlights complexity, may survive and flourish again in 21st century
Chapter 8: Government and bureaucraties
1 Introduction
‘government’: serval meanings
 most common: used for the country’s central political executive
 governing means ruling, exercising overall control over a country and determining the course it
will take.
2 Types of government
2.1 Government and the separation of powers
 in order to limit the government’s power, judicial functions were transferred to courts and
legislative functions to parliaments
 normative foundations of democratic government rest on two premises: the government must be
connected to the electoral process & work under constitutional constrains
 government can be organized in many, different ways
PRESIDENTIALISM
- Direct or quasi-direct popular election of the president for a fixed period
- The head of state is identical with the head of government
- President is not politically accountable to the legislature
- Appointment of government members by president (mostly with the consent of the
legislature)
PARLIAMENTARISM
- Head of government is different from head of state
- Most parliamentary systems allow for parliamentary dissolution by the head of state
(typically on the prime minister’s or government’s proposal)
- Election of the prime minister by Parliament in some countries (Spain, Germany);
appointment by the head of state (Italy, Ireland); or speaker of Parliament (Sweden), with
subsequent vote of confidence in other countries; appointment by the head of state
without obligatory vote of confidence (UK, the Netherlands)
- Prime minister and cabinet are politically accountable to the Parliament (vote of noconfidence possible); some country require a constructive no-confidence vote (replace
sitting government)
DIRECTORIAL GOVERNMENT
- Switserland: Federal Councils consist of 7 individuals who are elected individually by
Parliament for entire term of Parliament
- Federal president = head of government and state
! cabinet members rote presidency between them on annual basis
- Government is not politically accountable to Parliament
DIRECTLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER
- Israel (1996-2003): prime minister elected with absolute majority
- Cabinet nominated by the prime minister but required a parliamentary vote of confidence
- Prime minister politically accountable to Parliament, but vote of no-confidence possible to
dissolve Parliament and led to elections of both the prime minister and Parliament
SEMI-PRESIDENTIALISM
- President directly (or semi-directly) elected
- President appoints cabinet
- Cabinet is politically accountable to Parliament
- President can dismiss the cabinet and/or dissolve Parliament
ZIE OOK FIGURE 8.1 P. 144
2.2 The government under different democratic regime types
Different regime types (or systems of government) also distinguish themselves by the definition of
government:
- Constitutional one-person executives (f.e. presidentialism) or collective bodies (f.e.
parliamentarism)
- Head of state included in government or separate head of state
3 The internal working of government
 constitutions are typically silent about the internal working and decision-making of government,
leaving much to the political actors who adapt the government modes to changing circumstances.
Number descriptive models of government:
Presidential government
- All executive power in a single, directly (or quasi) elected politician for a fixed term
- President directs composition of government (= sovereignty)
Cabinet government
- Represents traditional operating mode of parliamentary government
- Britain 1850: cabinet = creation of the monarch (keep control over decisions and agenda)
- Gradual increase of government tasks: less decisions by cabinet – decisions became formal
(only ratifying what was decided between ministers)
- Nowadays: post-classical cabinet government: deliberates and decides important issues +
functions as a court of appeal
Prime ministerial government
- Monocratic decision-making by the prime minister
- Used is Britain after cabinet government
- Dominant role of prime minister: three different modes:
1 Generalized ability to decide policy across all issue areas in which the prime minister
takes an interest
2 By deciding key issues which subsequently determine most remaining areas of government
policy
3 defining a government ethos or operating ideoloigy which generates predictable and
determinate solutions to most policy problems, and constrains other ministers’ freedom or
make them agents of prime minister’s will
- Difference with presidential government: president had constitutional right to Monocratic
decision-making, terms are fixed, are unassailable
Ministerial government
- Instead of concentrating power in prime minister (after cabinet government): dispersed
among individual cabinet members
- Decisions mostly only ratified by cabinet
- Ministers are ‘policy dictators’ within their own domain
Models of government and cabinet coalitions in parliamentary systems
- Coalition governments in parliamentary systems have typically developed more complex
decision modes (due to influence of the parties)
4 The autonomy of government
Political parties are complex identities; they consist of:
- The mass organization
- The parliamentary party
- The party team in government
Government autonomy: the party dimension
Political parties play a crucial role in structuring elections  party government: exists only in so far as
the actions of office-holders are influenced by values and policies derived from the party
CONFLICT: full autonomy of elected officials from their party  a strong role of the party in
determining the course steered by the government
3 means of control:
- Party programmes: clearly state the intentions of the party + specify appropriate means to
the desired ends
- Selection of cabinet members: party control of the cabinet in the form of cabinet members
who act upon party values
- Permanent control of the party over the cabinet: parties want to exercise permanent
control over their ministers in order to influence government
3 ideal types of party-government relation:
- dominance: one of the two dominates
- autonomy: government and government parties coexist without exercising influence on
each other
- fusion: party and government become politically indistinguishable
Presidentialization?
= increasing leadership power resources and autonomy within the party and the political executive
respectively and increasingly leadership-centered electoral processes
Government autonomy: bureaucratic government
 bureaucracy necessary
 can set the agenda by identifying problems that need to be addressed
 can limit political choices by presenting a narrow set of alternatives and by undermining the
viability of ideas that run counter to the department’s common wisdom
5 The political capacity of government
5.1 unified vs divided government
Divided government: the presidency is held by one party and at least one chamber of Congress is
controlled by another party
Unified government: when everything is under the control of the same party
In presidential regimes, unified government suggest greater capacities. Divides government requires
the president to use institutional prerogatives, bribe members of the legislature, or compromiose
with legislative partners.
President-assembly relations under presidentialism
Presidential
Assembly strategy
strategy
reject
bargain
Demand
Acquiesce
payments
Undertake
Imperial president,
unilateral action
Recalcitrant assembly
Bargain
Coalition president,
Workable assembly
Pay-off
Nationally oriented
President,
Parochial assembly
dictate
Dominant president,
subservient assembly
5.2 Majority versus minority government
Majority government: at least 50 per cent of the seats plus one  able to enact political programma
Minority government: less than 50 per cent
Minority can govern: they can divide the opposition by policy proposals at the center of policy space,
but is more difficult than majority governing
HANDBOOK:
- Table 8.2: a broad overview of the frequency of government types in democracies worldwide
- Table 8.3 and 8.4: overall majority cabinets enjoy a longer life than minority cabinets
5.3 Single-party versus coalition party
Single-party governments: advantage that no party line of division runs through the government,
government goals will be relatively uncontroversial internally + are likely to have strong leaders who
can overcome internal difficulties
Coalition governments: need to satisfy at least some of the ambitions of each of the government
parties
HANDBOEK: table 8.5: government form and cabinet duration compared over countries
6 Bureaucratic capacities
Modern state has developed the permanent bureaucracy as the prime instrument for helping it
achieve its goals.
Characteristics of the bureaucracy (Weber):
- Personnel: receive a fixed salary and earn pension rights in return for their services and are
promoted on basis of seniority
- Organization: specialization, training, functional division of labor, well-defined areas of
jurisdiction, and a clear hierarchy
- Procedure: impersonal application of general rules, written documents, recorded decisions
and storage of relevant documents
Problems of bureaucracy
- Becomes inefficient when decisions need to take into consideration the individual
characteristics of the cases to be decided.
- Groupthink: the unconscious minimizing of intra-organizational conflict in making decisions
at the prize of their quality, which can lead to disaster
- Bureaucrats have the goal of increasing their budgets (Niskanan)
- The effort bureaucrats bring to their job, options:
*work in interest of their principal (no agency problem)
*leisure-shirking: work less than expected (stereotype of civil servants)
*dissent-shirking: don’t do their best to implement the policies desired by their principals
due to different preferences
*political sabotage: the production of negative outputs (civil servants work against the
interest of their principal
Politician have responded in two ways to their uneasiness with the bureaucracy: establishing spoils
systems and introducing New Public Management.
Spoils systems
= the victorious party is free to appoint large layers of the administration after each election, with
the jobs going to the party faithful
It is democratic in two ways:
- Administration shares the political philosophy and helps the politician to live up to the
promises made in the campaign
-
Entrusts ordinary Americans rather than a closed elite of professional bureaucrats with the
business of government
US has maintained a large degree of spoil systems
ADVANTAGE: provide politician with administrators who are committed to the government goals
DISADVANTAGE: appointees haven’t got enough knowledge about the organization + environment,
and do not know each other  government of strangers
New public management
- Personnel: top positions open to outside candidates, fixed-term basis, salaries equal to
private sector and payment is tied to performance
- Organization: splitting large bureaucratic units into smaller ones and allowing competitions
between different public sector units or even with private sector units
- Procedure: accountability is based on the civil servants performance in attaining the agency’s
goals  public sector managers are expected to engage in managerialism and
entrepreneurship
Greatly enhance the potential for political control over the bureaucracy
CRITIC: deprofessionalization and politicization of the bureaucracy
The quality of governance
HANDBOOK Table 8.6: the performance of the bureaucracy
Chapter 10: Elections and referendums - Gallagher
[A] INTRODUCTION
Elections to fill seats in parliament or other institutions, referendums issue-specific (yes or no)
[B] ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
Electoral system: set of rules, structure how votes are cast and how they are converted into seats
1. Electoral regulations
Some countries lowering age (Austria + Brazil, 16 years). Generally voluntary (not: Belgium+Australia)
Why compulsory? Voluntary voting = related to socioeconomic status, compulsory yawns the gap
Ballot access: most countries require financial deposit  disadvantage for small parties / candidates
Terms of parliament and presidents are mostly fixed (book p. 183 box 10.1 compulsory or voluntary?)
2. The main categories of electoral systems
Constituency: geographic area into which the country is divided for the elections
Single-member plurality
Single-member constituencies: strongest party wins the seat  majoritarian, first past the post
Alternative vote
Rank candidates: 1 beside first choice, 2 beside second, ...  Majority? Candidate elected
<< >> No majority? Lowest eliminated, ballots redistributed according to second preference
Two-round system
No majority in first round? Second round with top 2/3
Proportional representation
Multi-member constituencies: seats shared among parties in proportion to votes
Simplest way: country is one large constituency 16% votes = 16% seats  very proportional
But: no local MPs  country divided into constituencies for local representations
List systems: party presents list of candidates
Mixed systems: voter casts two votes: for local MP and for party list
- Compensatory mixed system
List seats rewarded to rectify under- or over-representation in constituencies, ensuring that party’s
overall number of seats is proportional to its vote share
Small parties win hardly seats, but receive appropriate number of list seats
Big parties win more than fair share but receive no list seats because constituency seats already
brings them to the total number of seats they are entitled  highly proportional
- Parallel mixed system
List part and constituency part separate, list seats awarded purely on basis of list votes, no account of
what happened in constituencies  benefit for large parties which retain over-representation
Single transferable vote: logic of alternative vote in multimember constituencies
Second vote mostly cast to another member of same party (Malta + Ireland)
3. Dimensions of variation
District magnitude
Number of MPs elected from each constituency
The higher the district magnitude, the more proportional
The more seats, the more fair the distribution can be
Intra-party choice
Extent to which voters decide which of their party’s candidate take the seats the party wins
Single-member: no intra-party choice because only one candidate
PR: closed lists << >> preferential lists: even bad position can get you elected
Thresholds
3-5 % = normal, Netherlands = 0.67 %, Russia = 7 %
4. Origins of electoral systems
Trend away from majoritarian and to PR system  low risk in PR to lose everything
5. Consequences of electoral systems
Duverger’s law: single-member plurality system = two-party system << >> PR = multiparty system
Coalitions in PR, not in non-PR
PR = better representation, more women elected, no over-representation of party
Non-PR: probably two-party  stable, easy to judge + overthrow
[C] REFERENDUMS
1. Types of referendums
Mass electorate vote on a public issue
- Mandatory or optional
- May take place at request of number of voters (initiative) or of a political institution
- Decision-promoting or decision-controlling: abrogative (strike down existing law) or rejective
(prevent proposal to pass in law)
2. The rationale of the referendum
Process-related arguments
- Certain policies only fully legitimated by their endorsement in a referendum  give mandate
- Participation is good in itself and educates voters about issues
Outcome-related arguments
- More opportunities to participate = more opportunities for exclusion = worse outcomes
- Mass = ignorant, bad decisions, highly influential, can disturb social balance
Rules to prevent lots of ‘stupid’ referenda:
Legislature mostly decides if referendum takes place and on what issue  veto items on agenda
If voters can trigger themselves, judicial body can take veto role
Double majority needed in federal countries (majority of voters + majority in both federal units)
3. Empirical patterns
Optional extra << >> inherent part of the system
4. Voting behaviour at referendums
People often don’t vote issue but to punish party, policy, fear for Polish plumber, ...  second-order
5. The impact of referendums
Additional veto player << >> powerful legitimiser
Initiative by people: put popular issues on agenda, pass them because no-one really cares
Parties can lose control over agenda, but mostly initiative is not possible
Chapter 11: Federal and local government institutions
1. Introduction
Any analysis of the contemporary territorial governance must begin with the
territorial organization of the nation-state. The nation-state is the ‘modern’ form of
political organization. Before the nation-state, there were other forms of territorial
organization. e.g The Holy Roman Empire.
There have been predictions of the demise of nation-states due to globalization (
pressure from above) and the rise of regions and local authorities ( pressure from
below) as political actors. The nation-state has changed significantly. If the nationstate has meant a certain form of territorial governance, then there are important
consequences for territorial governance.
2. The modern nation-state and territorial governance
2.1 The modern nation-state
International state systems originated through the Treaty of Westphalia, but the
modern state came as a result of a series of revolutions in the 18th century.
3 types : The industrial Revolution and the England constitutional revolution lead to
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ( Multinational Union State).
b) The American Revolution lead to the United States of America ( first as a
confederation, then a federation)
c) The French Revolution lead to the Unitary State ( characterized by unity and
indivisibility)
-> Each of these state forms will be imitated by almost all other modern nationstates.
-> The French Revolution left another legacy to political thoughts and practice:
nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology based on the assumption that nations ought
to have states and states ought to be co-terminous with nations.
2.2 Unitary states and nationalism
Nationalism was important throughout the 19th -20th century. It was a driving force
behind the - unification of politically fragmented territories such as Germany and Italy
and –the breakup of empires such as the Ottoman empire.
19th century French model of the unitary state was dominant and influenced the
territorial organization of many of these new states. e.g. in catholic Europe, liberalism
was associated with the nationalism and a strong centralized state that is capable of
taking control over education and social welfare from the church.
Some countries (Netherlands, Spain) adopted the French model as a result of the
Napoleonic conquests at the beginning of the 19th century. Belgium broke away from
the Netherlands and became a monarchy. But despite the presence of a large
Flemish-speaking population, opted for a French unilingual and centralized state.
Brussels (went from a Flemish-speaking to a French-speaking city, situated within
Flanders).
(e.g Italia and Germany) (zie pg 200 voor meer voorbeelden)
2.3 Federal states and nationalism
The USA and Switzerland are the two oldest modern federal states. After WWII,
Germany and Austria became federal, with the encouragement of the USA, to whom
federalism was synonymous with democracy.
The UK was neither a unitary state, like France nor a Federalist state like the USA. The
UK was a ‘union state’(= a state that is formed by a series of Acts of Union). This was
very normal before the unitary state in France.
The nation-state model is retained with the ‘national’ dimensions being represented
at the federal or union level, where the representative assembly and government are
responsible for the nation as a whole ( war, national economy), while the component
entities of the state are responsible for those affairs dealt with most appropriately at
that level ( education, health). Not all unitary, federal or union states have succeeded
in maintaining this unity. E.g Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. A principal reason why all
those didn’t work, was their failure to construct an overarching and common national
identity. Instead the constituent units adopted individual nation-state- building
projects with some of the constituents. E.g. The Czechs and the Serbs.
Other unitary states have experienced difficulties because of internal nationalisms
which challenge the legitimacy of the dominant nation-state. E.g Spain ( Catalan and
Basque)
Even in countries with a strong unitary tradition, unification may be incomplete. The
majority of the nation states, however, have succeeded in constructing a form of
political organization in which the majority of the population do feel an attachment
to the ‘nation’. This nation is identifiable with a state with clearly differentiated
borders and where the principal source of political legitimacy lies with the core
central institutions.
3. Territorial governance in welfare states
The establishment of welfare states, which began before WWII, but which reached its
peak in the post-war period, may be seen as the final stage of nation-state building.
In order better to collect resources from the wealthier sections of society and
stronger economic regions and redistribute them to the weaker sections and to
underdeveloped regions, the state found it necessary to centralize. The implication
for territorial political organization was that central- logic relations took on the form
of a ‘principal-agent’ relationship: sub-national authorities, whether regions or local
governments, increasingly became the ‘agents’ of their ‘principal’ ( the central state),
in the delivery of these services. Fiscal policy was controlled by the central
government -> less local fiscal autonomy.
3.1 The crisis and reconfiguration of the welfare state (1970-90’s)
The welfare state and the old industrial capitalism which underlay it, went through a
serieus of crises and important transformations. The state was reconceptualized less
as a top-down, directive agency capable of bringing about the common good and
realizing extensive welfare policy goals and more as a stimulator from below of the
forces of society and the economy that can achieve these themselves. (zie table 1.1
pg 202)
3.2. Asymmetrical diversity vs symmetrical diversity
We can distinguish political, administrative, and fiscal symmetry and/or asymmetry.
There is today a general tendency to increase asymmetrical diversity of all three
kinds, although the combinations vary in different countries.
3.3 From the ‘principal-agent’ to the ‘choice’ model and the right to experiment
Central-local relations during the welfare state period were characterized by the
‘principal-agent’ model.
This changed in the ‘80’s as central governments either reproduced welfare services
or even terminated some programs of resource redistribution. In response, many
regional and local authorities made a virtue out of necessity and began to mobilize
their resources and form alliances with other local authorities both inside and outside
their national states. (choice-model) This model is also an expression of the neoliberal approach which predominated in Western States during the 80’s and 90’s.
Local autonomy, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, means deciding local
policies at the appropriate level. This lead to competition at the local policy and
politics. From 90’s there has been a significant increase in competition among
regional and local authorities, both within their own states and with regional and
local authorities more widely as they try to create the conditions necessary to attract
inward investment.
3.4 Changing patterns of fiscal relations
Local autonomy is viable only if it’s accompanied by fiscal autonomy (= the right and
capacity of local authorities to raise their own revenues or to have a degree of
discretion over those fiscal resources they receive from central governments).
2 arguments against the decentralization of control over local funding.
a) ‘only central governments could achieve local economic efficiency through policies
of fiscal equalization and redistribution’
b) (known as fiscal federalism) local fiscal autonomy is necessary as a way of
increasing the accountability and responsiveness of sub-national governments. Fiscal
federalism was based on the idea that citizens could choose from among a variety of
services by moving residence from one authority to another -> this can lead to the
optimal allocation of resources in a market situation and to local authorities adapting
services to local circumstances. ( more in the US than in EU)
Difference between the choice- and agency-model: In the choice model, local
authorities are seen as being best placed to make decisions that reflect the needs and
preferences of their local communities. In the agency-model, local authorities are
seen first and foremost as agents carrying out policies on behalf of the principal
(central government).
One of the underlying causes of the crisis of the welfare state model was the ‘fiscal
crisis of the state’ or the inability of the state itself to fund the ever-increasing
demands of its own policy programs. Thus, under the first casualties of the crises
were the local authorities themselves.
Situation is complex. Most countries combine the agency and choice-model, though
most tend to emphasize one or the other as the dominant tendency. This
combination of models leads to a great deal of variety in fiscal arrangements of
European states, but one overall trend has been the increase in grants from the
central governments and a decrease in ‘own recources’ (local taxes and fees). Local
autonomy may retain a certain amount of fiscal autonomy if they have discretion
over how the grants are used.
3.5 From hierarchy to ‘equality of levels’
A final trend to note in this survey of changes in territorial governance from the
welfare state to a more pluralistic state model is the abandonment in a number of
states of hierarchical relationship among different levels of government. In France
there is a equality among the three sub-national levels of government: the region,
department and the municipality. This was a deliberate choice made when the
regions were established, as the ‘departmentalist’ lobby in France feared that the
regions might be in a superior position. To avoid this, all hierarchy was abolished.
4. Federal vs unitary states
4.1 The classical distinction
Given these trends which have affected all states; Is the classical distinction between
federal and unitary states still useful?
Distinctions between federal and unitary state.
A federal state: an association of states, which has been formed for certain common
purposes, but in which the member states retain a large measure of their original
dependence. Prototype : US
Certain powers are exercised by the federal or ‘general’ government and other by the
‘regional’ or constituent states. Each government is supreme in its own sphere. In this
model of ‘co-ordinate federalism’ the powers of the federal government are
circumscribed by the constitution and the remaining ‘residuary’ powers may be
exercised by the regional governments. Neither government may intervene in the
sphere of the other.
(rest best lezen in boek-> moeilijk samen te vatten pg 205+ 206)
5. Trends towards regionalization and decentralization in unitary states
5.1 Decentralization
Decentralization can be political or administrative. Political decentralization means
the transfer of decision-making powers from the central state to any of the subnational levels of government.
We need to distinguish regionalism and regionalization, from political
decentralization. Although the establishment of political regions is always a form of
decentralization, the latter does not always mean setting up regions.
Political decentralization is not the same as administrative decentralization.
Administrative decentralization means the transfer of some administrative functions
to sub-national levels of the administration. It is the central organs of the
administration which remain in control of policy-making and administrative behavior.
(zie pg 207 tabel)
5.2 Occupying the ‘meso-level’: the emergence of the region as a political actor
The ‘meso-level’ of territorial governance is the level that exists between the national
and the local level. In federal states, the component units of the federal level are the
meso-level, and their position defines the nature of the federation.
The larger unitary states, such as France, have found it necessary to set up meso-level
governments ( eg: regions in france and Italy)
e.g. Italy adopted the regionalized model which distinguished between ‘special’ and
‘ordinary’ regions. ‘special regions’ were distinguished by their geographical/ cultural
features(Island of Sicily) or linguistic/cultural specificity. (voor verdure voorbeelden
zie boek).
European integration did add a new element to these processes of strengthening
regions, especially with the upgrading of EU regional policy in the form of the
Structural of Cohesion funds. This lead to a vast mobilization of regional and local
authorities in the hope of obtaining some of this manna from heaven. This
strengthened the position of the regions within the large unitary states, who could
argue that regionalism and regionalization were the appropriate forms of
contemporary European governance.
6. The local level
6.1 Local government and local autonomy
All states, with the exception of the Vatican, possess a level of local government but
there is a great deal of variation in its position within the overall system of
government. One important difference is between the unitary and federal state.
In federal states, as a general rule, local government does not have a direct
relationship with the federal government but with the sub-federal mesogovernment. In unitary states, there is usually a direct relationship between the
central and local levels. However, in some cases, the body occupying the ‘meso’space
(the region or the autonomous community) is the hierarchical superior of the local
authorities. This has led to a regionalist centralism ( Belgium) which may infringe the
local autonomy.
Political decentralization means here, strengthening of local government autonomy.
(zie vb EU pg211)
6.2 Comparing and typologizing local government
P212 -213 in boek bekijken (veel vergelijkingen )
Chapter 12: Political parties - Katz
[A] DEFINITIONS OF PARTY
 Objectives: gain control over governmental power
 Methods: nominations, elections, organization of government
 Competition: contesting of elections
 Autonomous citizens who can freely choose
[B] ORIGINS OF PARTIES
Since 16th-19th: notion that coordinated action is more effective than solo action
Intra-parliamentary parties, developed leadership cadres and became active in electoral campaigns
Took control from monarch and put it in parliamentarian hands
Rise of parties =/= democratization: still elite club, no universal suffrage, ...
Need to mobilize large numbers of excluded to support leaders  extra-parliamentary parties
 Broadened suffrage, turned liberal regimes in liberal democracies
Intra-parliamentarian: represented upper class and upper middle class
Extra-parliamentarian: represent middle class and lower classes
[C] FUNCTION OF PARTIES
1. Coordination
Within government
Maintain discipline and communication within parliamentary caucus
Coordinate action of parliamentary caucus in support/opposition to cabinet
Within society
Organize political activity of like-minded citizens
Between government and society
Pattern linkage between representatives in public office and organized supporters
2. Contesting elections
Provide candidates, link them to symbols, histories, expectations of team-like behaviour
Develop policy programmes
Recruit and coordinate campaign workers
3. Recruitment
Selection of candidates for elections
Recruitment of candidates for appointed office
Integration of new citizens into existing political system
4. Representation
Speak for members and supporters within government agencies
Organizational embodiment of demographically or ideologically defined categories of citizens
[E] MODELS OF PARTY REPRESENTATION
1. Types of parties (book p. 226 table 12.1)
Cadre or elite parties
Highly restricted suffrage, MP had own personal clientele, didn’t need mass support or party office
Worked together for common goals, grew + sometimes elaborated local organizations + coordination
Heart of organization = MP with personal campaign and support organization, for ‘national interest’
Mass parties (1850-...)
Extra-parliamentary, core of leaders organize party central office to win elections + gain public office
Represent interest of particular group or class that were excluded from power
Strategy of encapsulation: organizations as women’s groups, after-work clubs, trade unions, services
Extensive organization required: formally defined membership + payment of fee required
National congress = highest decision-making body, chairman or president elected
 Iron law oligarchy: leads to domination by party elite
Catch-all parties
Same idea mass parties, but organized as supporters of party in public office rather than as its master
Social breakdown, spread of mass media, social groups not large enough, ...
 Reduction in role of members relative to professionals
 Shedding of ideological baggage
 No more interconnection between party and interest organizations
 Strategy across group boundaries for votes and resources
Parties professionalized (consultants, pollsters), membership superfluous
Cartel parties (1975-...)
Catch-all under pressure: increasing public debts  choice between taxes or cuts in welfare spending
Globalization, growth of interest groups, ... brought pressure on parties and state
Less party loyalties and memberships: change to cartel parties
- Mainstream parties form cartel to protect themselves from electoral risks + supplement
resources with state subventions
- Parties become agencies of state instead of agencies of society
- Preserve internal democracy, increase power of members and disempower part activists
- Professional expertise > political experience & activism
Anti-cartel parties
= left-libertarian / new right / movement parties
Expect deeper commitment from members, organized around an idea
Frustrated that substantive outcomes don’t change because all parties are mainstream + in grey zone
Parties more interested in protecting own privileges than in advancing interests of ordinary citizens
Business-firm parties
Cfr. Berlusconi: party sponsored by corporate empire and staffed by its employees
Lightweight organisation, mobilises short-term support at election-time
Parties in the US
Look like old cadre parties: cases of arrested development
- Weak central organization
- Focus on individuals rather than institutions
- No formal membership organization
But: regulated by law + mass membership to select the candidate (primaries) organized by state
Registrants free to do so, party can’t control them
2. Membership
Original parties: only MPs as members, now all modern parties have membership
Individuals who have applied or inescapably via trade unions (mostly with social parties)
General decline in party membership, members cost more than they are worth
 Couch party: so few members that they could all sit on one couch
3. Regulation
Party laws, sometimes embedded in national constitution, regulate following things:
- Centrality of parties to democracy (justification for giving them special rights)
- Power of parties + definition of party
- Administrative convenience or necessity
Once registered, some privileges: eligible for tax credits, name on ballot, half of expenses paid back
4. Finance
Regulation of spending
- Bans on particular forms of spending: buying advertising time in broadcast media
- Limitations on total spending: depend on size of electorate
- Disclosure of spending: provide transparency
Regulation of fundraising
Prevent wealthy individuals / groups from exercising undue influence over parties  easily avoidable
Difficult to define what contribution is, where it comes from, ...
Public subventions
Benin tax systems, direct provision of goods and services, direct financial subventions
[F] PARTIES AND THE STABILIZATION OF DEMOCRACY
Essential role in transition from traditional monarchy to electoral democracy
Helped citizens into established patterns of competition (third wave)
Slow expansion of immigrants: able to win them and not let them fall to radical groups
 Function of integration and stabilization
[G] CONCLUSION
Alternatives: technocrats
Chapter 13: Party systems - Caramani
[A] INTRODUCTION
Motor of politic interaction = competition for power + cooperation when in power
Party system = result of competitive interactions, three main elements:
- Which parties exist? Why do all systems have socialist parties but not agrarians?  origin
- How many parties exist and how big are they?  morphology / format
- How do parties behave to maximize votes?  dynamics
Pluralism needed with free elections (not like China or Syria)
[B] GENEALOGY OF PARTY SYSTEMS
1. The national and industrial revolutions
1850-1920: socio-economic and political changes
- Industrial revolution: changes by industrialization and urbanization
- National revolution: formation nation-states (homogenous + centralized) + liberal democracy
Social groups, values, interests and elites opposed: modern parties = political translation of divisions
2. Cleavages and their political translation (Book page 239 table 13.1)
 National revolution
Centre vs periphery
Political power, administration, taxation systems centralized, national languages + national religion
Resistance in regionalist parties (Basque, Catalan, Scottish, ...)
State vs church
Promotion of secular institutions, individualism and democracy, against huge role of church
Liberals against conservatives
 Industrial revolution
Rural vs urban
Landed rural interests against rising class of industrial and trading entrepreneurs
Focus on trade policies: protectionism (agrarians) vs liberalism (industrials)
Workers vs employers
Industrial entrepreneurs who started revolution vs working class resulting from it, capital vs labour
Caused geographical mobility, changed production mode, social rights and welfare state
 International revolution
Communism vs socialism
Revolution necessary or not? Acceptance of Soviet communist party as leaders?
Reaction against radicalization working class = fascism  nation > class
Why no socialist parties in US?
- Open frontier: geographical + social mobility, workers moved in search of good conditions
- Dominance republicans + democrats made rise of third party difficult
- Working class white men allowed to vote and were integrated in political system
No feudalism, no aristocracy  working class similar to European bourgeoisie
 Post-industrial revolution
Materialism vs post-materialism
Between generations over socio-political values: tolerance, equality, environment, freedom, peace, ..
<< >> materialists: security, law & order, protection private property, tradition, authority
Globalization cleavage
Economic defensive attitudes, anti-immigration, xenophobic, ...extreme right wings
3. Variations in cleavage constellations
Space
Not all cleavages everywhere, country-specific, determined by
- Differences in social structures, ethnicities, religious groups, class relations
- Extent to which socio-economic and cultural divisions have been politicized
Homogenous: one predominant cleavage  left-right
Heterogeneous: various cleavages overlap or cut across one another (Belgium)
Time
Freezing hypothesis: reflect original conflicts
Voters get strong identities, hardly room for new parties, hardly volatility between left & right
[C] THE MORPHOLOGY OF PARTY SYSTEMS
Number + size of parties: how many players are there and how strong are they?
Observed by votes and seats
Two more types that are not discussed because not democratic: single-party systems (only one party
is legal) and hegemonic-party systems (other parties legal but just satellites)
4 other types: dominant / two-party / multi-party / bipolar (page 246 table 13.2)
1. Dominant party systems
One very large party dominates all others with large majority over several decades
Free elections, but everyone votes massively for one party, no power alternation, no coalitions
2. Two-party systems
Two fairly equally balances large parties, alternation in power after almost each election
Comparable sizes, equal chances in winning. Other small parties not needed to form government
FPTP system, plurality = ideological moderation = similar programmes
3. Multi-party systems
Most frequent type, from 3 to 10 parties, small and large parties, coalitions
No ideological moderation, government change mostly through swaps of coalitions
Better representation of socio-political pluralism, stable, functioning, peaceful
Moderate multi-party systems
Less than 5 parties, moderate visions, all coalitions possible
Polarized multi-party systems
Ideological distance, not all coalitions possible, some excluded and always in opposition
One centre party which is always in power, not punished electorally because no alternatives
4. Bipolar systems
Many parties, no majority, coalition already before elections an run as electoral alliances
Stable coalitions over time, mostly two great coalitions which alternate (cfr. Two-party systems)
5. The number of parties
Numerical rules: based on size: many small parties (fragmented) or few large ones (concentrated)
Qualitative rules: based on role: coalition potential vs blackmail potential
6. The influence of electoral laws on the format of party systems
Causes for varying numbers of parties and their size
Electoral systems
Majoritarian vs proportional systems  Duverger’s law
Voters vote strategically: try to avoid wasted votes when small parties have no chance
<< >> PR systems= voters vote sincerely, small parties can gain a lot of votes
Plurality over-represents large parties (more seats than votes) and under-represent small parties
Number of cleavages in society
Large number of parties when social and cultural pluralism, PR = result of fragmentation
[D] THE DYNAMICS OF PARTY SYSTEMS
1. The market analogy
Parties maximize votes, actors are rational, seek control, self-interested, appeal to large group
Face alternatives, inform themselves, search individual advantages
2. The spatial analogy
Proximity / distance between individual preferences and party policies (bakery)
3. Down’s model
Bell-shape: voters in centre, moderate ideologies
Centrifugal competition: voters to the extremes, ideological polarization
4. The wider application of rational choice models
Party organization: rational choice explains transformation from mss parties to catch-all parties
Dealignment: looser relationships parties – society, vague programmes to attract more voters
Enfranchisement and democratization: reformist wanted socialist in power through votes
PR and multiparty systems: high abstention levels in FPTP
More opinion-voters than identity-voters
Why more and more convergence?
- Development of large homogenous middle class
- Reduction of social inequalities + secularization of society
- Nationalization and globalization  more integration, less ethnic difficulties
Chapter 18: Political participation
1 Intro



Political participation establishes links from the mass public to the political elites
o Voluntary + democracies
Political participation addressed to a central authority is costly and difficult to achieve
Political participation is thus an activity that occurs in spite of all kinds of obstacles and
preferences for more spontaneous, self-reliant action
2 Modes of political participation – HOW?

Sites of participation
1. Public arena to advertise and communicate demands
2. Target policy-makers as addressees of their communications
3. Selection process of who aspire the office
 Intermittent to continuous participation and leadership in organized efforts
 Riskiness of participation depends on the legal and political regime
1. Democracies
 Communication with government + elections = low risk
 Unconventional = low risk or high risk (harm,…)
 Modes of participation
1. Social movements
= streams of activities that target demands at policy-makers through community,
street and media events
 Small formal organizational cores
 No formal membership
2. Interest groups
= activities where participants mainly rely on communicating preferences, demands
and threats to policy-makers tends to create durable interest groups
 Formally organized
 Explicit membership roles + internal statutes
 Power derives from the centralization of its internal organization
o Credible commitments
3. Political parties
= activities in which participants cooperate in order to nominate legislative
candidates, help them attract voters and organize voter turnout
 Few candidates, reputations and promises  voters perspective
 One core competence: participatory mobilization
3 Determinants of political participation – WHY?


Political vs. other types of participation
Paradox of collective action
o People participate in politics to bring about authoritative decisions allocating goods
to large groups = collective goods
o Collective action paradox
 People behave as free riders
 Selective incentives overcome the problem
 Private benefits only for participants outweigh the costs 
participation!
 Solutions:
1. Political entrepreneurs consider participation not as costly
2. Participation as benefit itself
3. Underrate the costs
4. Social networks = monitoring device
4 Explaining political participation at the macro-level – WHEN +
WHERE?




Why?
o Context and opportunity = macro-level
+ Political entrepreneurs devise organizations of political action
o Resources and dispositions = micro –level
Economic development and political regime
o Industrial Revolution (transportation, communication)
o Democracies
 Elections, universal single suffrage and protection of rights
o Authoritarian regimes
 Executive is not accountable to the citizens, less activities/opportunities to
participate
o Harshly repressive despotic regimes
 More restricted and compulsory participation through sate-run mass
organizations
Differences in participation within democracies
o Political opportunity structure
 To be able to incorporate new issues?
 Multi-party systems: easy
But proportional representation: independent mobilization
 Two-party system: lack of internal cohesion
Voter turnout
o Poorer and more authoritarian regimes = lower turnout
o Institutional regulations
 Compulsory voting: sanctions?





Electoral rules: PR or majoritarian?
Registration requirements: automatically or not?
Concurrent or non-concurrent elections for legislative and presidential office:
on the same day or not?
Labour union membership (= interest group) depends on:
o Agriculture  urban manufacturing  service industries
o Political regime
o Communism  economic development policy  interest group participation
o Ghent system: unemployment insurance by labour unions
Political organizations and mobilization
o Actors will invest in collective action only if future benefits justify current expenses
1. Organizational infrastructure that facilitates coordination
2. Process of redefining or expanding the objectives driving the mobilization
effort
 Learning process
Temporally discrete objectives/ single issue causes  social movements
Open-ended and permanent struggles around certain objectives/ specialize range
of issues/ limited issue domain  political interest groups
o Political interest groups
 Are not making authoritative political decisions in democracies
 But challenge unresponsive politicians  forming own political party?
 Preconditions for entry:
1. Institutional thresholds
2. The party appeals to a salient issue demand that is not
represented by existing parties
3. Strategic deliberation and generalization of political
objectives
 Political causes pursue complex agendas of interdependent issues
5 Explaining political participation at the micro-level – WHO?
Individual traits + contextual cues

Individual traits
1. Resources: socio-economic skills and endowments
 Availability of time
 Schooling/education
 Process more information
 Self-confidence + sense of individual capacity is higher
 More efficient strategies
 More developed deliberative processes
 Impact on income and occupational time sovereignty
 Promote involvement in civic activities
2. Recruitment
 Associational involvement
 Organization of the work process: class and group milieus
 Role of the family
 Age and gender: older + male
3. Orientations
 Political interest and ideology
4. Contextual cues
 Micro: networks of family and friends
 Meso: large, encompassing associations and densely organized parties
 Macro: democratic institutions, strategic alignments, PR, interaction effects
between citizens’ individual resources and complex causal chains that
reinforce differentials of participation
Chapter 20: Policy making
INTRODUCTION
 Policies = government statements of what it intends to do, including law, regulation, ruling,
decision or order
 Public policy = a more specific termwich refers to a series of actions carried out to solve
societal problems  Public policies are the main output of the political system!!
By analyzing the policy-making process, we gain a fuller understanding of the causes and
consequences of political decision-making.
Types of policies
1
CONCEPTUAL MODELS OF POLICY-MAKING (staat niet in de slides, dus niet te kennen?)
Important elements of policy-making
1
Functionality
2
Constraints
A lot of different models, and the main implication of these models is that they make different
assumptions about the importance of the actors involved and their rationality.
1.1
INSTITUTIONAL MODEL
How do institutional arrangements influence the content of policies?
Analytical focus  balance between executives and legislatives. (notable variation across political
systems)
Institutional prespective  policies are formulated and implemented exclusively by these institutions
& policy-making  smooth and largely technical process in wich all relevant institutions participate.
!! intra-institutional processes remain in a ‘black box’
1.2
RATIONAL MODEL
Rational model of decision-making
 Formulates guidance on how to secure ‘optimal’ policy decisions.
 “Bayesian learning”  governments update their beliefs on the consequences of policies with
all available information about policy outcomes in the past and elsewhere, and choose the
policy that is expected to yield the best results.
 Involves a number of demanding assumptions: e.g. expactation to have perfect information
 “Public choice theory” examines the logic and foundations of actions of individuals and groups
that are involved in de policy-making process. (main objects of analysis: voting behaviour and
party competition, coalition and government formation, …)

1.3
1.4
Related to “game theory”
GROUP MODEL
ELITE MODEL
2
ANALYSING POLICY-MAKING AS A PROCES: THE POLICY CYCLE
The policy-cycle (or process model)  the policy-process is modelled as a series of political activities
2.1
AGENDA-SETTING
First  identification of a social problem requiring the state to intervene. Many social problems  only
few will be given attention  chosen?  constitute the policy agenda.
Setting the agenda = important source of power as it is policy consequential; but also the ability to
exclude societal problems from the policy agenda (non-decisions) is an important source of policyshaping power.
3 basic policy initiation models
1) Outside-initiative model  citizen groups gain broad public support and get an issue onto the
formal agenda
2) Mobilization model  initiatives of governments need to be placed on the public agenda for
succesful implementation
3) inside-initiation model  influential groups with acces to decision makerspresent policy
proposals, wich are broadly supported by certain interest groups but only marginally by the
public
 KINGDON: three process streams flowing through the system: problems, policies and politics
~simular to the garbage can model the relevance of chance, the view that agenda-setting
represents rational bahviour
The policy agenda is set by four types of actors
1) Public officials (president, parliament, …)
2) Bureaucracy
3) Mass media
4) Interest groups
5) (political parties and scientific communities)
Agenda-setting is an important source of power  first mover advantage
2.2
POLICY FORMULATION
Definition, discussion, acceptance or rejectanceof feasible courses of action for coping with policy
problems. Deals with elaboration of alternatives of action  broader context of technical and political
constraints of state action (substantial or procedural)
Involves a large number of actors + more attention for interest groups in de formulation of policies &
the impact of policy advice and scientific knowledge.
2.3
POLICY ADOPTION
The final adoption of a particular policy alternative is determined by government institutions. Policy
adpotion is determined by a number of factors, of wich two are particulary important
-
The necessity to build a majority
The expected costs/benefits of the policy
2.4
IMPLEMENTATION
Represents the conversion of new laws and programs into practice  without this, policy has neither
substance nor significance.
Implementation research  open the black box between policy formation and policy outcomes.
Three theoretical approaches
1) Top-down models
2) Bottom-up models
3) Hybrid models
Implementation of the policy is the central role of top bureaucrats (they have to be able to translate
the policy objectives into an operational framework that is accountable for its actions.
~choice of policy instruments is related to this subject, and in federal states also the implementation
efforts may move between and within levels of government.
Relevance of bureaucracy is contradictory  bureaucrasies are essential for making policies work, but
senior bureaucrats are often better trained than their political masters (~”bureaucratic drift”)
2.5
EVALUATION
Carried out to measure policy efficiency and effectiveness. It provides a feedback loop wich is a
powerful tool og policy-making progress, but negative evaluation is not enough to kill policy. (it can
lead to termination though)
Forms of systematic evaluation: mostly by scientist, but also diverse actors in the political area, media,
… The most common type is based on hearings and reports, but also citizen’s complaints.
Problem: citzens and politcians are to intepretate the effects to their own intentions, and policies are
mostly so vaguely described to avoid policy-failure in any way.
3
INSTITUTIONS, FRAMING AND POLICY-STYLES
3.1
THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS (verwijzing naar Lijphart)
Broad sense  policy-making is used to resolve sociatal problems by using institutions (these can
structure the interactions of actors + they can support social cooperation, …)
In a democratic system: electoral system (most essential formal institution)  party-competition,
structure and articulate the public’s opinion. Left-right dichotomy.
Three main types of voting systems
1) Plurality-majority system
2) Proportional representation
3) Mixed systems
The relation between the legislative and executiveis also of cruscial importance (e.g. parliamentary vs.
presidential regimes)
LIJPHART (!!)  democratic systems tend to fall in two categories: majoritarian system (concentrates
power ans fuses executive and legislative power in the classic parliamentary power) and consensus
democracies (sharing power by separating and balancing executive and legislative power)
3.2
NATIONAL POLICY STYLES
~regulatory styles (RICHARDSON)
1) Liberal pluralist versus étatist versus corporatist
2) Active versus reactive
3) Comprehensive versus fragmentes
3.3
CONTEXT: HOW IS AN ISSUE FRAMED?
VOORBEELD EXAMENVRAGEN
4) Adversial vs consensual paternalisti
5) Legalistic vs pragmatic
6) Formal vs informal networks
UIT DE LES
1
Waarom klopt ‘The clash of civilizations’ (Hunnington) niet? (~zie vraag 6)
2
Welke methode gebruikt comparative politics?
3
Welke twee democratische stelsels zijn er volgens Lijphart?
KNOWLEDGE
4
Type: multiple response question
An important distinction is between grand theories and middle-range theories. Which of the
following approaches can be classified as grand theories? Please select all that apply.
a. Structural functionalism
b. Marxism
c. Systems theory
d. Governance
5
The three subtypes of one-party rule, distinguished by their ideological/policy orientation are:
1.) Fascist, 2.) Communist, 3.)____________
INSIGHT, EXAMPLES & ESSAY
6
What is the main critique of Katzenstein on the work of Huntington?
7
Comparative Politics tries to explain similarities and differences. Can you give two concrete
hypotheses that would be useful to test political differences between countries?
8
Grafiek proberen te verklaren (bv. press-freedom worldwide: what are your findings from this
graph?)