Comparative Politics: Main Approaches
Curtis
• Systems Theory
• Communication Theory
• Structural Functionalism
• Behavioralism
• Rational Choice
• Institutional Analysis
• Statistical Analysis
• Political Development
• Dependency Theory
• Political Culture
• Political Attitudes
• Political Cleavages
• Globalization
Lane
• Behavioral Revolution
• Developmentalism/Dependency
• The Return of the State
• (Historical and Rational Choice)
New Institutionalism
They differ in the way of posing
problems, the choice of relevant
dimensions, and their
methodological orientations
Theory and the Art of
Comparative Politics
Ruth Lane Chapter 6
What is a Theory in Comparative
Politics?
• (Common sense approach) onedimensional position (organizing all
theories along a scale in which my favorite
approach ranks the best)
– Lane: This approach to theory is egocentric
and dogmatic
(Instead) Two Strategies
• Analysis of different forms of theory
• Study of model building
Forms of theory
1. Michel’s “iron law of oligarchy” (old, prebehavioral form of theory)
2. Functionalism
3. Rational Choice
“… a picture of a real theory is worth a
thousand definitions” (Lane)
1. Michel’s “Iron Law of Oligarchy”
• Michel’s theory has the form of a universal
law
• Theory of Oligarchy: All organizations are
oligarchical
– “every organ of the collectivity, brought into
existence through the need for the division of
labour, creates for itself as soon as it becomes
consolidated, interests peculiar to itself” (Michel,
qtd. by Lane 127)
• The desire to dominate others is inherent to
humankind
Michel’s “Iron Law of Oligarchy”
• Michel departs from understanding that there is a need for
leadership among human beings, because the masses are
not capable of governing themselves
• Although we may be all equal in principle, there is no
possibility to for us to exercise power directly (says Michel)
and therefore we need to designate representatives, who
specialize in governing us and tend to stay in office for a
long time…
• (Mass voting = Mass disempowerment)
• Organizations generate oligarchies, yet disorganization
carries even worse consequences
• Change arises from competition between oligarchies and
their (opportunistic) displacement
– (not democracies but polyarchies)
Michel’s “Iron Law of Oligarchy”
• Michel connects observable variables
with a logically consistent argument into
a theory, or “a connected set of
propositions that say something definite
about the real world” (Lane 129)
• His propositions are both of universal
reach (parties, unions, the government,
the state) and falsifiable (Can you find a
case that contradicts the theory?)
• As all theories, Michel’s explains specific
aspects of reality
2. Functionalism
• Functionalism/Structural Functionalism
(developed within Behavioralism)
• Almond, Parsons, Coleman, Easton
• Main Assumption: Both social and political
systems perform all of the functions that are
needed by the survival of the system.
– Ex: “adaptation,” “interest articulation,” “rule
making”
– Tautological structure? The argument tends to
assume what it should be explained
– Tendency to recognize functions to existent
institutions
Middle Range Functionalism:
Robert Merton
• Merton used functionalism as a tool of research. Instead
of assuming that functions are performed, Merton
explored, described, and analyzed them.
• He argued that social functions should be inferred from
objective phenomena that we can observe
• Nuanced approach
– Functions may be manifest or latent
– Identification of both functions and dysfunctions
– Functions arise from social needs (dysfunctions call for the
elimination or change of the structures providing for them)
• “Middle Range” theory builds up from empirical
observation
– Whenever people feel dissatisfied, there is a social need that
sooner or later will create a “functional opportunity”
3. The Political Economy/Rational
Choice Approach
• Dominant in American politics and
International Relations
• Not so popular in Comparative Politics
– Because of the complexity and diversity of
problems we deal with
– Rational choice theories are logical,
consistent, and parsimonious
– Yet they rely on very strong assumptions on
the nature of individuals and humankind
(= maximizer/economic beings)
• Whereas individualism, selfishness, and a
maximizer’s rationality may be spread in
market societies such as ours, comparative
studies suggest that these characteristics
are not species-like but historically
(re)produced and circumscribed
– Thus, the theory’s universal claims seem weak
“Cultural” Rationalities
• Rational choice scholars’ effort to expand the
definition of “rationality” (to be rational, goals
must not necessarily be individually or
economically oriented. Goals defined by
ethics, religion, altruism, can be “rational”)
• Identification of patterns and “operating
principles” from different cultures and
societies
– Achievement: Openness to include different
forms of rationality
– Risk: Is any single “reason” inspiring behavior
rational?
Methods of Theory Building
•
•
•
•
Lave and March (1975)
Theory ≈ Models
Theory is Practical
Basic Rule: Start with a fact and ask “how
it might have come about.”
– Answers = Hypotheses (need to be tested)
Steps
• Processes underlying events
• Implications (logical connectors that make
different political situations understandable)
• Generalizability (arises not from statistics
but from the common core of the political
process. Clarifying a process at one level
may illuminate other levels)
• Quality of Explanation (test your
explanation with an eight-year-old). Not only
prediction, but exposition of the “logic of the
causal connections.”
The “Politics” Model
• Neither “progress,” nor “democracy” nor
“development” are seen as independent
forces anymore… But just individuals and
groups
• Practical confrontation of individuals and
groups using different resources
The “Politics” Model
1. Identify major participants
2. Identify both individual and group ideas
(political culture)
3. Assess the participants’ resources
4. Assess the structure of opportunities and
constraints
5. Examine functional opportunities and
alternatives
Common Pattern
• “Because of a given situation… then a
certain situation arose, which changed the
political situations of the participants, so
that a new situation ensued and so on until
one reaches the conclusion that this
interlocked set of processes has provided
an explanation.”(Lane 140)
For the final exam, examine and discuss a problem in a comparative perspective. You will write on
three (or more) countries, and will have to include the United States in your (comparative) analysis. Include
also Mexico, China, India, Russia, or one of the countries of the Middle East. Compare the cases along one of
the questions below (or use one of your own that is framed in similar terms).
Restate the problem in the question, place each country in relation to the problem, present a clear argument
and develop it with the support of a major source of data (it can be statistics, historical data, or people’s
stories). Which theory or theories of those presented by Ruth Lane and Michael Curtis seem better suited to
account for your problem? Which theories seem completely wrong instead? (How much) Can you generalize
on your conclusions? How would you go ahead to put together an empirical research project on this question?
Be selective in the use of data (use only the data that is relevant to answer to the question) and include the
sources and references at the end of your essay (include sources at the end).
*Discuss the relationships between globalization and democratization
*Does democracy produce economic wealth, or it is instead wealth that promotes democracy?
*In the last three decades, democratic regimes have expanded dramatically around the world.
Whereas this trend is still celebrated, there are certain warnings on that democratization could be in danger.
How can we tell whether democratization is receding or progressing?
*Do political parties and party systems enhance or hinder democracy?
*Do political stability and participation oppose to each other?
*If political culture frames political institutions, how much can institutional reform transform
(authoritarian) political culture? Should we try to intervene to make culture more democratic everywhere, or it
would be more prudent to leave culture as it is to avoid unforeseen consequences? Why?
*What kind of party systems are best suited to make democracy thrive? What signs to you would
indicate the need for change when it comes to the party system?
¡Electoral systems “produce” different party systems. So far, we explored the most popular ones
(Single Member District and Proportional Representation ) plus variants (the Japanese SNTV) and
combinations of the main systems in different countries. Which system, or combination, do you find better
expresses the ideals and preservation of a democracy? Why?