Comparing Political Systems
Why Compare
• To develop perspective on the mix of constants
and variability which characterize the world’s
governments and the contexts in which they
operate
• Comparison is fundamental to all thought and
constitutes the methodological core of the
scientific method
• It is the only way to fully understand one’s own
political system.
Why Compare
• In societies researchers cannot design and
perform experiments and observe the
effects.
• Examples: (1) Social Revolution – could
never start one and attempt to observe the
outcome. (2) Military escalation – could
not initiate an escalation simply to see if it
would lead to war.
Comparison Allows …
• The description and explanation of different
combinations of political institutions and events
across societies.
• Eg: comparison of democracies – what
combination of conditions and characteristics are
associated with that form of government?
• Encourages the development of theories of
political relationships – which are testable via
comparisons of the experiences of many
institutions and settings.
How to Compare
• Description, explanation, prediction
• Stage One: Description
– Need a conceptual framework
• Stage Two: Explanation
– Identify relationships between political phenomena
• Stage Three: Prediction
– Putting political relationships in causal terms to
systematically identify causes and effects of
relationships.
How to Compare
• Conceptual frameworks, relationships and
causality = theory building and testing.
• Research question: what is the relationship
between democracy and peace?
– Theoretical construct: countries are peaceful because
they are democratic
• Causal relationships/statements:
– Only authoritarian governments start wars.
– Democracy guarantees peace
– Authoritarian governments tend to be more warlike than
democracies.
Theories
• An interrelated set of hypotheses that
express a relationship between variables.
• Theories are testable and falsifiable
• Theories can never be “proved” they can
fail to be falsified.
• “God created the earth” is a statement of
faith not necessarily a theory of creation.
– Why?
Good theories
• Theories are good when they hold up (or fail to be
falsified) to repeated testing.
– Eg: anthropology – the study of the fossil record – the
entire discipline dedicated to testing the theory of
evolution (in one sense).
– Theories are more or less testable in the comparative
context when we can examine a number of cases
• Large N versus Small N studies
• Sufficient number and variety of cases to allow a full
examination of the relationships between variables…versus the
absence of this.
Comparative Methodological
Approaches
• Case Study
– intensive study of a single instance
– Provides a detailed account of an episode or theme
falling into a wider category
• Focused Comparisons
– intensive comparison of a few instances
• Statistical Approaches
– quantitative assessment of the impact of variables
Statistical versus Case studies
• Statistical studies are large N studies.
– Statistical studies allow precise numeric
explanation of variable relationships.
• Case studies are small N studies.
– Case studies allow in-depth understanding of
variables and their relationships.
– Case studies allow better hypothesis testing at
the statistical level (eg; have we developed the
best hypothesis for testing?).
Problems with Comparison
• Conceptual Stretching
– Concepts are not equal across societies
– Functional equivalents exist and must be identified (coup
vs election).
• Selection Bias
– Tendency is to study what we know (west)
– Problems emerge with our ability to generalize
• Too Many Variables, Too Few Countries
– 180 states
– All 180 are different
• Interdependence
– Model of statehood diffused from Europe
– Historic transitions:
industrialization>colonialism>decolonialism>democratiza
tion>marketization>globalization
Conceptual Frameworks:
Systems
• Structural-Functional approach
– Identify the system, the structures and the
functions of structures
– Political systems are comprised of sets of
institutions interacting to formulate the
collective goals of a society. Governments
form the policymaking elements of these
systems (separate from members of society).
Conceptual Frameworks:
Structure
• Governments have component parts – agencies or
STRUCTURES
–
–
–
–
Parliaments
Bureaucracies
Administrative agencies
Courts
Policies are the goals; structures are the means
Political Regimes: the structural-functional configuration
of governments at different times.
Conceptual Frameworks:
Functions
• Functions – the service or activity performed by
the component of the political system
• Is structural-functionalism a strong approach to
political analysis?
–
–
–
–
Biased in favor of status quo?
Allows application despite space and time
Does not provide the why (explanation is absent)
Provides the foundational information about systems
without which researchers cannot begin to formulate
and answer to the Why question.
Functions (notes and
implications)
• Function implies both direct and indirect purpose
• System Functions:
– Political socialization, recruitment, communication
(comparison is possible across these variables)
• Process Functions:
– Interest articulation, interest aggregation, interest
adjudication
• Policy Functions:
– Impact on society, economy, culture; interaction with
international environment, extraction, regulation of
behavior, distribution
The Policy Level
• Performance, outcome and evaluation
– Is the policy relevant to the needs/interests of
society
– Evaluation of performance
– Response to value change
– Degree of stability or adaptability