SUMMARY COMPARATIVE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
LECTURE 1: INTRODUCTION
1. COMPARATIVE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
From the classic to the contemporary classics…
Political science is indeed a young discipline (XX century), but it has its predecessors, that tried
to address political issues in a non-normative (or quasi non-normative way)
- Now pol scientist are non-normative thinkers = do not provide own opinions (goal = to
explain phenomena)
- Difference classical thinkers: main goal to shape ancient regime/ influence leaders in
past and to give instructions to leaders on how to interpret pol. phenomena
Definition
- COMPARATIVE refers to the methodology (how): pol. Phenomena not studied in
isolation/ use method of comparison
- POLITICAL/ politics: what is the field of research (decisions made by public actors (gov)
- INSTITUTIONS: stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior created by humans
(socially constructed): studies social phenomena within pol. Societies
➔ 2 types of institutions
o Formal institutions: e.g. constitutions, laws, international treaties, written rules, codes
= written and contracted, actors are usually organizations
e.g. NATO, UN, Belgian constitution (establishes set rules that all citizens must comply
with/ might be subject to changes)
o Informal institution
= are socially shared rules, usually inwritten that are created, communicated and
enforced outside of officially sanctioned channels
e.g. respect, loyalty, honor, clan politics, clientelism, social trust (even superstition)
e.g. Italy: if you want to get in public administration, you should have a pol party/
union membership (not written rule)/ Libya: tribes not codified but if want to gain
power like Gaddafi, you need to form alliances with tribes → tribe politics)
Informal political institutions: definition
- “For decades, Mexican presidents were selected not according to rules in the Constitution,
the electoral law, or party statutes, but rather via the dedazo (“big finger”) — an unwritten
code that gave the sitting president the right to choose his successor, specified the candidate
pool, and prohibited potential candidates from openly seeking the job.
Definition: POLITICS
= It’s the human ability/activity of making authoritative and public decisions
→ mainly about public decisions by public actors even if private actors can influence the
process (e.g. Musk erased Trump’s twitter accounts → private decision with impact on public/
political sphere)
- Why public? Because it applies to all citizens. We are not interested in what
people/organization do in the private sphere (e.g. how private banks make investment
decisions). Decisions taken by public actors even if private actors can influence this process.
- Why politics important? Because man is by nature a political animal
→ a social animal, that live in (complex) societies). Studying politics is also studying the
manhood in a way.
,Definition: POWER (= what makes a decision authoritative + ability of enforcement)
= the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to achieve their own goals, when others
are trying to prevent them to realise them
→ the ability of forcing other ppl doing things that they would otherwise not do
e.g. states have legitimacy to rule over their citizens cuz have monopoly of violence: if breach
the constitution and the rules/ laws that are derived from this, violence can be used against
citizens → ppl can be put into jail = legitimately using violence against citizens)
3 types of power
- Traditional (Patriarchy but also kings)
o Other legitimacy: not the law or elections, but from blood and god
o Taliban regime = a traditional type of legitimation → they apply rules imposed by
something else, religion
- Charismatic (Leaders)
o Leader from a group: dictators in general (not all, some derive legitimacy from other
sources)→ Napoleon (later received recognition from the pope as a traditional source
of legitimation), Hitler (embodied Nazism), Mussolini (embodied fascism), Nasser (but
army played a role as well), Lenin? → not legitimated by the party, he did not embody
the communist movement
- Rational – legal (?)
o the power that derives from the law, from the nation-state
o e.g. European countries: their powers end at the border → They can impose on the
people in a country (not only citizens) → the Vatican: the power of the pope used to
not stop at the border
2. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: WHAT DO WE STUDY?
Political Theory (philosophy) Comparative Politics International relations
Value-laden A-normative A-normative
What is good? What is bad? What makes two institutions How does the relation between
similar/different? states is structured?
Provide normative conception of Describing and making Describing and (sometimes)
reality inferences about the political making inferences about the
world political world
Gramsci, Habermas, Schmitt Sartori, Mair, Lijphart Gilpin, Waltz, Mershaimer
➔ difference IR and CP is the units of analysis: many in CP → mainly states/ int
organizations in IR
How do we study comparative politics in this course?
Countries and areas over time – country by country we describe the main features and from the
description we derive political science concepts
Methodology – we study different approaches to political science → concepts are pre-
eminent… we use countries and other actors to make examples
Analytical – combine the two approached → examples and methods treated at the same time
3. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: WHAT FOR?
(Political science is interesting because of the differences between countries)
1. Describe cases: classification/typologies of institutions and actors
e.g. party membership in Belgium through time has decreased (still among highest in Europe
2. Explain: formulate hypothesis, test them and make some statements about them.
- Why in some countries the turnout is higher and in other countries is lower?
, o 2 levels of analysis; citizens that do (not) show up + countries
o High turnout when mandatory = most fundamental reason
- Why in some countries radical right parties are successful and in others not?
o 2 units of analysis: parties and countries
- Why some authoritarian regimes turn into a democracy and other do not?
o 1 level: states (authoritarian and democratic)
3. Making predictions: it is actually difficult to make predictions. What we call laws in pol.
science are not laws strictu sensu (as in physics for example)
→ we use polls to predict an outcome. It is a statistical tool to allow us to make predictions
e.g. Iron law of oligarchy (Roberto Michels): Every organization, eventually, ends up in an
oligarchy led by few people that make all the decisions.
e.g. Duverger Laws (Maurice Duverger):
- The simple-majority single-ballot system favours the two-party system
o id FPTP electoral law (UK/US)→ end up with 2 main parties (labour /conservatives)
→ always exist other parties but have little say/ influence/ chance of getting elected
➔ if have FPTP, we will end up with 2 parties
- Both the simple-majority system (50+1 votes needed) with second ballot and proportional
representation favour multi-partism (more than 2 parties)
Comparative politics, like hard science → NO!
- Political science is not experimental → we cannot replicate experiments in the very same
“external” conditions of the first time. Every test is “unique” in this sense, as it is every
actor or institution. Political science is not a “lab” science
o Cannot recreate exact conditions in which a phenomenon took place
o Every single election is a specific phenomenon that cannot be replicated
- Reality changes and with it the actors and the institutions: we cannot recreate the 2016
elections in the US
- Think about polls…is it an exact science?
- Yet we have now tools that allow us to approximate (or try to) hard science. Experimental
designs
Survey – experimental: European social survey
“The social sciences, in common with the natural sciences, aim for generalisations across time
and space. They must also, however, pay close attention to the social and institutional
arrangements that structure human interaction. Europe’s cultural diversity thus makes it a
natural laboratory for the social sciences, which can analyse differences in institutions,
structures, behaviours and beliefs across European states and relate these to explanations of
human interaction.”
- From these data we want to have generalisation about the behaviour of the individuals in
the social and political sphere?
- e.g. Why do some individuals vote for a Christian Democratic Party, while other opt for a
Social Democratic one?
Example 1: Class voting and Left-Right party positions – a comparative study of 17 Western
democracies
- “Although there is a general trend for class voting to decline over time, partiall accounted
for by the impact of education, we find that most variation in class voting does not take the
form of a linear decline”
➔ find generalized patterns but cannot make predictions (or does it with several precautions)
, Before the behavioural revolution
- Research based mainly on qualitative analyses, such as legal texts, laws, discourses →
mainly based on single-cases studies, small-N comparison
- “Big data” were not available: research mainly on the field → time-consuming, very
expensive
- Interests in institutions (states, regions, cities, political organizations), not on individuals
o No analysis why ppl would vote for a certain party (focus on states)
- “The first separate school of political science was established in 1872 in France as the École
Libre des Sciences Politiques (now the Institut d’Études Politiques).”
Walter Lipmann
- Very influential study on public opinion but without data
- Before behavioral revolution, yet concepts still used today
- Argument: public opinion is irrational (cannot make rational judgement)
From institutions to agency
- 1950 – 196: new international environment: new data, new/more cases
→ Statistics became the main point of reference
→ Interest in big picture: How politics works? Systemic theories
→ Universal categories – not western-centric
Before and after the behavioural revolution
What’s next
- Behavioural revolution… was indeed a revolution. The methods are similar to the ones we
use now (yet more evolved). However, there were important limitations:
o Too abstract (concepts cannot travel easily)
o Can we apply universal concepts all over the world? (Not so easy as it might seems)
- Example: democracy
- New focus on institutions (new institutionalism):
o Historical institutionalism, sociological/ normative institutionalism, rational choice
institutionalism
- No more universal categories: narrowing of geographical scope + importance of historical
context
- Mid-range theories: theories that are not too much case oriented nor are they intended to
provide universal explanation (e.g. radical-right parties in Europe, Patterns of 36
democracies etc.)
