Summary CAPI
Introduction
Introduction to comparative politics
Politics is the human activity of making public and authoritative decisions. It is the activity of
acquiring power of making such decisions and of exercising this power. It is the conflict or
competition for power and its use.
Who decided what, and how, is important for the life of societies.
Comparative politics deals with interactions within political systems.
Comparative politics is an empirical science that studies chiefly domestic politics
The goals of comparative politics are:
o To describe differences and similarities between political systems and their features
o To explain these differences
o To predict which factors may cause specific outcomes
Comparative politics is not limited to the comparison of national political systems, but also
includes other units such as sub-national and supra-national organization, single political
actors, processes, and policies.
With the widening of the number of ‘cases’ (new states or other regions), the need for more
general concepts that could travel beyond Western countries led to a focus on functions
rather than institutions (and political systems rather than states). In the past three decades,
however, a reaction against overly abstract analysis has led back to ‘mid-range theories’
limited in space and time.
Behavioural revolution: important turn in the 1940s-50s, when empirical political theories replaced
normative theories. Data were collected by means of surveys and analysed by statistical and
computerized instruments. Linked to the structural-functional paradigm, with broad concepts
applicable to a large number of diverse cases.
• What triggered this revolution? More attention was devoted to ‘new’ cases, a rejection of the
focus on the West and the developed world.
• Consequences of the broadening of the geographical and historical scope:
o The variety of political systems increased.
o The role of agencies was pointed out other than institutions; parties, interest groups,
civil society organizations, social movements, and media.
o A new methodology based on empirical observation, large scale comparisons,
statistical techniques, and an extraordinary effort of quantitative data collection was
introduced.
o A new ‘language’, namely systemic functionalism was imported.
Systemic functionalism: theoretical paradigm based on the functions of
structures within a social or political system
• Travelling problem: ‘Western concepts’ had a different meaning in other parts of the world.
• Counter-reaction in 1967: shift to a substantial focus, narrowing of geographical scope,
change of methodology and theoretical turn.
o Mid-range theories: stress the advantages of case studies or in-depth analyses of a
few countries, rather than general universalistic theories
• 1980s: another change strengthening further the place of institutions.
, As for the behavioural revolution, rational choice also aims at a general and unified theory of
politics applicable in all times and places. This paradigm was imported into political science
from economics and stresses the role of institutions in comparative politics.
o Rational choice theory: based on the idea that actors (individuals, organizations,
political parties) are rational.
Easton’s concept of political system:
Environment
INPUT demands -> POLTICAL decisions -> OUTPUT
support -> SYSTEM
feedback environment
A country’s political system (institutions and agencies) structures the ways in which citizens’
preferences (inputs) are translated into policy (outputs).
At the same time, policy (outputs) should be linked to the preferences of the citizens: incumbent
governments have to justify their actions.
Comparative politics employs statistical techniques when research designs include many
cases and quantitative indicators (variable-oriented large-N studies), or ‘comparative
methods’ when research designs include few cases and qualitative indicators (case-oriented
small N-studies). Case studies can also be carried out in a comparative perspective.
The dimensions of comparison are multiple: spatial, temporal, and functional.
Ecological fallacy: what is true on aggregated level is not necessarily true at the individual level.
H1: The relevance of comparative politics
What should comparative politics be relevant for?
For informing the public debate and also for giving advice to politicians and government
agencies about public policies.
For informing and advising the general public.
Has potential for serving more general goals, such as increased social justice and improved
human well-being.
Political institutions: sets of rules, procedures and social norms. They institute what we ‘can’ and
‘cannot’ do. Can be formal or informal.
Institutional turn: before this turn it was thought that human well-being solely depended on the
amount of natural resources, technology, economic prosperity etc. This however couldn’t explain why
countries with the same resources, technology and economy could still have very different rating of
well-being. A turn was made in which the focus shifted towards the political system, and how a well-
functioning government could ensure well-being as well. Well-being depends a lot on the institutions
in society (rules of the game).
The ‘institutional turn’ in the social sciences implies a shift away from a focus on structural
variables for explaining why some societies are more successful than others in providing
human well-being.
,Democracy
We often think of democracy in terms of an either/or dimension – a country is either a
democracy or (more or less) authoritarian. In reality, democracies turn out to have quite
dramatic variation in their institutional configurations.
The manner in which a democratic political system is organized is often linked to its capability
for producing ‘valued outcomes’ such as economic prosperity, political legitimacy, and social
justice.
Democracy alone seems not to generate human well-being. Corruption in the public sector
and other forms of low quality of government has a strong negative effect on human well-
being.
Democracy is important for broad-based political legitimacy, but less so than factors related
to the quality of government institutions that implement public policies.
Democracy is not a ‘safe cure’ against corruption and other forms of low quality of
government.
In many elections, voters are not punishing corrupt politicians. This implies that the
accountability mechanisms in representative democracy are not working as intended.
Simplified model of representative democracy: a combination of two chains
The ‘chain of responsiveness’
Links the citizens’ preferences to the results of policy making
Democratic responsiveness occurs when the democratic process induces the government to
form and implement policies that citizens want
Mobilization > aggregation > implementation of preferences
We will focus on this one
The ‘chain of accountability’
Links public policies to citizens’ preferences
Incumbent governments should assume responsibility for their acts and enable voters to
respond with sanctions, if the policy output does not correspond to their preferences
Judgment, sanctions & consequences < evaluation < information & justification
If the capability approach is to be used as the central metric for relevance of research in
comparative politics, a shift of focus in what should be explained (the ‘dependent variable’) is
necessary. The traditional and dominant ambition to explain ‘politics’ should be
complemented by a striving to explain variations in human well-being, broadly defined.
o The political institutions that seem to be most important for countries to achieve a
high level of human development are those that exist at the ‘output’ side of the
political system.
A focus on what politics can do for increasing human well-being, prosperity, and social justice
in the world is also related to the choice of ‘independent’ variables – that is, factors that can
explain the variation in human well-being etc. Variables that have the strongest statistical
significance may be less interesting if they are not able to be changed by political means.
o Researchers sometimes confuse the notion of statistical significance with real-life
significance.
Much research in comparative politics is focused on formal institutions, leaving informal
institutions out. One such institution that seems to have a huge impact on human well-being
is general social trust. Recent research shows that there is a causal link between how people
perceive the quality of formal institutions and their prosperity to believe that other people in
general can be trusted.
, Conclusion
1. There should be a shift of focus on what should be explained from ‘mere politics’ to questions
that impact on human well-being.
2. There should be more focus on variables that both have an explanatory power and that is
possible to change.
3. While not undervaluing the institutions for representative democracy, more focus ought to be
given to the institutions that are related to issues like state capacity.
Varieties of democracy
Democracy and Dictatorship – Clark et al.
History of democracy
Until 19th century: democracy as an obsolete and ancient political system that was dangerous
and unstable
Aristoteles distinguished good and bad regimes; good regimes were regimes where leaders
serve the people’s interest, bad regimes were regimes where leaders serve their own interest
(substantive view).
o Aristoteles made a distinction between a rule by one, a few or many.
o He believed the best forms of these three types of rule were a monarchy (one), an
aristocracy (a few), and a politeia (many). The perverted versions of these forms were
tyranny (one), oligarchy (a few), and democracy (many).
In response to very corrupt and unjust monarchs, the nobility would work together with the
commons. This was a first step towards democracy.
Classifying democracies and dictatorships
Substantive view of democracy: classifies political regimes in regard to the outcomes that they
produce
Protection of minorities/equal rights
Minimalist/procedural view of democracy: classifies political regimes in regard to their institutions
and procedures
Elections
Dahl’s view on democracy:
Minimalist view
Two dimensions important for classification of political regimes
o Contestation: captures the extent to which citizens are free to organize themselves
into competing blocs in order to press for the policies and outcomes they desire
(political parties, freedom of assembly, etc.)
o Inclusion: the extent to which people get to participate in the democratic process
(ability to vote, get elected, etc.)
Other word for democracy that Dahl uses: polyarchy: a political regime with high levels of
both contestation and inclusion
Continuous measure: can take on any intermediate value within a given range
More dictatorial More democratic
How do we measure democracy?
Operationalization
Concept Indicator/measure
