Samenvatting
Samenvatting Comparative political institutions
- Vak
- Instelling
Samenvatting Comparative Political Institutions (CPI) gedoceerd door Davide Vittori. Heb hiermee een 18/20 behaald.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 107 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 107 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgenfeedejonckheere
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Comparative political institutionsClass 1
= chapter 1
Political science is 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)
Main difference between political scientists and classical thinkers: political scientists are usually
non-normative thinkers and do not involve their own opinion in their theories. Classical thinkers are
normative thinks and want to broadcast their opinion
Comparative political institutions: definition
Comparative refers to the methodology (how) to describe cases, institutions,
classifications and typologies
Political/politics: what is the field of research (public actors)
Institutions: stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior created by humans (socially
constructed) formal (written) and informal (unwritten)
Formal institution versus informal institution
Informal
institutions are socially shared rules, usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and
enforced outside of officially sanctioned channels
Formal: constitutions, laws, international treaties, written rules, codes e.g. NAVO, EU, …
Informal: respect, loyalty, honour, clan politics, clientelism, social trust (clan politics are normally not
allowed in a country or an institutions) e.g. tribes in Libia
1
,Definition informal institution: “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.7 In Japan, the
“strict but unwritten rules” of Amakudari (“descent from heaven”), through which retiring state
bureaucrats are awarded top positions in private corporations, have survived decades of
administrative reform.”
Power
It’s the human activity of making authoritative and public decisions.
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)
Mostly: Why politics important?
Because man is by nature a political animal (i.e. a social animal, that live in (complex)
societies). Studying politics is also studying the manhood in a way.
What makes a decision authorative? Power!
“The ability of an individual or a group of individuals to achieve their own goals, when other
are trying to prevent them to realize them.” i.e. the ability of forcing other people doing
things that otherwise they would not do.
THREE TYPES:
Traditional (Patriarchy, but also kings)
Charismatic (Leaders)
Rational-legal
Comparative politics: what for?
2
,Describe cases: classification/typologies of institutions and actors
Explain: formulate hypothesis, test them and make some statements about them
Making predictions: it is actually difficult to make predictions. What we call laws in politics are not
laws strictu sensu (as in physics for example).
Iron law of oligarchy (Roberto Michels 1876 – 1936) every organization, eventually, ends up in an
oligarchy.
Diverger laws: the simple-majority singleballot system favours the two-party system. Both the
simple-majority system with the second ballot and proportional representation favour multi-
partisism.
Comparative politics, like hard science?
NO!
Making predictions in social sciences is different from making decisions in hard science
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.
Reality changes and with its actors and the institutions.
Think about polls…is it an exact science? WDYT (= what makes a decision authorative?)
Yet now we have tools that allow us to approximate (or try to) hard science. Experimental
designs
Behavioural revolution
Before the behavioural evolution (1950-60’s):
Research was mainly based on qualitative methods, 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
Focus was on institutions (states, regions, cities, political organizations) and not on
individuals
Public opinion study by Lipmann: set the movement in motion (conclusion: public opinion is
irrational)
The behavioural revolution: (niet overgegaan in de les)
3
, From institution to agency
50’s-60’s: internationalization of the discipline
New data, new cases … more cases
Aggregate data were subject to manipulation:
Growing interest in personalized information like ‘values’
Computerization of social sciences
Ecological fallacy: undermined assumption that correlations at the level of aggregate
units could be inferred at the individual level
Introduction of statistics in the discipline, they became the main point of reference: creation
of datasets by university researchers
Interested in the big picture: how politics works? Systemic theory such as the one by David
Easterson (1917-2014)
Universal categories, non-western-centric
Example: democracy
Limitations of the behavioural revolution: (niet overgegaan in de les)
Too abstract concepts can’t always travel
Can we apply “universal” concepts all over the world? no, different perception and
experiences
New focus on institutions (new institutionalism): (niet overgegaan in de les)
Historical institutionalism
Sociological/normative institutionalism
Rational choice institutionalism
New movements: (niet overgegaan in de les)
No more universal categories: narrowing of geographical scope importance of historical
context
Mid-range theories: not case- or universally oriented nor intended to provide a universal
explanation
Partial change of methodology:
Not merely large N, but also case-oriented studies
New comparative method: few cases, many variables
Importance of small N cases to provide insightful analysis, less abstract but still
informative
Rational choice theory:
Actors as rational and self-interested
Institutions as constraining
Cyclical process in methods in CP: (niet overgegaan in de les)
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper feedejonckheere. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen