Political Science
Exam Notes
2019-2020
,NotesWeek 1-Introduction to studying comparative politics
1. Key concepts: Government, governance, state, authority, legitimacy, politics, political systems + ideology
2. Definitions/dimensions of power
-Inc methods to research power
3. Theoretical approaches to politics
Key concept 1: Government
Government: The Governing body
Institutions and structures through which societies are governed
Top down + command and control
Institutions
A formal organization or practise with a political purpose, marked by longevity + internal complexity
Practise=established law or practise such as constitution or marriage
The broad and narrow concept of government
1. Narrow: The highest level of political office that come to power through elections
Presidents, prime ministers, mayors and other at the apex of power
2. Broad: All organizations charged with making + executing decisions for the community- known as the public authority
who do not come to power through elections
Police, military, bureaucrats + judges
Philosophers outlook on government power
1. Thomas Hobbes [1651]
-In the state of nature individuals are equals but without a ruler they live in fear of a war of all against all
-People agree to government to avoid a life that would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish + short
-We transform anarchy into order + secure peace which is mutually beneficial
-When we know that laws are developed in a standardised fashion, we have stability + predictability
2. John Locke [1690]
-Locke criticises Hobbes outlook
‘There is no profit in avoiding the dangers of foxes if the outcome is simply to be devoured by the lions
-Warns of the consequences of power to a central authority [government]
Key concept 2: Governance
The process by which decisions, laws and policies are made, with or without input of formal institutions
-The activity of governing
Difference between government + governing
Governance is about making the political system work
-Constant interaction between government, corporations + interest group=process of governing
Governance is less top down, less command + control
The broader task of public regulation is shared by the formal democratic institutions + other bodies
This is collective decision making
-Together we make + enforce rules
Example of governance
Freedomhouse is a non-governmental institution
It measures how democratic a state is [civil rights + liberties]
They rank countries against each other + monitor them
=Governance-helping to make the political system work
Key concept 3: The State
The state + government are intrinsically linked concepts
-We think of them as synonymous
The legal + political authority with inherent sovereignty
-Can rule over population + territory
-Are recognised by other states + citizens
,Link between state + government
State defines political community + government is the managing agent
Because the state has a monopoly of authority it creates a mandate of rule which the government puts into effect
Features of the state
1. Government- The government administers the authority of the state + deals with other governments
2. Population- without the population the territory would just be a block of real estate
3. Legitimacy- States are recognised by their citizens + other states as having jurisdiction within their territory
4. Territory-States have a fixed territory + control movement of people, money + goods across that border
5. Sovereignty-States are sovereign over the population in the territory + resources, they can impose taxes + laws
How sovereignty manifests in the state organization
1. Unitary state [Europe]
-Originally monarchs held sovereignty but now parliaments elected by the people instead
-Centralisation of authority
2. Federal state [USA/Russia]
-Sovereignty is divided between the central + regional governments
-Concept of the state is diluted by this division of sovereignty
Historical origins of the state
Government + politics was mainly associated with kingdoms, empires + cities
-Governed in a personal + highly decentralised fashion + concerned with neighbours only
Westphalia system [1648]
-Birth of the modern state
-Centralization of authority + states as sovereign equals
-Born in Europe + exported to the rest of the world through colonisation
Active periods for the formation of states
1. First wave: Early 19th century
-Spanish/Portuguese territories of Latin America
-Wars of independence from their colonial rulers to become states
2. Second wave: End of WW1
-Collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russia Empire + the Ottoman Empire
-Dissolved into separate states
3. Third wave: Post WW2
-Global level= most active period for the formation of states
-Decolonization
-End of the European Empires + emergence of 70 African/Asian countries in the 1960s/70s
4. Fourth Wave: 1991
-Collapse of communism + dissolution of Soviet Union
- split into 15 successor states
Challenges for the state
-Is the state still important?
1. First school of thought: Strong as ever + important
Monopoly over the military
Main actor in management of the economy [international trade]
Citizens identify with the state
-Subject to the rules of the state
Technological innovation
-Strengthened grip on citizens through internet/cameras following activities + monitoring [security state]
2. Second school of thought: States are growing stronger [security state]
State can follow activities of citizens through video surveillance + monitoring of phone calls + internet use
, -Ordinary citizens/terrorists/suspect terrorists
Involved in the lives of citizens in discrete ways
Can impinge on personal privacy + limit movement/choices of those who travel and live within their borders
3. Third school of thought: States are weakening + diminishing in importance
1. The Right to self-determination
-Minorities are demanding independence + secession from existing states
-Catalonia/Quebec
2. Globalization
-Politics/economics/culture + technology has integrated across borders
-States are losing control + impacted by developments in other states
-Economic interdependence due to international trade + EU internal market regulation means states cannot
independently steer the national economy
3. Expansion of interstate cooperation + international law
-Cooperation through bilateral/multinational treaties on a number of issues has diluted independent existence
-States have formed a number IGOs responsible for cooperation + monitoring of global issues
Overall there are challenges to the state but it is still the most recognised political entity in the world; they are not declining but
undergoing a process of change, the nature of their power is changing and so are inter-state and intra-state relationship [citizens +
govt]
Concept 4: Authority
This is the right to rule because of power which must be accepted by people
Anybody can have power [capacity to act] but not everyone has authority [the acknowledged right to do so]
-You do not have to always agree with the decisions, but you accept their right to make them + your duty to
obey them
Sources of authority [Webster]- leadership
1. Traditional authority:
-The accepted way of doing things
-Status is key
-Dominant profile, one who embodies tradition and rule
2. Charismatic authority:
-Intense commitment to a leader + his/her message [Trump]
-Personality and leadership qualities of the individual help them to gain followers
-Usually connects with distinct groups
3. Rational legal authority:
-Systematic approach
-Authority is acquired from law
-Confidence to leave the right of leaders to undertake the decisions
- Focus on officials elected by voters, rules that are in the constitution
Key concept 5: Legitimacy
To be legitimate you have to have authority [people recognise right to make decisions]
Broader than authority because also looks at how other states view you
Nothing to do with legality [making rules following correct procedures] it is political
-Public opinion, not courts are the test for legitimacy
Key concept 6: Political system
The interactions and organizations through which society reaches + enforces decisions
All wider forces involved in political life form part of the political system
-All of civil society: interest groups/corporations
,Eastons model for a political system [Canadian political scientist]
Regarded institutions as the political system which make and enforce decisions
1. Input [influenced by environment]
Demand: People address their demands to the political system
Support: people support the political system [paying taxed]
2. Output [influenced by environment]
Decisions + actions: legislation + policies
3. Continuous cycle
-Legislation/policies interact with the environment [societal context]
-New demands/support are addressed to the political system as a result + back through the same cycle again
Problems with Easton’s model
1. Only the decisions/actions of institutions are taken into consideration: there are other actors that’s decisions/actions
influence the political system
2. The demands [input] from citizens is taken to be fact, their real wishes/preferences: it is not only citizens that have an
impact on the system, the system has an impact on citizens [institutions/commerce]
-Need to see this as a reciprocal relationship: citizens
Classifying political systems
Most states have the same core elements: an executive, legislature, courts, a constitution, parties + interest groups the
way the elements interact is different
-Emergence of democratic + authoritarian states
This is a typology: system of classification in which the way the core elements of a state interact divided them into
groups with common attributes
Concept 7: Politics
Political scientists’ views on politics
1. Politics is working towards the common good: idealistic: shared interests
Cooperation + reason
Definition Hague at al:
Process by which people negotiate and compete in order to make and execute collective decisions
Broader definition
Sees the role of governance in politics
Not so top down
Hannah Arnedt [German Philosopher]
‘Politics is acting in concert to make the best of ourselves’
-Connected to the good life
-Together we work to make society a better place for everyone to live in
-Participation in politics makes you a better human being
Robert Dahl [American political scientist]
‘Politics is resolving inevitable conflicts in a peaceful manner’
-Conflict isn’t bad it is inevitable
-We need to solve conflict in a peaceful manner
2. Politics is about competition for power: realistic: competing interests
Conflict + force
Definition: Easton
, Politics is the authoritative allocation of values by government
Narrow concept of politics
Only the institutions are involved in politics
Top down idea
Machiavelli [empirical political scientist]
-Politics is how rulers acquire power and keep it
-Instilling fear works better than being a benevolent ruler [fear over love]
Harold Lasswell [American political scientist]
-Politics is who gets what, when and how
-Rulers make decisions to this effect, they are in control
Overall politics concerns:
-Shared + competing interests
-Cooperation + conflict
-Reason + force
The essence of politics lies in the interaction between these two perspectives
-It is a mix of both perspectives
Concept 8: Ideologies
System of thought expressing a view on human nature, the proper relationship between state and society and the
individual’s position in this order
The age of ideologies seems to have passed, political parties are from left to right but more aligned with class
5 major ideologies
1. Anarchism
-No form of government authority necessary
-Society is structured around voluntary cooperation + free association
2. Marxism
-Elimination of state system + private property
-Creation of classless + self-governing society
3. Liberalism
-Limited freely elected government
-Individuals are the best judges of their own interests
4. Conservatism
-Traditional institutions and practises
-Free market is the best at meeting societies needs
-Government should be as decentralised as possible
5. Fascism
-National unity through an authoritarian state
-Strong leadership and support
-Emphasis on nationalism and militarism
What is power?
The capacity to bring about intended effects
-Heart of politics= distribution + manipulation of power
Two idea of power
Power to:
-Capacity to bring about intended effects
Power over:
-Power of individual over another person/collective
Political scientists: power over
[USA]
1950s/60s: economic growth means growth in economic inequality
There was legal equality but not economic inequality + Hunter and Dahl [political scientists] wanted to know if political
equality existed
1. Hunter [1953]
-Definition of power: ‘Power is the ability of one person to affect, modify or in some way shape the actions of another’
Case study: Atlanta [Georgia]
, Who has power over Atlanta
-Took list of 175 possible leader in the community of Atlanta
-Asked people who they thought was most important on the list
-Narrowed it down to 40 candidates
-Held interview with all 40 of them [looked into their relations with other important people + influence in
projects]
Conclusion: Atlanta is run by a small elite, they own business/land and govern the city=political inequality
2. Robert Dahl [1961]
-Definition of power: ‘An actor has influence to the extent that the outcome of the decision-making process is in
accordance with their explicit preferences’
-Disagrees with Hunter: he did not do research properly
-You can only talk about a ruling elite when:
1. The preferences of this ruling elite run counter to any other group
2.These preferences regularly prevail which means that the dominate
Case study: New Haven [Connecticut]
Who has power over New Haven
Looked at important decisions of government between 1950-58 + who proposed and who won in three areas
1. Urban development
2. Public education
3. Political nominations
Conclusion: there is no ruling elite: power is distributed evenly [dispersed] over the several actors with some being more
successful in one policy field and others more successful in another
-Did acknowledge that some groups may be excluded
-New Haven + other western political systems are polyarchys: form of government in which power is invested
in multiple people= no political inequality
-Criticised because he excluded the whole black community from his work
The phases in decision-making
1. Initiation
-Someone voices that there is a problem
2. Formulation
-The ones in charge acknowledge the problem + formulate a solution
-A category that is sub-divided
Formulation of lots of different proposals
Final decision on which proposal is being adopted
-Only one solution is chosen
3. Implementation
-Solution will be implemented
4. Evaluation
-Solution/implementation will be evaluated
Criticism of Dahls theory: Bachrach and Baratz [1970]
Dahls theory is too narrow/too strict
Dahls theory is concentrated on the formulation stage in decision-making
-Looked at who proposed + whose proposal won-too narrow
Need to look at proposals that are kept of the agenda this is a strong form of power in itself
-Non-decision making is ignored by Dahl
In Dahls research there had to be an actual disagreement [conflict] that is observable and it has to play out in the process
of decision-making
[criticism]
Conflict can be dormant and this is more difficult to observe as it comes before decision-making
-Some problems do not reach the formulation state where decision makers look at it
-Some communities grievances are not considered
-Sometimes people do not raise conflict out of fear of jobless etc
It is therefore possible that power is still in the hands of a small elite who are simply keeping things off the agenda
,Power over is expressible in three dimensions: means not one of the theories s correct on its own [Lukes three dimensions
of power 2005]
1. Who prevails when preferences conflict? [Dahl]: conflict + expression of preferences
Decisions are made on issues when there is an observable conflict of interests
We judge power by whose interests prevail when the actors possess conflicting views
Greater the correspondence between an actor/s views and the decision reached, the greater their power
2. Who controls weather preferences are expressed? [Bachrach + Baratz-1962]: conflict + expression of preferences
Decisions are prevented from being taken on potential issues over which there is not an observable conflict of
interest
The capacity to keep issues off the political agenda
To the extent that the actor/s-consciously/unconsciously- creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of
policy conflict they have power
3. Who shapes preferences [Lukes-1974]: Manipulation of preferences
The formation rather than expression of preferences
-Not a conflict and expression of preferences but manipulation of consensus
A person has power to the extent that they can manipulate preferences [maybe through flow of information],
party ideology etc
Application of the three dimensions of power
1. Who prevails when preferences conflict?
-Whose proposal wins
2. Who controls weather preferences are expressed?
-Power to keep preferences off the agenda
3. Who shapes preferences?
-Ideologies come into play
Theoretical approaches to politics
A theory is a general approach to explaining or understanding a phenomena supported by significant evidence
There is not one dominant approach in comparative politics
Comparative politics
-Studying government + politics in different countries and understanding them by drawing out contrasts +
similarities
Two types of theorists
Political science is made more relevant if we combine the two
1. Empirical theorists: Why are things the way they are?
-Conclusions based on facts/evidence/observation
Proportional representation encourages a multi-party system
2. Normative theorists: What ought to be done to make things better?
-Prescriptions for what ought to be done
Proportional representation ought to be used to encourage a multi-lateral party system
Theoretical approaches to comparative politics
Empirical theories: why are things the way they are
These are all approaches to the study of government + politics
Approach 1: The Institutional approach ‘focuses on roles’
Institutionalism (1950s)= Focuses on the structure and dynamics of governing institutions
- Dominated the formative decades of political science
-Formal actors + rules in the political process
-Static description of the institutions + their structure/links between them
-Institutions are the products of politics
New institutionalism (1980s) = A revival of institutionalism: reform of the idea going beyond formal actors + rules and
looking at how institutions shape and define decisions
-Institutions are shaped by decisons [democractic will] but also shape decisions themselves [by their behaviour], the
democratic will is influenced by institutions
-Institutions are both products and determinants of politics
Source=Politics
Assumptions:
1. Roles matter [rather than people]
, -Looks at positions within organizations discussing roles rather than people
2. Stabilizing
-Institutions have a stabilizing quality and advance predictability of a political system
Approach 2: The Rational Choice Approach ‘Focuses on individuals’
Rational choice [1960s] = Based on the idea that individuals [also when they form part of a collective unit] work to
maximise their benefits and minimise their costs
Source= Economics [as it is a cost-benefit analysis]
Assumptions:
1. Everyone will act the same in the same circumstances
2. We don’t need to know anything about the actors on a personal level be it individuals or collective units
3. People are driven by maximization of self-interest
Individuals
Scientific generalization and prediction
What will politicians, voters, judges etc do?
-Individuals are motivated by self-interest
-Identify the goals of the actors and how their objectives can be best advanced in a given situation, we can predict what
they will do regardless of their personality traits
(1) Collective units
Scientific generalization and prediction
What will societies, interest-groups, political parties, institutions, corporations and even countries or groups of countries
do?
-Collective units can also be motivated by self-interest
-Identify the goals and interests of complex organizations which will advance a specific objective, we can predict what
they will do
Approach 3: The Structural Approach ‘Focuses on groups and the power of the collective’
Structuralism [1980s/90s] = Emphasises the relationship among groups and networks within larger systems
-Examines networks, linkages, interdependencies and interactions among groups in the system.
-Bureaucracy, political parties, social classes, churches and the military
-Class system is very important: who has the capital and who has to sell their labour: drives society
-Groups peruse their own interest, which are different interests creating a set of relationships which forms the
structure underpinning or destabilising government + politics
-This framework underlies and ultimately steers actual politics because the will of the people is shaped by this
bigger structural environment
Source=Historical
-Looks at how relationships change over time, seeking to understand how competition between powerful groups
over time leads to specific outcomes such as revolution, democracy or a multi-party system
Example of the theories
The Debate: How do we explain the hostility and antagonistic episodes of the British parliament against the polite
and friendly Dutch parliament?
UK
-There is an electoral system and power between two parties (conservative and labour)
-Mostly we have a single party government
Netherlands
-Mostly there is coalition governments
Explanation for the different behaviour of the two parliaments: Institutionalism
The UK
-Political parties in the opposition want to win the next elections and therefore they present themselves as if in fierce competition.
-They try to be critical of the government and say they are doing a bad job because the power alternates between only two parties:
the leader of the opposition wants to present himself as the next prime minister
The Netherlands
-Opposition groups also want to be in the next government, but they don’t know who they have to work within the next
government as they are coalitions.
-They might have to work with the party they are hostile to in the parliament, this would be disadvantageous to them.
, Explanation for the different behaviour of the two parliaments: Rational Choice
The UK
-When you are in the opposition you always have an interest in new elections, you are hostile because you want to end the existing
government and this is the best way to promote your self-interest
The Netherlands
-Opposition groups that do not form part of the coalition may, similar to the UK, want new elections as well, however, you could
say that in the Netherlands the political party that breaks a current coalition government may lose votes.
-If you are hostile to the point of destroying the current government then you will pay for it, people won’t vote for you they will
vote for another party instead because there is not this two-way domination as in the UK.
Explanation for the different behaviour of the two parliaments: Structuralism
The UK
-There is to a large extent still the remnants of a class culture because even in the political parties we still have labour and
conservative, this splits business and working class.
-The class system in the UK is reflected in the antagonistic atmosphere in parliament
The Netherlands
-We say they are a country of minorities, there are lots of different political parties which represent all sorts of interests and so
there is less of a concentrated hostility in a one v one situation as in the UK.
Table of comparison
Approach Focus Source Core idea
Institutionalism Institutions Politics Institutions provide the
framework within which
decisions are made
Rational choice Individuals Economics Individuals make political
choices on the basis of
seeking to maximise self-
interest
Structuralism Groups History Relationship among the parts
a political system form a
structure whose role is more
important than that of the
individual parts
