The Comparative Method

1
The Comparative Method
Lecture 2

• Why and how to compare countries
• description classification hypothesis-testing
  prediction
• problems of comparisons

2
Objectives
to know and understand the basics of the
comparative method its applications its scope
and limitations

3
Research traditions in comparative politics

• Early example of Comparative Politics
• Aristotles Politics (350 BC) compared
  constitutions of Greek city states
• Growth in the Discipline Post WW2
• Doubling of independent states
• south-east Asia, Middle East, north Africa and
  Africa south of the Sahara
• WE since 1990 more than a dozen new cases for
  comparing liberal-democracy

4
SUBJECT and METHOD

• Comparative Politics as a Subject
• Examines domestic politics and government within
  numerous countries, whereas international
  politics looks at relations between different
  countries.
• Comparative Politics as a Method
• Comparative political analysis
• Various ways of analysis

5
Trends in the Comparative Discipline

• Jean Blondel Comparative Government
• Three main phases in the study of CP
• Constitutionalist phase (Aristotle 1900s)
• Behaviouralist phase (1940s-1960s)
• Institutionalist phase (1970s-)

6
Why compare?

• What does a comparative approach bring to the
  study of politics?
• Knowledge
• Classification
• Formulate and test hypotheses
• Generalisations and predictions

Hague and Harrop 2001 Landman 2008
7
1. Knowledge

• the simplest and the best reason
• In 1925, Munro described the purpose as aiding
  the comprehension of daily news from abroad.
• Background information about foreign governments
  not only helps to interpret new developments, it
  also enables us to view our own country in a
  fresh light.

8
2. Classifications

• The classification of executives into
  presidential and parliamentary types, allows to
  look at the origins and effects of each.
• Comparative method allows to observe variations
  of a concept or model
• Without a classification of governments, we have
  nothing to explain

9
3. Formulate and test hypotheses

• We can develop and scrutinize questions as
• Do plurality electoral systems always produce a
  two-party system?
• Do revolutions only occur after a country has
  suffered defeat in war?
• Without comparison we would lack general
  knowledge of politics and therefore the ability
  to explain particular observations.
• You cannot be scientific if you are not
  comparing. The American political scientist
  James Coleman

10
4. Generalisations can generate predictions

• Example
• If we find that the plurality method of election
  always produces a two-party system, we can
  predict that countries which switch to this
  formula will probably witness a fall in the
  number of parties represented in their
  parliaments.
• Studying one case leads to studying several
  cases, upon which a theory can be built
• A theory allows to explain singular cases again

11
Additional benefits

• To help us address the counterfactuals what
  if?
• to avoid ethnocentrism

Mackie and Marsh, 1995 Dogan and Pelasy, 1990
12
Cases, units of observation, variables, and
observations

• Cases The countries that we study (France,
  Nicaragua, Egypt)
• Units of observation The things that we study
  (trade unions)
• Variables The features of the things that can
  vary (legal status, membership figures)
• Observations The data points (CGT in France 1982)

13
The difficulties of comparison

• a) Conceptual stretching
• b) interdependence
• c) too many variables too few cases
• d) selection bias

14
a) Conceptual stretching

• Countries must be compared against a common
  concept but the meaning of that concept may
  itself vary
• The connotation of national pride differs
  considerably between, say, Germany and, Greece
• Analyzing political behavior across countries
  depends on the conventions of the country
  concerned
• E.g. an EP voting against his/her own government
• Use more abstract concepts

15
b) Interdependence

• Countries do not develop separately from each
  other
• They copy, compete with, influence and
  (sometimes) invade each other in a constant
  process of interaction
• The spread of Napoleons Code Civil
• The impact of industrialization
• The impact of the European Union
  (Europeanization)
• Galtons problem the difficulty of testing
  whether similarities between nations are caused
  by diffusion across countries or alternatively by
  parallel but independent development

16
c) Too many variables, too few countries

• a major problem for scholars
• The small-N problem (not enough cases at hand)
• Only a handful of cases in WE politics
• How can we isolate one factor to test our
  hypothesis?
• E.g. Why do we find the strongest communist
  parties in France and Italy?
• Possible answers strong catholic church OR late
  inclusion of working class into political process
  OR Both
• For more valid explanations more cases would be
  necessary, but are simply not there

17
c) Too many variables, too few countries

• Often a problem even if the number of cases
  exceeds the number of variables
• Variables must indeed vary over countries
• Does PR lead to multi-party systems?
• Cannot be tested if all countries have PR and a
  MPS, no matter how many countries are compared

18
d) Selection bias

• when the choice of what to study, or even how to
  study it, produces unrepresentative results
• when generalizations cover only a small number of
  countries
• often an unintended consequence of a process of
  case selection that is arbitrary but not truly
  random
• E.g. choosing countries which speak the same
  language, or which we have personal
  relations/experiences with,
• The result is that findings of comparative
  politics are often weighted
• toward consolidated developed democracies
  (actually a rare form of polity in the expanse of
  human history)
• Large, powerful countries.
• Only covering a large number of countries reduces
  the selection bias risk.
• If the study covers all countries, selection bias
  disappears

19
Further Pitfalls of Comparing

• Pitfalls
• Description is not Comparison (Macridis, 1955)
• The persistence of Cultural Idiosyncrasies
  (Mayer, 1972 Ragin, 1987)
• Trade-off between number of cases and level of
  detail
• Ecological and individual fallacies

20
Ecological Fallacy

• Support for the Extreme Right in the German
  General Election of 1990 concentrated in areas
  with high proportion of foreigners
• Conclusion Foreigners supported the Extreme
  Right WRONG
• Lesson Do not use macro level data for
  inferences about micro level behaviour

21
Individual Fallacy

• Do not use micro data to make statements about
  the macro level
• Unless macro features are analytical, i.e. simply
  aggregate measures
• Does a prevalence of individual authoritarian
  attitudes render a society authoritarian?
• Yes if society is defined as distribution of
  individual features (cf. Almond/Verba)
• No if society includes institutions, works of
  art etc.

22
Case study Causes of a Revolution
Hypothesis "Revolution is caused by the
combination of three factors 1. High income
inequality, 2. conflict within the governing
group, 3. defeat in war."
Whenever and wherever "1", "2", and "3" are
present revolution will occur a comparative
(general) statement.
23
Method of Agreement
Case 1 a b c Revolution d e f
Case 2
a b c g h i
Revolution
24
Method of Difference
Case 1 a b c
Revolution d e f g
Case 2 - - - No Revolution d e f
g
25
Strategies for Comparison

• For large number of cases, use regression or
  other statistical techniques
• For small number of cases
• Method of differences leads to Most Similar
  Systems Design (MSSD, popular in area studies)
• Method of agreement leads to Most Different
  Systems Design (MDSD)
• Both methods focus on one key explanatory
  variable, others constant or varied
• Useful, but cannot overcome the basic problem of
  small n (third variables)

26
MSSD vs. MDSD
27
Compare how?

• Case studies
• Representative cases the study of a typical,
  standard example of a wider category.
• Prototypical cases a topic is chosen not
  because it is representative but because it is
  expected to become so
• Deviant case to cast light on the exceptional
  and the untypical can provide the variation
  without which well-founded explanation is
  impossible
• Crucial case seeks initial support for a theory
  by testing it in favorable conditions.

28
Conclusion

• The comparative method is both a subject and a
  method
• It allows the researcher to gain knowledge on
  other countries/systems, to provide
  classifications, to test hypotheses and to make
  predictions
• The advantage of the method is surplus knowledge
  compared to single case studies