Questions Chapter 1

1. What is politics?
Politics is the human activity of making public authoritative decisions. They are public, because, they may
concern every aspect of a society’s life.
2. How are we, citizens, are involved in democracies?
Through elections or referendums. If we are unhappy with them, we can protest through demonstrations,
petitions etc.
3. How many decisions on the maintenance of generous pension systems today are supported?
They are supported by elderly cohorts in disagreement with younger ones who pay for them. Or as another
example, take the decision to introduce high taxation for polluting industries.
4. What is comparative politics?
Comparative politics is one of the three main subfields of political science (alongside political theory and
international relations) focusing on internal political structures, actors, and processes, and analysing them
empirically by describing, explaining, and predicting their variety (similarities and differences) across
political systems (and over time)—be they national political systems, regional, municipal, or even
supranational systems.
5. What is the types of comparative politics?
 The Study of Single Countries – This approach was common in the formative years of comparative
politics, particularly in the United States, where it focused on political systems outside the US, often
studied in isolation rather than in comparison.
 The Methodological Tradition – This tradition is concerned with establishing rules and standards for
conducting comparative analysis. It focuses on rigorous conceptual, logical, and statistical
techniques for describing, explaining, and predicting political phenomena.
 The Analytical Tradition – This combines empirical substance with method, aiming to identify and
explain differences and similarities between political institutions, actors, and processes across
different countries. It seeks to go beyond descriptions to establish causal explanations and
generalizable theories.
6. What does comparative politics do in practice?
Describing Similarities and Differences:
 Comparative politics categorizes and classifies political systems, institutions, and behaviors. For
example, it distinguishes between different types of electoral systems.
 Explaining Political Phenomena - It seeks to explain why certain political events or patterns occur in
some countries but not others.
Example questions include:
 Why did social revolutions occur in France and Russia but not in Germany or Japan?
 Why is voter turnout lower in the US and Switzerland than in most other democracies?
 Hypotheses are formulated and tested using empirical data.
Predicting Political Outcomes:
  Comparative politics helps anticipate future political developments based on existing trends. For
instance, if proportional representation (PR) electoral systems lead to multi-party legislatures, could
one predict that New Zealand’s shift to PR in 1996 would lead to a more fragmented party system?
7. What are the goals of comparative politics?
The goals of comparative politics are: to describe differences and similarities between political systems and
their features; to explain these differences; and to predict which factors may cause specific outcomes.
8. What is compared?
The following elements are compared in comparative politics:
National Political Systems
 These remain the most important units of comparison in political science.
Non-National Political Systems
 Comparative politics also analyzes sub-national systems, such as:
 Regional Political Systems (e.g., state-level politics in the US or the German Länder).
 Supranational Organizations (e.g., the European Union, NAFTA).
 Empires (e.g., Ottoman, Habsburg, Roman, Chinese empires).
Types of Political Systems
 Comparative studies focus on differences between:
 Democratic vs. Authoritarian Regimes (e.g., comparing their economic performance).
 Federal vs. Unitary Systems (e.g., differences in policy implementation).
Individual Political Elements
 Instead of comparing entire systems, comparative politics often focuses on single elements such as:
 Parliamentary Structures (e.g., comparing the US Congress with the UK Parliament).
 Policy Areas (e.g., welfare state policies, environmental regulations).
 Political Finances (e.g., campaign finance laws, party funding mechanisms).
 Direct Democracy Institutions (e.g., use of referendums and citizen initiatives).
9. The variety of methods
Diversity of Political Phenomena
 Political systems, institutions, processes, and cultures vary greatly across different countries and
time periods.
 No single method can adequately capture this complexity.
Different Research Goals
 Some methods focus on describing political realities, others on explaining or predicting them. For
example, qualitative methods may explore deep contextual understanding, while quantitative
methods aim at generalizable patterns.
Variety of Units of Analysis
 Comparative politics can analyze individual voters, political parties, institutions, or entire political
systems.
 Each unit of analysis may require a distinct methodological approach.
Contrasting Theoretical Frameworks
  Different theoretical perspectives (like rational choice theory or historical institutionalism) lead to
the use of various methods.
 Some approaches focus on individual decision-making, while others stress structural or cultural
influences
The Substance of Comparative Politics (Pages 9–10)
Comparative politics focuses on the analysis of political systems, institutions, actors, and processes at
various levels—national, sub-national, and supranational. It investigates differences and similarities
between political entities and seeks to understand how political systems function in diverse contexts. Key
areas of study include governance structures, electoral systems, political culture, and policy-making
processes.
2. The Method of Comparative Politics (Pages 10–15)
This section emphasizes the methodological diversity in comparative politics. Four main factors explain the
variety of methods:
Diversity of Political Phenomena:
Political realities differ widely across countries and time periods, requiring multiple approaches to capture
this complexity.
Different Research Goals:
Some studies aim to describe political systems, while others seek to explain or predict political outcomes.
Varied Units of Analysis:
Comparative politics examines individuals, political parties, institutions, and entire political systems, with
methods tailored to each level.
Contrasting Theoretical Frameworks:
Theories like rational choice, structuralism, and cultural approaches influence methodological choices.
Main Methods Identified:
Case Studies: In-depth analysis of a single political system to provide rich contextual insights.
Comparative Case Studies: Examination of a small number of cases to identify patterns and differences.
Quantitative Methods: Use of large datasets and statistical analysis to explore trends and test hypotheses.
Qualitative Methods: Focus on interviews, discourse analysis, and historical context.
3. Conclusion (Pages 16–17)
The final section underscores that comparative politics is both empirical and theoretical. While it seeks to
develop generalizable theories, it remains rooted in real-world observations and data analysis. The
discipline’s richness lies in its ability to adapt methods to suit different research questions and contexts.

Chapter 3 Comparative research methods (Paul Pennings and Hans Keman)

1. What is important to develop a research design?
First, the research design should enable the researcher to answer the ques tion under examination.
Second, the given answer(s) ought to meet the ‘standards’ set in the social sciences: are the results valid
(authoritative), reliable (irrefu table), and generalizable (postulated) knowledge (Sartori 1994)? Third, are
the research design and the methods used indeed suitable for the research goals set?
2.

1. Introduction

Comparative politics is defined by both its subject matter and its methodological approach. The comparative
method serves as a systematic "toolkit" to understand political phenomena across different political systems.
The core aim of this chapter is to connect theory and evidence through well-constructed research designs.
The authors stress that while people compare situations informally in daily life, political science requires
structured comparisons guided by explicit research questions (RQs) and research answers (RAs) through a
research design (RD).

2. The Role of Variables in Linking Theory to Evidence

A research design hinges on establishing relationships between variables:

 Dependent Variable (Y): What the study seeks to explain.

 Independent Variable (X): Factors believed to cause changes in Y.

The "triad" of RQ → RD → RA connects theoretical assumptions to empirical data. Comparative research

involves determining which variables explain variations across cases, ensuring that the research design
achieves validity (accurate measurement), reliability (consistency), and generalizability (broad applicability)
.

3. Comparing Cases and Case Selection

Case selection is pivotal for reducing complexity while maintaining explanatory power:

 Single-Case Studies: Offer depth but risk limited external validity.

 Small-N Studies (Few Cases): Allow variable control but face difficulties in generalization.
 Large-N Studies (Many Cases): Provide broad applicability but can oversimplify complexities.

The selection process balances representativeness and contextual understanding. Tools like the "Case
Selector" assist in identifying cases that suit either Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) or Most Different
Systems Design (MDSD) approaches.

4. The Logic of Comparison: Relating Cases to Variables

Comparative research involves descriptive and causal inferences:

 Descriptive Inference: Identifies observable patterns.

 Causal Inference: Establishes cause-effect relationships between variables.
A robust comparison relies on meaningful theoretical links between the variables and cases. Misalignments
between concepts and measurements (conceptual stretching) can undermine findings.

5. Methods of Agreement and Difference in Comparative Analysis

Building on John Stuart Mill’s logic, two main methods are explored:

 Method of Agreement (MDSD): Compares cases with similar outcomes despite differing contexts
to identify common causal factors.
 Method of Difference (MSSD): Compares cases with different outcomes in similar contexts to
isolate key differing variables.

Both methods help isolate causality, though MSSD is more precise due to its controlled settings.

6. Constraints and Limitations of the Comparative Method

Despite its strengths, the comparative method faces several challenges:

 Galton’s Problem: Cases may not be truly independent, leading to biased inferences.
 Conceptual Stretching: Overextending concepts to inappropriate contexts compromises validity.
 Over-Determination: Multiple potential causes can confound causal clarity.
 Limited Case Availability: Data constraints can skew results.

Researchers must navigate trade-offs between internal validity (accuracy within cases) and external validity
(generalizability across cases).

7. Conclusion

The comparative method, while not without its limitations, remains essential for developing and testing
political theories. Success depends on aligning research questions with suitable cases and variables while
acknowledging methodological trade-offs

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. What constitutes a ‘case’ in comparative research?

o A case can be a political system, institution, or actor. For example, comparing party
governments in various countries involves using countries as cases and party governments
as units of observation.
2. Can you think of a research question suitable for a single-case study?
o Example: How did Brexit reshape UK’s foreign policy over time? (focuses on time relevance
and single-system analysis).
3. Discuss globalization’s potential for biased results.
o Globalization can lead to diffusion effects, making national policies appear similar due to
external influences rather than domestic factors.
4. How can conceptual stretching be avoided?
o By using family resemblance (identifying core features) and radial categories (defining
essential vs. peripheral characteristics).