Class 1.docx

Summary Comparative Politics Chapter 1 (class) Intro Comparative political institutions (and political science) is a very recent discipline, starting from the first world war. Furthermore, it has its predecessors (voorgangers) that tried to address political issues. It is one of the main disciplines...

Summary Comparative Politics Chapter 1 (class) Intro Comparative political institutions (and political science) is a very recent discipline, starting from the first world war. Furthermore, it has its predecessors (voorgangers) that tried to address political issues. It is one of the main disciplines in political science that deals with internal political structures, individual and collective actors. Main goal is describe, explain and predict similarities and differences across political systems. Definition Aspect 1: COMPARAITIVE: refers tot the methodology – how? We look at a variety of countries from all over the world. A method that is used frequently in the political world. Aspect 2: POLITICAL: what is the field of research. Aspect 3: INSTITUTIONS: Behavior that is socially constructed. It is created by humans and does not occur in nature. Informal institution: Not written contractually, but rather personally. Mostly socially shared rules and in de majority of the cases inwritten. They are creates, communicated an enforced outside of officially channels. For example: friendship, group chat in WhatsApp. Formal institution: The law plays an important role. For example: marriage Both are important and relevant for the political system. Politics: Human activity of making public authoritative decisions. It is public (FOCUS). Why?  it applies to all citizens and concern every aspect of a society’s life. We are not interested in what people or organizations do in the private sphere. They are authoritative: the government that makes such decisions is invested with the power to make them binding. They are supported by the possibility to sanction individuals who do not comply with them. Why are politics important? Aristotle: Because man is by nature a political animal (a social animal that live in societies). * Man is presented as a political animal by nature - this distinguishes us from animals. Even without intervention, people spontaneously develop a political system (organic), it happens automatically. * Politics is the exercise of the power of making such decisions. ((This study tries to answer all questions about decisions that are made (decisions play an important role in this course)). Polics is also the activity of acquiring (verwerven) this power. Power Weber: the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to achieve (bereiken) their own goals, when other are trying to prevent them to realize them. The ability of forcing other people doing things that otherwise they would not do. 3 types: TRADITIONAL authority: Authority is based on respect for tradition and habits (gewoonte) CHARISMATIC authority: Authority rests on the personality of the ruler RATIONAL-LEGAL authority: Authority is based on respect for the rules. The definition of comparative politics (part 2) A science of politics Comparative politics is one of the 3 main subfields in political science. Together with political theory and international relations. Political theory: Deals with normative and theoretical questions. International relations: Deals with interaction between political systems. Comparative politics: Deals with empirical (empirisch) & normative questions. There is no concern about the fact that participation is good or bad but  Investigation of which forms of political participation people choose to use and whether there are differences in how much groups participate.  political theory Deals with interactions within (binnen) political systems. It investigates which party is in the government. It is also concerned with power relationships between individuals, groups and organizations. The ultimate concern is power configuration within systems.  international relations. … Making predictions: It is actually difficult to make predictions. IRON LAW of OLIGARCHY: Every organization, eventually, ends up in an oligarchy. (bij dia geplaatst) DURVERGER LAWS: Electoral law! The simple-majority single ballot system favours the twoparty system. Both the simple-majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favour multipartism. Comparative politics, like hard science Political science is not experimental, we cannot replicate experiments in the same conditions of the first time. Every test is unique, the same for every actor or institution. Political science is not a “lab” science! We can't repeat elections like in a lab. Everything is different, not always the same -> hence (vandaar) compare. In the natural sciences, for example, it is always the same. Furthermore, reality changes and with its actors + institutions. The same conclusions can be drawn for surveys and polls, they are not the same every time. Moreover, it is not an example of exact science, but it can be made that way (they are not exact science BUT they try to approximate) – we have now the tools that allow us to approximate (try) hard science: quasi-experimental designs Verduidelijking tekst: beide streven naar generalisatie in tijd en ruimte. Echter in het achterhoofd houden dat menselijke interactie erg verschillend is. Europa is inderdaad heel verschillend, en het kan een lab zijn voor sociale wetenschap MAAR we moeten bewust zijn dat het lab verschillende zaken vergelijkt dat wij als vergelijkbaar beschouwen, maar ze zijn verschillend (omdat mensen gewoon verschillend zijn!) Before the behavioural revolution Research is mainly based on qualitative analyses such as: legal texts (comparison between 2 cases mostly), laws, discourses, etc. Political science was mainly practiced by those with a law degree. A lot of work on rights. Big data was not available; research mainly on the field. Majority of single case studies/ small comparisons. Interest in institutions, not on individuals “The first separate school of political science was established in 1872 in France as the École Libre des Sciences Politiques. Afterward: evolution of the national state and technology allowed the state to collect a large amount of data (not about individuals). Small comparison transformed into large comparison between higher numbers of states and actors. The focus of political science switched from states and laws to institutions, political organizations, etc. Individuals became the core only afterwards, there were some exceptions: Walter Lipmann Walter Lipmann He dealt with the issue public opinion in democratic regimes. He believed that the public opinion was not wise enough to make decisions about how to elect (see later).  Public opinion is irrational, cannot make a rational judgement. The behavioral revolution (1950-1960) It brought a different approach to pollical science: From institutions to agency New data, new cases – more cases Statistics became the main point of reference Not just comparing a few cases but to analyze a whole pollical system. Interested in the big picture – systemic theory such as the one by David Easton Political systems are seen as a cycle: Requirements / support  transposition (omzetting)  decisions  feedback  demands and support. So here is a different view of political science, not just comparing but also analyzing. New concepts, towards world level (example democracy). Concepts born in Europe that European comparatists want to apply all over the world. Before and after the behavioral revolution The second part of the behavioral revolution (individuals came to the front – became the most important part of the analyses in political science) Behavioral revolution was indeed a revolution. Methods are similar to the ones we use now  Otherwise, important limitations: To abstract, concepts cannot travel easily Apply universal concepts all over the world is not so easy as it seems. There is also a new focus on institutions: new institutionalism: Historical institutionalism Sociological/normative institutionalism Rational choice institutionalism What are the theoretical approaches of comparative politics? The 5 I’s are considered the main approaches (these aspects can be analyzed): Institutions (instellingen): Structures are important because institutions shape and constrain behavior of individuals. (instituties zijn belangrijk omdat ze het gedrag van individuen vormen en bespreken). Institutional analysis before the BR – the core of comparative politics. Now: contemporary (hedendaags) new institutionalism Approach to institutions is more conceptual and empirical A large set of institutions is considered and studied Also an analysis on lower levels possible, Benelux. Interests (belangen/interesses): This aspect is related to individuals, strictly related to individuals. An important aspect here is the rational choice theory: Rational choice theory states that individuals use rational calculations to make rational choices and achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own personal objectives. Rational choice theory has been used to explain why actors in international relations behave the way they do.... The theory assumes that individuals act in their rational selfinterest, have sufficient information to make rational calculations. Individuals are self interested people and want to maximize profit from an action. Toepassing: mensen die niet op een bepaalde partij stemmen omdat ze de beste uitkomst voor zichzelf willen hebben (niet op partij stemmen die pensioenen willen verlagen). A less individualstic interpretation (collective identity is important). Corporatism: The strong involvement of civil society (middenveld) in policy development. The government picks out certain organizations and gets privileged access to the consultation (overleg). Network theory: self organizing networks now provide governance, as the government are no longer able to = direct involvement of decision making. Consociationalism: Elites representing different communities, they come together around the need to govern. (NL + BEL) Ideas: They can have different forms (vormen) -political, ideologies,… Political culture (social-capital) = the sort of habits that we develop when we are socialized in a specific institution. See Almond & Verba + Putman (Italy – regions whit the highest institutional performance are the black colors – they have the highest pollical culture) Ideologies are also very important (communism, fascism)  they are crucial for mobilizing people. Policy ideas (Keynesian economics): ideas can be translated into policy ideas. Crucial drivers for policy makers! Individuals Individuals can be analyzed at the elite level (in particular leadership).  Shows also a table of different styles of pollical leaders. Individuals are also important for the mass level (the way we vote, attached to a specific party, a specific social class, education determine what you vote,… ) International environment (international milieu) While we usually focus on individual countries, the international environment matters a lot. People can not be considered and analyzed in isolation! Man and woman are political animals. Example of the importance: Covid19, the warming of the earth – it is crucial. But also NATO – OEC – WHO. All these institutions affect directly states and us. For example, the rules about Covid19. The sixth I Interactions: Using one single approach can be detrimental (schadelijk). Most of the pollical events cannot be fully understood if analyzed on only one approach. Multidimensionality on pollical science! Institutions are a powerful source of explanations. However institutions do not act, individuals within them act. So we need to understand how institutions and individuals interact in making decisions. These 5 approaches provide the means of understanding almost any political issues. Yet they do not address the full range of political issues. Chapter 1: book Political science and the sub discipline of comparative politics has recently received increased attention. To answer the question like is comparative politics relevant? Many different answers could be given to this question! Comparative politics could be relevant for: Informing the elite: giving advice to parties, how win elections, how politicians should act, etc. Informing the general public: Why does country Z have higher economic growth? Why is Gender equality better in some countries? Etc. In relation to public policy issues is that the task of researchers is to speak truth to power (informing elite) +public intellectual writing (general public). Researchers in comparative politics choose to stay away both from speaking and acting. A fear of being seen as normative seems to hinder many from becoming engaged in issues. Another problem is paternalism: The government is thwarting (doorkruist) the preferences of individuals / companies, because they are considered not to pay enough attention to what is really in their interest (belang) a way out by Sen & Laureate  ensure for all individuals a set of basic resources that will equalize. Political institutions and human well-being It was long taken for granted (vanzelsprekend beschouwd) that the well-being of the population of a country rested on nonpolitical factors (natural resources, cultural norms, structure, etc). this changed during the 1990s = the institutional turn.  North was among the first to point the importance of (informal) institutions for explain why some countries were much more prosperous (wervarend) than others. = new institutionalism/ historical institutionalism.  - he also said that the importance of the informal institutions should not be overlooked + the importance of formal institutions has often been exaggerated. The institutional urn and comparative politics Link institutional turn: There is a lot of unclean water in developing countries. The problem is not due ta a lack of technical solution or anything else. The main problem seems to lie within the judicial and administrative institutions (lack on supervision and corruption in the public sector).  To become a successful society is decided by quality of political institutions. Some countries do always better, this is caused by their quality of government.  Social trust is an important informal institution that has been shown to have a strong impact on human well being. The many faces of democracy Almost all scholars in comparative politics agree that in producing a good society democratic political institutions are to be preferred (research in democratization = high on comparative politics agenda). Problem: far from all democracies produce high levels of human well-being. Problem: A democracy is in fact built on multiple separate institutions; every representative democracy must solve a number of issues for with different institutions have been created.  There is not a clear answer in democratic theory that tells us if a proportional system is preferred to be first past the post or a yow party system. An experiment shows that there are a lot of ways to construct a representative democracy.  there are clusters but also surprising differences.  Veto points are another important institutional variation. If there are many uncoordinated actors, the democratic machinery may be unable te produce coherent and affective policies. Democracy and state capacity The fact is that more countries than ever are now classified as being democratic + more people than ever live in democracies. Otherwise, there are also reasons to be disappointed: Nelson Mandela provide the introduction of democracy that would liberate people + improve social and economic situations.  The country has not improved the time frame of going to school, economic inequality remains, low life expectancy,….  The south African has not delivered many positive results. Another example is provided by Sen (bad results in China and India). Yet anther study shows that there are no positive effects of democracy on the level of child deprivation. In short, a representive democracy is not a safe cure against poverty, child deprivation, economic inequality, being unhappy, infant morality, low school attendance etc. The spook that is haunting democracy Why had democratization not resulted in more democracy?  it is bad governance: Governance that only serves the interest of elite Governance in corruption & abuse of power Governance that is not responding to the social aganda of reducing inequality/unemployment/poverty. According to diamond (who said this) is a representative democracy not enough for creating human well-being. Without control of corruption and increased administrative capacity, lifre situation will not improve. State capacity, quality of government and human well being. As we can see in the human development index, the correlation between human well being and the level op democracy is quite low. Definitions Large n-analysis = refers to quantitative analysis which employ various statistical techniques of data processing. These studies look for patterns in a large number of cases. Typical data are surveys of the population or register data. Small-n studies use a small number of cases. Data collected from archives, interviews…. Scale problem in comparative politics: research in corruption has until recently not been very prominent in CP. Most corruption varies a lot in scale and scope. This variation in scale creates a conceptual problem. Does democracy generate political legitimacy? In general, if people have the right to change their government through free and fair elections, they will find their system of rule legitimate. Based on comparative survey data, several recent studies show that performance or output measures such as control of corruption, government effectiveness and the rule of law (troeven zijn) in explaining political legitimacy. Does democracy cure corruption? A particular problem (which does not yet have a convincing explanation) is that many (but not all) democratic countries do not punish corrupt politicians. However, they are often re-elected = accountability mechanism does not work properly in a representative democracy.  Political parties (central and eastern Europe) that mobilize on a clean government have been successful in elections.