Comparative Politics PDF - Lecture Notes

COMPARATIVE POLITICS 1 Lecture 1. Introduction to comparative politics I.​ Method Comparative politics test a theory by assessing the relationship between two phenomena: X = the independent variable, and Y = the dependent variable. Y is what should be explained and X ar...

COMPARATIVE POLITICS 1 Lecture 1. Introduction to comparative politics I.​ Method Comparative politics test a theory by assessing the relationship between two phenomena: X = the independent variable, and Y = the dependent variable. Y is what should be explained and X are the various hypothesized causes. In the scientific method of comparative politics, comparisons in the real world replace experiments. This requires a level of abstraction (research design) to reduce a complex human world made of an infinity of factors into a set of cases or variables. But you can never completely erase the complexity and unpredictability of politics. A key step in research design is case selection. You can compare a limited number or a great number of cases, at one point in time or over a long period. Some researches will rather focus on individual cases. II.​ Shortcomings Comparative politics can face problems of interpretation and conceptual stretching: As a discipline inspired by liberal empiricism and utilitarianism, and developed in Western liberal-representative regimes, it can be limited by liberal normativity (the tendency to take liberal norms as desirable). This results in a tendency to consider liberal-representative regimes as the only non-pathological form of democracy The development of comparative politics is also shaped by the legacy of Western imperialism, especially when it comes to studying “underdeveloped” polities in the Global South (the “pathologies” of development) 2 Lecture 2. Approaches to Comparative Politics I.​ A genealogy of Comparative Politics a)​ The sociological constitutionalism branch, which can be traced to Aristotle’s Politics. b)​ The legal constitutionalism branch, which can be traced back to Plato’s Republic. Many scholars don’t fit neatly into one branch or another. The discipline also benefited from the insights of psychology, sociology (primarily in the US), anthropology, economics. II.​ Some General Theories 1.​ Structural Functionalism sees society at the macro level, as a complex system whose parts function together like an organism (e.g. Gabriel Almond) 2.​ System Theory studies public state machines as open political systems receiving inputs from their environment and shaping it in return (e.g. David Easton) 3.​ Neo-Marxism understands political dynamics through the lens of historical materialism and class struggle (e.g. Nicos Poulantzas) 4.​ Institutionalism focuses on the central role of structures and institutional patterns in shaping political outcomes and behaviours (e.g. Theda Skocpol) III.​ Positivism vs. Constructivism a)​ Most contemporary political science in the United States is founded on a positivist approach, according to which facts can be observed scientifically and verified by experience or observation (methods mirroring, social sciences, testing, quantitative methods) b)​ On the other hand, the constructivist approach posits that facts in human societies are always socially constructed, and that the reality we observe is mediated by a set of social interactions that are time and place specific (more emphasis on qualitative research and subjectivities) 3  IV.​ The 5 “I’s” 1)​ Institutions Institutions have been compared since antiquity in order to understand the performance and dynamics shaping political regimes. Analytical emphasis can be placed on how institutions shape norms, how they influence individuals choice, or how they evolve over time. 2)​ Interests Interests can explain the strategies of political actors and support of social groups. Interests can be material or symbolic (values), collective or individual. The focus on interests is linked to the rise to prominence of rational choice theory and the growing influence of economics on political science in the 1960s. 3)​ Ideas Ideas also have a concrete impact on political phenomena, whether the dominant political culture in a country, the ideology of a political party, or the specific idea or set of ideas shaping a policy. 4)​ Individuals Individuals are the lowest level of political analysis but nonetheless essential. One can therefore study the public discourses or sociological background of political leaders, as well as the political behavior of individual citizens. 5)​ International environments The international environment contributes to shaping domestic political dynamics, through the conscious copying of foreign models or coercion by external forces. Larger countries are less vulnerable to international dynamics. ​ In the eyes of European academics, specialists of the United States are more likely to downplay the influence of the international environment on domestic politics. 4 Lecture 3. Colonialism and the Global South The experience of colonialism is a defining feature of the Global South. In 1914, European Empires and former European settler colonies represented 85% of the world surface. European colonial expansion was made possible by a combination of factors including: a scientific revolution, demographic surplus, the decimation of native populations, and the transition to a capitalist economy. The colonial expansion guided primarily by economic motives: -​ Before colonialism, world regions were economically interdependent -​ With colonial mercantilism, colonies were plundered and organized according to the need of their overlord, leading to dependency. -​ The capital accumulated was reinvested in Europe, fueling the rise of industrial capitalism -​ Industrial capitalism turbocharged imperialism in the 19th century Colonialism led to destruction of pre-existing social and political systems: -​ Dismantlement of traditional welfare system combined with massive health crises -​ Destruction of local beliefs systems through evangelization -​ Imposition of European languages -​ Discriminatory education systems built for settlers -​ Destruction of traditional governments and/or discredit of traditional elites Paradoxically, colonization created the contours of the soon-to-be independent states through a brutal process of border-making, which created nations with little resources and separated ethnic and religious groups according to European interests. During the fight for independence, anticolonial elites were able to create short-term alliances across religious or regional lines. But colonialism created the conditions for future political conflicts. Anticolonial leaders established their new polities in opposition to the violence of colonialism, with the goal of asserting sovereignty, promising social rights, building national identity, and developing the economy and society. To achieve their ambitious goals, they had to rely on European tools (socialism, the nation-state), deal with a European legacy of authoritarianism and mismanagement and evolve in a Western-dominated global capitalist system. The global capitalist economy that developed throughout the 19th and 20th century has 4 pillars: 5  1)​ Free trade (leading to the international division of labour) 2)​ Capital mobility 3)​ Migrations 4)​ Transnational rule regimes (leading to neoliberalization) In order to achieve development while asserting their national sovereignty, many global south countries implemented a strategy of Import Substitution Industrialization (protectionist strategy to develop local manufacturing capacity and ensure that the country moves up the value chain in the international division of labor). After a rapid period of development, countries prioritizing an ISI strategy faced a debt crisis in the 1970s–80s. Dependency theory argues that is due to the structure of the global capitalist economy, which enriches core countries at the expense of peripheral nations forced into chronicle underdevelopment and power imbalances. The case of the four East-Asian tigers (Hong-Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore) shows that some countries can benefit from the integration in the global capitalist economy. Yet, in this competitive environment, countries in the global south are structurally disadvantaged and forced to renege on their promises of justice and sovereignty → High levels of inequality and high concentration of wealth (except South Korea that has levels of Gini Index as Western European countries). From the late 1940s onwards, Western powers intervened repeatedly to to destabilize global south governments that sought radical structural changes in class relationships and income distribution. In the 1970s-80s, the debt crisis faced by states who had failed to break with economic dependency led to the imposition of a neoliberal model of governance by US-dominated International Financial Institutions. 6 Lecture 4. The Nation-State The emergence of primary states is tied to: a)​ Agricultural scientific revolutions (domestication, irrigation) generating food surplus b)​ The emergence of an administrative class managing taxation and surplus allocation c)​ Military scientific revolutions (metallurgy) allowing control over larger territories 4000 – 3500 BCE: The Uruk proto-state comprised 77 large agricultural villages, 18 supravillages, five small centers and the city of Uruk, all situated in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq). I.​ The five features of the modern state according to Weber: 1.​ Legal-bureaucratic rationality 2.​ Sovereignty 3.​ Population 4.​ Control over a territory 5.​ Monopoly of legitimate violence Reciprocity: States exist in a world of states, which are at the same time competing with one another and recognizing each other. The state is both part of society, artificially separated from it, and aims to manage it through legal and administrative interventions in various social sectors. Most states rely on society to generate the financial resources necessary for their activities (taxation), though rentier states can afford to rely mostly on their natural resources. States manage the diversity of their society by relying on various tools (public sphere, liberal representative institutions, violence). Citizenship and nationhood serve to unify a diverse population and smooth over class, ethnic, religious divides. a.​ Citizenship: Rooted in legal equality, citizenship expanded to include broader participation and rights. Disadvantaged groups gained political influence and promoted welfare policies that reduced inequality and 7  made economic distribution a matter of public concern. The state played a growing role in redistribution, sometimes creating tensions with elites. b.​ Nationhood: Nationhood fostered a sense of shared identity across classes, shaped by the state through education and symbolic practices. This national identity encouraged belonging and unity, reinforcing citizenship and justifying welfare efforts as part of a broader vision of national solidarity and collective responsibility. States have expanded and mutated over time. Poggi divides this process of state development into three stages: a)​ Consolidation (development of larger spatially continuous power centers) b)​ Rationalization (centralization, depersonalization, hierarchization, internal differentiation) c)​ Expansion (intervening in new sectors, codifying social and economic life, shaping behaviours) States development is not definitive and unidirectional. States can be partly dismantled through civil conflict or neoliberal restructuring. Modern states are extremely diversified organizations that intervene in all major social spheres (specific knowledge, welfare services, specialization of state violence). The progressive transformation of governance resulting from the systematic entanglement between public and private interest and actors is called governmentalization. Nasa engineers and park rangers are categories of federal employees whose expert knowledge is necessary for the specialized operations of a modern diversified state. While the modern nation state was later exported outside of Europe through colonization and capitalist expansion, political scientists sometimes use categories that reproduce forms of cultural contempt and justify foreign interference. For instance, the notion of neo-patrimonialism has been used widely to describe widespread clientelism and dysfunctional modern institutions in Africa. Yet, this “African” ideal-type leads to a problematic depiction of a continent that failed to modernize. It exaggerates the role of traditional structures (which were often 8  destroyed under colonialism). Finally, it views clientelism and corruption as pre-modern features, when they are widespread in allegedly modern legal-rational states in the Global North. The categories of weak, failed, and rogue states are also problematic: ·​ Western experts and governments identify problematic states (according to them) ·​ Negation of local sovereignty leads to foreign interference ·​ Security-oriented discourse results in militarization ·​ Localizing the problem at the national level rather than looking at its transnational causes ·​ Western states and allies are not included 9 Lecture 5. Political Identity Political identity is one of our many social identities. While some people think of their political identity along ideological lines (i.e. Libertarian, Marxist-Leninist), others find that one part of their identity becomes politicized because of the context (i.e. war in Gaza, assault on transgender rights, erosion of traditional family values). Thus, our political identity is forged through a series of socialization processes (family, school, work, activism), and constantly redefined in reaction to ongoing conflicts within society. I.​ Approaches to political identity of the nineteenth century A.​ Karl Marx, among others, argues that your political identity is based on your social class, i.e. your position in the system of production. Class consciousness means that you understand your material interests and forms of exploitation, and this understanding can lead to mobilization. B.​ Max Weber’s understanding of political identity gives more importance to cultural factors (ethnicity, language, region). He views religion as a key identity to understand economic behaviours and describes national identity as a community of sentiment based on common memory and shared struggle for prestige and power. These two approaches have flaws (economic reductionism for Marx & rationalism nationalist for Weber), but they complement each other. C.​ A primordialist approach to political identity posits that they are innate and ontologically stable. Such an approach is often interest in often interested in question of survival or supremacy and understand the mobilization of identities in response to their innate interests and values (i.e. Samuel Huntington’s Clashes of Civilizations). Primordialist explanations fail to explain the origin of a collective identity, the constant transformation of identities, the strategic choices of individuals choosing among multiple identities, and the external factors shaping identities. D.​ In opposition, a constructivist approach posits that forms, meaning, and political relevance of identity change constantly, and that identities are multiple, and fragmented. Some people can choose their political identity, but 10 this choice is not free. Moreover, social and economic capital increase one’s ability to play with diverse identities. The socio-historical context shapes political identities, which are transformed by socioeconomic and technological developments, the strategies of state officials and political organizations, and political efforts to accentuate or blur existing identitarian divisions. Representations of gender norms change depending on the historical and cultural context. Thus, gender can be politicized, and different notions of what is masculine, feminine, gender-neutral, transgender, can exist, cohabit or collide. Socioeconomic transformations play a key role in changing gendered and sexual behaviors, and reshaping gender as a political category. 11 Lecture 6. Democracy I.​ Definition of Democracy While widespread in political discourse, the notion of democracy can be challenging from an analytical perspective because it describes widely different political systems (Athenian democracy, liberal representative regimes), is a marker of “political good” in opposition to political evils (such as totalitarianism, fascism), and is tied to a narrative of European exceptionalism and political superiority. Democracy is a model of government that views popular sovereignty as its main source of legitimacy and where the holders of political offices are selected within the general population of citizens. II.​ Qualitative vs Procedural approaches to democracy a)​ The qualitative definition of democracy focuses on the goals and principles of democratic government, and the extent to which the will of the people is actually served. “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will.” b)​ The procedural definition of democracy is interested in the organization and the methods by which representation, accountability and legitimacy are assured. “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote.” Drawing on an analogy with the market, Schumpeter views democracy as the free competition of would-be officials for the free vote of citizens. He also insists on the necessity to limit the power of politicians and draw on a professional bureaucracy. 12 Robert Dahl views democracy as an ideal-type and argues that our political systems are in fact polyarchies. Polyarchies supply their citizens with a high level of inclusiveness and liberal freedoms. Meanwhile, elite groups mobilize prestige, competence and wealth to compete for power. A good polyarchy is defined by seven pillar institutions: constitutionally elected officials as policy-makers; free, fair, peaceful and frequent elections; inclusion of all adults in the electoral process; most of these adults can run for office; freedom of expression; alternative sources of information; autonomous associations. III.​ Categories of democratic polities A.​ Qualitative Typologies (value-based) -​ Electoral democracy -​ Illiberal democracy -​ Delegative democracy -​ Deliberative democracy B.​ Procedural Typologies (structure-based) -​ Majoritarian vs. Consensus democracies -​ Centripetal vs. Decentralist models IV.​ Studying the development of democratic systems over time a)​ Dahl describes three phases: incorporation, representation and organized opposition (progressive in most of the Global North, almost simultaneous after WWII) b)​ Huntington with the three waves of democratization and the corresponding backlash (problem of focusing on a normative outcome) Period Key Events Reversal First Wave 1828 – 1926 Rise of liberal democracies 1920 – 40s Fascism & (US, UK); expansion of Communism (Germany, 13  suffrage Italy, USSR) Second Wave 1945 – early 1960s Post-WWII democratization; 1950 – 70s Coups & decolonization; Cold War Authoritarianism (Latin allies America, Africa, Asia) Third Wave 1974 – early 2000s Portugal’s revolution; Fall of 2000s – present Democratic USSR; global spread backsliding, rise of illiberalism c)​ Zakaria and the rise of illiberal democracies (liberal suspicion toward unchecked democracy and emphasis on the need for incorporation to be progressive) Since the 1990s, political scientists and commentators often consider that there is no viable alternative to liberal democracy. The norms of liberal democracy promoted by governments and think tanks shape value judgments. Since Trump’s 2016 victory, discourses about illiberalism and populism portray a liberal democratic order under attack that must be rescued. Nonetheless, such analyses seem to miss some important elements: non-liberal models are diverse; criticism of this model is far from being limited to wannabe authoritarians; the dissatisfaction with career politicians and technocracies is indeed widespread; intermediary bodies (parties and unions) are particularly challenged. We could imagine a non-Eurocentric form of democracy based on the ongoing effort to challenge the legacies of colonialism (Singh 2019): -​ Break with liberalism and the narrative of modernization to broaden the perimeter of what are legitimate political regimes -​ Plural legitimacies and legal frameworks to resist regimes of dispossession -​ Non-hegemonic and non-institutional approaches to political mobilization 14  We can also look at existing traditional democratic structures and their transformation, such as the North African village assembly (tajmaat). This local forum has been a siege of local power for centuries and continues to evolve, for instance by integrating women in debates and positions of authority. 15 Lecture 7. Parties In ancient Greece, political factions were not institutionalized and their competition often led to civil wars. Modern political parties appeared with the rise of parliamentarianism in the 18th century. Their emergence resulted from the transformation of the class structure of western societies (rise of the bourgeoisie, organization of the working class). Political parties bring together a relatively coherent group of people (ideologically, ethically or socially) to compete for power and organize the government. Elections are just one modality through which parties compete for power. In some cases, they also use military means, propaganda, and other tools. Richard Katz identifies four core activities of political parties: 1)​ Coordinating activities in the government, society and between them 2)​ Competing for power (notably during campaigns) 3)​ Recruiting candidates, members and donors 4)​ Representing society Modern parties played a key role in stabilizing liberal representative regimes and integrating new social classes. I.​ Typology of political parties a)​ Cadre party: dominated by local elites, limited membership, ideologically heterogenous b)​ Mass party: centralized, large membership, ideologically coherent, linked to a social group and its pre-existing organizations c)​ Catch-all party: professionalized, autonomized officials, ideologically heterogeneous d)​ Cartel party: professionalized, resources tied to state offices, non-ideological, privileges expertise over activism, maintains the status quo. e)​ Anti-cartel party: non-professional, comes from the margins, anti-experts, wants policy shifts. f)​ Business-firm party: dominated by a political entrepreneur, limited grassroots organization. g)​ Cyber party: emerges from technological development, members communicate directly and bypass executives. 16  II.​ The crisis of political parties in liberal representative regimes 1)​ The cartelization of dominant political parties leads to the concentration of power and resources in the hands of elected officials, an anti-ideological approach to policy-making, increased “partyness” of government but a dissolution of “partyness” in society; expensive campaigns financed partly by corruption. (Katz & Mair 2009) 2)​ Declining party membership trust deficit in political institutions; complex problems with limited solutions for elected officials; citizens can express themselves without party mediation (education, social media); alternative forms of democratic politics have emerged (social movements, deliberative democracy) In recent years, political scientists have highlighted the risk of a democratic backsliding enabled by the Republican party. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the under-development of the US party system and its democratic deficit predate Trump's rise to power. Meanwhile, the new GOP has been remarkably able to integrate relatively marginal grassroots actors while challenging technocratic elites. While Trumpism displays clear authoritarian tendencies, one should not overlook forms of liberal authoritarianism and the ability of non-liberal groups to remobilize society. 17 Lecture 8. The Military and Politics Systematic military intervention in politics is called praetorianism. Perlmutter (1969) emphasizes the distinction between: a)​ Historical praetorianism (limited resources, traditional authority, strategic position in the capital) b)​ Modern praetorianism (massive resources, legal-rational authority, benefit from the institutional structure of the state) According to Stepan (1971), military officers are a situational elite (power comes from the institution that employs them). A.​ Social conditions leading to praetorianism ·​ Rapid socioeconomic or sociopolitical transformation ·​ Growing socioeconomic dissatisfaction ·​ Lack of social or institutional cohesion at the top ·​ Intense class conflict B.​ Political conditions leading to praetorianism ·​ Conflict between center and periphery ·​ Low level of political institutionalization ·​ Weak government and ruling party ·​ Civilian-military tension ·​ Ineffective parliament C.​ Military conditions leading to praetorianism ·​ Internal security threats ·​ Military conviction that they can govern better ·​ Politicization of military officers Two praetorian ideal-types (Perlmutter 1969) 18  1)​ The arbitrator-type army mostly acts as the guardian of civilian authority and political stability. It has little interest in ideology and imposes a time limit on army rule in moments of crisis. Their actions behind the scene fuel political discourses denouncing the deep state ​ ​ Turkish military coup in 1980s 2)​ The ruler-type army prioritizes direct political influence and often places one of its members as head of state. It develops affiliated political organizations and a fairly coherent ideology. Eventually, military officers become a core ruling class with vested interest. In the literature in the 1960-70s, praetorianism was portrayed as a sign of underdevelopment and an indicator of corruption and disorganized institutions. Yet, beyond this narrative of modernization, Latin American countries show that higher levels of industrialization and urbanization are compatible with military rule. Praetorianism has also been associated with the alleged ungovernability of the global south, as a symptom of a cycle of violence and instability. Nonetheless, in countries such as Egypt (1954-2011) or Rwanda (2000-present), military-led governments also developed highly securitized forms of governance that produced stability in a context of economic crises and fierce political competition. The military has often played a key role in implementing economic development programs in the global south, from industrialization to fighting desertification. When directly in charge of supervising the economy,it has often prioritized a technoscientific, bureaucratized, and securitized approach to development. The military has also taken part in major political transformations, following its prior involvement in wars of liberations and revolutions. While it has pushed for revolutionary or reactionary transformative projects, it has often combined a nationalist discourse with a plebiscitary style. 19 In addition to combat, the CCP’s leadership explicitly assigned four roles to the Chinese army: propaganda & political organization; partaking in production; cultural uplifting (literacy, hygiene, sports); training administrative cadres At the same time, the CCP maintained political control over the army through purges, recruitment and promotions, indoctrination and supervision by political officers. A well-organized political organization such as the CCP can remain in control of a massive army, even if the military is given a crucial social, economic and political role in the transformation of the country. 20 Lecture 9. Comparative Political Economy Political economy combines political science and economics to study the influence of economic structures on political institutions, class conflicts, and policy making & policy implementation. The founding figures of political economy are often associated with political ideologies: Adam Smith (Liberalism), Karl Marx (Marxism), Friedrich Hayek (Neoliberalism). I.​ Comparing Welfare Systems The welfare state is a form of government that protects the economic and social wellbeing of its citizens through redistributive taxing and spending programs. Some of its key features include: 1)​ Social Insurance for people in need (unemployed, sick and old) 2)​ Affordable public services (education, healthcare, housing, transportation) 3)​ Progressive taxation The welfare state is sometimes portrayed as the outcome of democratic politics, but it is also common in non-liberal representative settings. Welfarism is a way to limit social ills, when market mechanisms fail to do so. It also allows state interventions aiming to regulate various sectors, limit at-risk behaviours, and increase economic efficiency. Factors explaining the different size of the welfare state (usually assessed based on the share of GDP invested in welfare policies): -​ Strength of organized labor -​ Globalization (increasing risk of capital flight) -​ Political factors (strength of the left, primacy of identity politics) -​ Institutional factors (unitary vs federal, multipartyism vs two-party system) -​ State capacity -​ Racism 21 Dominant ideologies are also important, notably the circulation of meritocratic narratives naturalizing inequalities (market competition is fair) and fueling belief in upward mobility (genial entrepreneur). Religion might also be a relevant factor in some cases. The welfare state in the USA is limited compared to some European countries, such as Sweden, which have a universal model. This results in greater inequalities and higher poverty rates. The American healthcare system is notoriously less efficient. It is more costly (17% of GDP vs 11-12% in France, Germany or Sweden) and results in lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates. II.​ Comparing Capitalist Systems Capitalism is a legal regime, an economic system and a social formation that unfolds in history and that is built upon two fundamental social relations: market competition and the capital/labor nexus. 1.​ Transformations of the global economy since WW2 A.​ (40 – 60s) Emergence of a US-dominated world economy with administered international trade and massive public investments. Alliance among stable employees, conglomerates and the state. B.​ (60 – 80s) Rise of an internationalized competition regime with capital flight and increased flexibility of labor. Social pact centering consumers. C.​ (80 – 00s) Rise of finance-led capitalist regime with governments subjected to market pressures. Alliance among financiers, top-management of global firms, and rentiers actors. 2.​ Varieties of capitalist systems a)​ Market oriented capitalism: market logic guides public policies (USA) b)​ Meso-corporatist capitalism: centered on large conglomerates (Japan) c)​ State-driven capitalism: public interventions shape economic activities (Continental Europe) d)​ Social-democratic capitalism: negotiations between authorities and social partners (Scandinavian) 22  e)​ New Industrial Capitalism: state-business networks, competitive, lack of autonomy of labor (China) f)​ Rentier capitalism: state-business networks, rents through exports of raw materials (Russia) g)​ Hybrid industrial rentier capitalism (Brazil) The US and Chinese models are interdependent (US spendings sustains Chinese industry, while Chinese savings sustain US credit). Meanwhile, the European model is subjected to the pressure of both Chinese competitiveness and American deregulation. Finally, the sustainability of Latin American rentier states depends on foreign demands for primary resources. 23