PPT Les 01: Comparative Politics PDF

PPT les 01 What are comparative politics? CP 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 analyzing them empirically by describing, explaining and predicting their...

PPT les 01 What are comparative politics? CP 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 analyzing 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 supra-national systems. Key points: Comparative politics can be relevant for informing the public debate and for giving advice to politicians and government agencies about public policies Comparative politics also has a potential for serving more general goals, such as increased social justice and improved human well-being. Comparative politics is one of the three main subfields of political science, alongside international relations and political theory ® Empirical science that studies chiefly domestic politics ® The goals of CP are to describe differences and similarities between political systems and their features, to explain the difference and to predict which factors may cause specific outcomes. Comparative Political Institutions From the classing to the contemporary classics Political science is indeed a young discipline, but it has its predecessors that tried to address political issues in a non-normative way We as political scientist try to be objective as possible and learn about how thing evolves. CP Institutions definition: Comparative: the methodology (how) (=how do we study institutions, it’s to find a concept and to measure it) Political: what is the field of research (= we’re going to look at decisions that are taken, public actors) (= how a government decides to spend its money = public actors) Institutions: stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior created by humans o Socially constructed o There’s little consensus on which particular political institutions matter, how they matter, how they’re created, … o The importance of the informal institutions in society should not be overlooked and the importance of formal institutions has often been exaggerated. Table= to understand Formal institutions: o School, family, marriage, … o It’s all a contract o o We can see them Example formal institution: a Traffic light: red=stop, green=go Informal institutions are socially shared rules, usually unwritten o They are created, communicated & enforced outside of officially sanctioned channels o Friendship o It’s not contractualized, it is not written in the law o They shape our behavior in the same way a law shapes our behavior The difference between them is that informal institutions are non-written and personal o They aren’t contractualized For example: with marriage the law decides when a marriage is forged or not o Friendship is not, there isn’t a contract between them o Example 2: Mexican president used to be elected , not via the rules but via an unwritten code that gave the sitting president the right to choose it’s successor. (dedazzo/big finger) Politics: Definition: It’s the human activity of making authoritative and public decisions o Because it applies to all citizens o We are not interested in what people/organization do in the private sphere § How private banks make decisions (for example) Why is politics important? o Because man is by nature a political animal (i.e. a social animal, that live in complex societies) o Studying politics is also studying the manhood in a way o Men and women are political animals according to Aristotle § They are designed to socialize * 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)). Politics is also the activity of acquiring (verwerven) this power. Example of when the rulers become the ruled: Belgium for example: the ruled have the right to vote (democracy) and to choose the rulers Groups don’t participates: people that have much more to lose then people who have nothing to lose (immigrants, minorities, uneducated ppl,…) What makes a decision authorative? Power: Having authority means having power Max Weber: The ability of an individual or a group of individuals to achieve their own goals, when others are trying to prevent them to realize them i.e. the ability of forcing other people to do things they would otherwise not do o it’s the ability you have to make them follow something you want 3 types power: o Traditional § § o o Patriarchy - Old habits Kings King that transfers his power to another - through blood Charismatic § Leaders using their charisma – Napoleon(=got his power from the pope in a legal way), Adolf Hitler, Mussolini § Example of a leader who has charisma but got the power through eerlijke ways: De Gaulle Famous general recognized hero of the 2nd WW in France The president of the France Republic. Scholars working on leadership agree that he is a recognized charismatic leader Rational-legal § Constitution § Political regimes § Public law How do we study comparative politics? Countries and areas over time o Country by country we describe the main features and from the description we derive political science concepts Methodology: o We study different approaches to political science, concepts are pre-eminent o We use countries and other actors to make examples Analytical: o Combine the 2 approaches § Caramani textbook o Examples and methods treated at the same time Polls aren’t exact science because they are a snapshot o It is in a specific time, only once in a given time o If we interview the same people after one week with the same questions people might change their opinion because something happened o So it can’t be exact science o But they CAN approximate our science with some techniques § For example to avoid social desirability o But sometimes polls or surveys fail - for example with Brexit § They make predictions but they won’t say that the result is the reality that will be present when an election will take place Comparative politics: what for? Making predictions: o It is actually difficult to make predictions. What we call law in polsci are not always law in strictu sensu (as for in physics for example) o Iron Law of Oligarchy: § Every organization eventually ends up in an oligarchy (Roberto Michels) o asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable, how democratic organisations might start, they will eventually fall under the rule of the elite Durverger Laws: used to predict how many parties a system is going to wind up with. § The simple-majority single-ballot system favors the 2 party system- e.g. FPTP ( the winner takes all). Both the simple majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favor multi-partism. a political party system in which two major political parties consistently dominate the political landscape - the idea that in the long run rational politicians and voters will realize that it is hopeless to have more than two parties competing at national level. Is comparative politics like a hard science? o o o No - It is not experimental, we can’t replicate experiments in the same external conditions of the first time every rest is unique as it is every actor or institution It is not a lab science Reality changes and with it actors and the institution Yet we have now tools that allow us to approximate, or try to, hard science § Quasi-experimental designs An example of an experiment “Although there is a general trend for class voting to decline over time, partially accounted for by the impact of education, we find that most variation in class voting does not take the form of a linear decline”. Before the behavioral revolution: Research based on qualitative analyses such as legal texts, laws, discoursers o Mainly based on single-cases studies, small-N comparison Big data were not available o Research mainly on the field: time-consuming, very expensive Interests in institutions (states; region, cities, political organization), not on individuals Walter Lipmann (1899-1974): Public Opinion (1922) very influential study on Public Opinion, without data Before the behavioral revolution, yet concepts used still today (democracy for realist) Argument: public opinion irritational (it cannot make a rational judgement) He for the first time dealt with the issue of public opinion in democratic regimes o The political attitudes of public opinions weren’t wise enough to make a form decision about who to govern and who to elect The behavioral revolution: From institutions to agency 1950-1960 – new international environment o It brought a different approach to political science New data, new cases, more cases Statistics became the main point of reference Interest in the big picture: how politics work? o Systemic theory, such as the one by David Easton (1917-2014) § The approach to PS was different § The aim was to analyze a whole political s system o There were these attitudes toward finding something that might apply all over the world § Very different concepts that were born in Europe that PC wanted to apply all over the world Universal categories – not western-centric Individuals became the most important part of the analysis of CPS What’s next?: Behavioral revolution o The methods are similar to the ones we use now (yet more evolved) o However there were important limitations: § Too abstract à concepts cannot travel easily § Can we apply universal concepts all over the world? Not so easy as it seems o Example democracy: § New focus on institutions (new institutionalism) § Historical institutionalism: Sociological/normative institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism No more universal categories: o narrowing of geographical scope importance of historical context Mid range theories: o theories that are not too much case oriented nor they are intended to provide universal explanation (radical-right parties in Europe, patterns of 36 democracies) Partial change of methodology: o Not merely large-n, but also case-oriented studies o New comparative method (few-cases, many variables) o Importance of small N cases to provide insightful analysis, less abstract but still informative Rational choice theory: o Actors as rational & self-interested o Institutions as constraining actors’ possibilities What are the theoretical approaches of comparative politics? The 5 I’s are considered the main approaches 1. Institutions § Structures matter because institutions shape and constrain behavior of individuals. Institutional analysis, before the B.R. the root of comparative politics. Now: Contemporary New Institutionalism § Approach to institutions is more conceptual & empirical § A larger set of institutions is considered and studied à Large N analysis is possible now From the book: The central role of institutions in comparative politics has at once been strengthened and made more analytical. The new institutionalism in political science now provides an alternative paradigm for comparative politics. This approach assumes that individuals do not act as atomistic individuals, but more on the basis of their connections with institutions and organizations. In fact, contemporary institutional theory provides at least 4 alternative conceptions of institutions, all having relevance for comparative analysis. Normative institutionalism, associated with James March and Johan P. Olsen, the behavior of individuals is strongly shaped by the norms of institutions. Rational choice institutionalism sees institutions as aggregations of incentives and disincentives that influence individual choice. Individuals would pursue their own self-interest utilizing the incentives provided by the institution. Historical institutionalism focuses on the role of ideas and persistence of institutional choices over long periods of time, even in the face of potential dysfunctionality. Empirical institutionalism asks the fundamental question of whether differences in institutions make any difference. 2. Interests § Rational choice analysis § § Individuals are self-interested utility maximizers & engage in political action to receive benefits and avoid costs Less individualistic interpretation: Collective identity matters More general approach: § § Neo-Corporativism: strong involvement of societal interest groups in developing policy: which interests groups? o Direct access to government decision making for non-conflictual approach. Network theory: self organizing networks now provide governance, as governments are no longer able to. Direct involvement in decision-making. Consociationalism: Elites representing different communities come together around the need to govern, even in case of severe social divisions (Netherlands, Belgium) From Book: The interested actress pursued through political action. Individual behavior is assumed to be motivated by self-interest, and collective behavior is the cluster of the individual behaviors through bargaining, formal institutions, or conflict. Rational choice theory provides a set of strong assumptions about behavior, but less deterministic uses of the idea of interests can produce more useful comparative results. Network theory has been developed with different levels of claims about importance of the networks in contemporary governments. At one end, some scholars have argued that governments are no longer capable of effective governance and its self-organizing networks now provide governance. For others scholars, networks are forms of interest involvement in governing, with formal institutions retaining the capacity to make effective decisions about governance. consociationalism is a mode of governing in which political elites representing different communities come together around the need to govern even in the face of intense social divisions. 3. Ideas § § § Political culture (social-capital) Ideologies (communis, fascism, neoliberalism) They are crucial drivers for mobilization Policy ideas (Keynesian economics, welfare state) Think about public debts and public investments vis-à-vis lowering taxes. From book: As comparative politics, along with political science in general, has moved away from behavioral explanations and interpretative understandings of politics, there has been less analytical emphasis on understanding political culture, and this important element of political analyzes has been devalued. Although ideologies have been important in comparative politics, there has been a continuing discussion of the decline of ideology in political life. First, with the acceptance of the mixed economy welfare state in most industrialized democracies, the argument was that the debate over the role of the states was over. More recently, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a similar argument was made concerning the exhaustion of political ideas and the end of political conflicts based on ideas. However, This presumed end of the role of ideas could be contrasted with the increased importance of conservative ideologies and the increased significance of religion as a source of political conflicts. A final way in which ideas influence outcomes in comparative politics is through specific policy ideas. In summary, ideas do matter in politics, even though their effects may be subtle. 4. Individuals § Elite level § Individuals traits are important: leadership A prominent approach in political psychology (presidential styles) The background is important Mass level: § The determinants of vote (sociology) Party ID, social-class, age, education, determine what you vote Individuals at mass level: the American Voter Revisited, the American Voter Unabridged edition International environment § We usually focus on individual countries but the international environment matters a lot From book: Many individual level explanations are naturally focused on political elites and their role in the political process. one of the more interesting ways of understanding elite behavior is through personality 5. International Environment § While we usually focus on individual countries, the international environment matters.. a lot § Can we consider countries in isolation? § From Eu budgetary rule… to actual COVID19 crisis From book: That said, it is increasingly evident that individual countries are functioning in a globalized environment and that it is difficult to understand any one system in isolation. When we observe a particular political pattern in a country, is that pattern a product of indigenous forces and national patterns or is it a product of diffusion? 6. Interactions (the 6th I) § Using one single approach in isolation can be detrimental § Most of the actual political events can’t be fully understood if analyzed focusing only on one approach § Multidimensionality of political science From book: Institutions are a powerful source of explanations and are generally or first choice for those explanations. However, institutions do not act (the individuals within them act, and so we need to understand how institutions and individuals interact in making decisions). For behavioral approaches to politics, the dependent variables will be individual-level behavior, such as voting or decisions made by legislators. For institutionalists perspectives, the dependent variable is the behavior of individuals within institutions. Institutionalists tend to be more concerned about the impact of structures on public sector decisions, whilst behavioral models focus on the individual decision maker and attributes that might affect his or her choices.