Comparative Politics PDF

1: Introduction What is comparative politics Comparative politics is a subfield of political science (CGG). Political science is divided by...

1: Introduction What is comparative politics Comparative politics is a subfield of political science (CGG). Political science is divided by international relations, political theory and comparative politics. The main difference between political theory (discipline which relates to normative: how things should be) and comparative politics (whose main goal is empirical and it deals with empirical questions) According to Caramani the main goal of the discipline is empirical: describe, explain and predict similarities and differences across political systems. Three possible definitions of comparative politics: 1. The study of political phenomena in every country except the one in which the student resides 2. The study of political phenomena through the comparative method 3. The study of political phenomena that are predominantly within country (region) relationships (Conflict should be in the middle) It's necessary to distinguish international politics (between nations) from comparative politics (within nations) Characteristics The main goal is empirical, we don’t question ourselves how the world should be, we think about how the world is. We want to describe, explain and predict similarities and differences across political systems. The main level of study is countries. Comparative Politics is not about comparing. It is about testing hypotheses across contexts (countries, historical periods, etc.). Hence, what we are involved in when we conduct “comparative research” is testing general hypotheses under different conditions. Comparative Politics is about: Describe political phenomena: how political phenomena are operating in different countries, presentation of what is happening in different countries. Explain (differences and similarities) pp: explain the reasons why some political phenomena occur in some countries and not in others. Predict political phenomena: guess accurately what is going to happen, or explain what is going to happen, always comparing cases. This is the most complicate thing to do. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.  Caramani chapter 0 Politics is the human activity of making public and authoritative decisions. First, they are public because they concern the whole society. Second, they are authoritative because the government that makes such decisions is invested with the authority (and legitimacy) to make them binding and compulsory, meaning that they are supported by the possibility to Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. sanction individuals that don't comply with them. Politics is thus the activity of acquiring the power of making such decisions and of exercising this power. It's the conflict or competition for power and its use. Comparative politics is a combination of substance (the study of political systems, and their actors and processes) and method (identifying and explaining differences and similarities between cases) Thus, it involves the analysis of similarities and differences between cases. What does comparative politics do in practice? 1. Describe the real world and establish classifications and typologies. 2. Similarities and differences are explained. 3. Aims formulating predictions. 1. Comparing cases and case selection Case: it denotes the units of observation to be compared, such as countries. For instance, individual voters in several countries. The country is the case compared and determines the level of analysis, whereas the voter is the unit of observation (within the case). To clarify, case is any type of system included in the analysis. Case selection Intensive strategies: many variables and few cases Extensive strategies: few variables and many cases If the N (number of cases) is less than ten to fifteen the strategy is intense. The single case study It's at best comparative and it's external validity is low or absent. Another use is as a pilot for generating hypotheses, or confirming or invalidating extant theories. Time series Or longitudinal analysis can be useful in 2 ways: To compare a specific configuration within once care or a few cases in order to inspect change To analyze which factor are (or have become) relevant over time as causes To replicate a cross-sectional study by time series analysis to observe differences in the outcomes. Closed universe Concerns the few cases for comparison at different points of time, taking into account change by defining periodical intervals based on external events. A good example is the developments during the interwar period when in some European countries democracy gave way to dictatorship whereas in others democracy was maintained. Cross-section Several cases are compared simultaneously. It bases itself in a selection of those cases that resemble each other more and they differ from each other and thereby reduce variance caused by other variables. It implies that the circumstances of the cases under review are assumed to be constant whereas the included variables do vary. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Pooled analysis Is mainly used in sophisticated quantitative approaches and it requires skills in statistical methods at a more advanced level. The main point of this section is that case selection isn't only important for how many cases can or should be included in the analysis, but also that the choice is neither free nor determined. The choice of the cases depends on the theoretical relationship that defines which type of political system can be selected. Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. 2. The logic of comparison: relating cases to variables Different designs relate directly to the type and number of cases under review and to the selection of variables by the researcher in view of the research question and the related answers. Experimental variance Error variance The occurrence of random effects of unmeasured variables. These effects are almost impossible to avoid in social science. Yet, error variance should be minimized for instance, increasing the number of cases. Extraneous variance Controlling for extraneous variance. There's no best remedy to prevent extraneous variance exercising an influence other than by having formulated a fully specified theory or statistical significance tests and control variables. The best way is to apply the principles of the Methods of Agreement and Difference. 3. The use of Methods go Agreement and Difference in comparative analysis. Originate from Mill. The basic idea is that comparing cases is used to interpret commonalities and differences between cases and variables. The Method of Difference: focuses on comparing cases that differ with respect to either the dependent variable but don't differ across comparable cases with respect to the other variables examined. It derives its explanatory capacity from MSSD. The Method of Agreement: consists of comparing cases in order to detect those relationships between X and Y that remain similar notwithstanding the differences on other features of the cases compared. It uses MDSD as its research design to allow for descriptive causal inference. An alternative logic of comparison has recently been developed: fuzzy-set logic. This approach allows for scrutinizing multiple causality across various cases and variables. 4. Constraints in the comparative method We often have too many different theories that fit the same data a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  2: Research methods in CP Refreshment What's the main purpose of CS? Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. CS is not about comparing It's about testing hypotheses across contexts (countries, historical periods...) Hence, what we are involved in when we conduct “comparative research” is testing general hypotheses under different conditions. The scientific method involves bold conjectures and rigorous attempts at refutation: Risky guesses, propositions, hypotheses Empirically falsifiable and testable through observational or experimental data 3 main goals: Description Explanation Prediction Previous decisions: Units: within country, countries, supra-national One/few cases or large N Preliminaries The value of a scientific inference about the world depends, not on who draws the inference, but on the method by which the inference is drawn This method must allow a valid inference to be drawn, regardless of who does the work With the method we can get rid of the authority arguments. Irrespectively of your authority level, following the method concerns validity. Comparative methods The comparative method is about observing and comparing selected information on the basis of a meaningful, if not causal, relationship between variables. It allows us to investigate hypothesized relationships among variables systematically and empirically. Theory comes before method and is expressed in its simplest form as the relationship between dependent (Y) and independent (X) variables. Therefore the research method follows the research question in order to find the research answer. The research answers are (tentative) hypotheses that are interpreted by means of descriptive inference on the basis of comparative evidence, possibly allowing for causal interpretation. Its design is the toolkit to systematically link empirical evidence to theoretical relationships by means of comparative methods enhancing the internal and external validity of the results. Case studies An intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of RESEARCH understanding a larger class of (similar) units. Begining End PROCESS Goals: Exploratory (theory-building): At the beginning, case studies may serve us a font of inspiration and to obtain basic information about the subject we are researching a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Confirmatory (thick account of underlying processes): At the end, they can help us to corroborate our conclusions. Potential advantages of Case Studies: Case studies provide richness in terms of details. Quantitative approaches, through maximizing diverse cases, lose contextual knowledge, rely upon statistical techniques sometimes unsuited to political science data/research questions, and underestimate statistical uncertainty and error They are valuable because of within-case causal chains, process tracing, and path-dependent relationships for generating theories, hypotheses, and concepts. Potential limits of Case Studies: Representativeness omitted variables. The study of a particular case is not representative at a higher level. Selecting on the dependent variable (selection bias). If we do not include other cases to be compared, we may not be able to detect common variables and connections between them that allow us to reach to a causality explanation. We don’t have variations in terms of the dependent variable. Too few cases reduce scientific testing: o Lack of capacity to make scientific inferences and estimate error o Lack of degrees of freedom, the problem of over-determination. There are too many variables for too few cases. The number of variables is higher than the number of cases. Nevertheless, by having more cases, we will be able to decrease the number of variables. Deviant cases/ outliners: a case that does not fit the general pattern. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES -Generate further theoretical hypotheses for research -Limited generalizability and theory testing -Depth, especially good to understand longitudinal -Selection bias processes -Over-determination -Analyze deviant cases or outliers -Demand extensive fieldwork (recommended to visit the country to -Post-hoc validation get to know it better, financial problems as well as physical risks), language skills and immersion (it is important to know the culture, the population’s behavior and habits, the social norms) Small-n comparisons Few nations comparison. These studies have kind the best of both worlds. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES -Combine both depth and breadth -Limited theoretical generalizations outside of cases/area/region -Build middle-level theories -Can still generate too many independent variables and too few cases -Identify variations within the same regional area -Higher demand for fieldwork and language skills (this point can be doubted) -How the countries are selected a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.  Large-n comparisons We analyse multiple countries worldwide for global perspective. Types: Cross-sectional: we analyse lots of countries at one point in time. Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Cross-sectional time-series: we analyse lots of countries at different points in time, we come back to analyse countries we have already gone through. Data can be: Observational Experimental. In order to experiment we need: CONTROL (isolation), MANIPULATION (in order to change and introduce variables) + TWO UNITS (the control group, which doesn’t receive anything; and the treatment group, who receives treatment). These two groups must be exactly the same except for the fact that one receives treatment and the other doesn’t. We cannot create these two groups in Comparative Politics but we can find them. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES -Develop scientific inference (important) -Too abstract and far removed from context. We cannot establish for example a concept of democracy applicable to all the cases we are -Test general theories analysing. -Identify outliers / deviant cases -Lack of insights into ‘black-box’ political processes -Expansion in availability of statistical databases -Concept stretching -Comprehensive generalizations / high external validity -Limited availability of data -Valid cross-cultural measure?? We cannot apply a certain concept in all the countries, because its meaning may vary. High external validity: when the results of an exercise can be extrapolated. The analysis’s conclusions are valid in a wide range of other cases. Internal validity: linked to the reliability of the collected information. Causes A cause is a necessary and/or a sufficient condition. A necessary condition does not imply sufficiency. It is necessary but not enough. A sufficient condition is enough. X is necessary and sufficient for Y implies that X is not substitutable: If X is true, then Y is inevitably true Necessary conditions It is a circumstance in whose absence the phenomenon in question cannot occur. Y (effect) never happens unless X (cause) happens If Y then X, or if no X then no Y So one can infer X (cause) from the presence of Y (effect), i.e., cause X must be present for effect Y to occur But it may not always be enough for the effect to actually occur, i.e., cause X does not always provoke effect Y. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Sufficient conditions It is a circumstance in whose presence the phenomenon in question must occur. Y (effect) always happens if X (cause) happens If X then Y, or if no Y then no X Cause (X) must always and invariably lead to Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. the effect (Y). So one can infer Y (necessary effect) from X (sufficient condition) However, there may be more than one sufficient condition. Therefore, when Y is true, X is not necessarily true Comparative method - Mill The systematic search for “necessary,” “sufficient,” and “necessary and sufficient” conditions has come to be known as Mill’s Methods, or the comparative method Mill proposed two main methods: Method of Agreement: when the cases agree on the phenomenon to be explained Method of Difference: when the cases differ on the phenomenon to be explained Mill’s comparative analysis is based on 4 assumptions that are rarely met: 1. Causal factors are independent (there are not interactions or multiplicative effects) 2. They are deterministic (either they have causal influence, or they don’t). Most social research are probabilistic rather than deterministic. 3. There is only one true causal path and all the relevant causes are examined. 4. Another problem is that we normally have more hypotheses (explanatory factors) than cases, so the explanation is overdetermined. Method of agreement Suppose we want to learn about the causes of democracy. Suppose we go and look at three different democracies to see what we can learn: Test if a condition is necessary or not. Inferences: 1) Ethnic homogeneity is not a necessary condition (Belgium) 2) Having a parliamentary system is not a necessary condition (United States) 3) Wealth is the only surviving potential necessary condition for democracy According to Karl Popper, in science we cannot tell if something is true or not, we just can make up hypotheses. Same way, we cannot dictate that wealth is a sufficient condition for democracy. Wealth is the only surviving potential necessary condition for democracy. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Method of difference The Method of Difference requires that the phenomenon to be explained is present in one case, but not the other. Test whether a condition is sufficient or not. What is the causal relationship between wealth and democracy? Is wealth a necessary or sufficient Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. condition for democracy? If we took a dictatorship and made it rich, would it become a democracy? So: What type of observation would show that wealth is not a sufficient condition? We would need to observe a wealthy country that is NOT a democracy. As a result, we need to use the Method of Difference Inferences: 1) Wealth is not a sufficient condition for democracy (Mexico), but it may be necessary 2) Ethnic homogeneity is neither necessary (Belgium) nor sufficient for democracy (Mexico) 3) A parliamentary system is not necessary (United States) for democracy. It may be sufficient (Belgium and the UK) Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) The most similar systems design is equivalent to Mill’s Method of Difference. It requires that the analyst find cases that are identical to each other except in regard to the outcome to be explained and one key condition. the differences are the explanation of the outcome “Systems as similar as possible with respect to as many features as possible constitute the optimal samples for comparative inquiry” (Przeworski & Teune 1970: 32) Intersystemic similarities (control variables) and intersystemic differences (explanatory variables) are the focus The number of common characteristics sought is maximal and the number of not shared characteristics sought, minimal Applications: Comparisons over time, across nations, over areas, conterfactuals Weaknesses Over-determination (Heroic assumptions): more inferences (variables) than observations (problem of absence of random assignment) Treating variables as dichotomous measures. The more complicated the operationalisation is, the harder the method becomes. Limited generalizability Deterministic casualty Multiple causal factors and causal complexity are hard or impossible to determine The problem of absence of random assignment a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Most Different System Design Method of agreement (Mill’s). Key is to understand why very different units/cases have the same outcome (Y variable). The search is then for a key explanatory variable common to the cases that all appear very different from each other. Starting point: Variation of the observed behaviour at a lower level than that of systems. Initial assumption: Systemic factors do not play any role in explaining the observed behaviour. Difference of cases means we control for many alternative explanations We have to identify those independent variables, observed within systems, that are equal across systems → GOOD CANDIDATES FOR EXPLANATORY FACTORS Systemic differences need not be taken into consideration if: The subgroups of the population from which they are drawn do not differ with regard to the DV. The relationship between an independent and the dependent variable is the same within the subgroups of the population Weaknesses As with the most-similar systems designs, we cannot use complicated variable codings, multiple causal factors are hard or impossible to determine Deterministic causality Case selection on the dependent variable – without variation on the dependent variable determining causality is extremely difficult This method is more useful for ruling out “necessary” causes than for determining causality Counterfactuals / Experiments Classic experimental design Random sampling->Treatment and placebo groups->groups identical except in the treatment-> variation between groups must be caused by the treatment Lab experiments Experiments with people to know what they will vote. Give them different info. Field experiments Natural experiments Best comparative politics can hope for are natural (quasi-)experiments. Problem of endogeneity (correlation does not imply causation so variation in both variables could be caused by a third one) Theories and casual inference How do we decide WHICH things to hold equal, and which things might have an impact on what we are trying to explain? Does the size of the country affect the role of the electoral system? The number of voters? The weather? We need well-specified theories. This theory involves a logical model of the world identifying key factors that are expected to affect the working of, for example, electoral systems – that is the job of a theory A good theory tells us: What affects what – thus, what to measure and why a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.  What factors are assumed to have no effect Thus, what to look for when we analyse the information we collect... “holding a, b and c constant, we expect increases in x to be associated with increases in y” Good statistical techniques then allow us to estimate how closely y varies with x, holding a, b and c constant The theory also has assumptions restricting the set of countries to which it applies Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Most theoretical predictions are made ceteris paribus...... but all things are never equal in the real world We can never completely reassure ourselves we have not missed a crucial causal factor... that vexing missing variable problem again Mixed methods Q&A Logic of inference is same for qualitative and quantitative approaches, but styles of analysis are different: Qualitative research uses thick description of a small number of cases, particular events, decision, institutions, location, regime, nation. Quantitative research uses numerical measurement, abstracting from particular to testable generalizations, systematic patterns, emphasizes replicability and regularities in classes/categories Yet, both use same logic– designed to make descriptive or explanatory inferences about unobserved phenomenon on the basis of empirical information about the world Conclusions Can political scientists replicate the logical and aesthetic purity of the doubleblind control group experiment? Of course not! Real politics is too messy But neither can astronomy nor, indeed, many aspects of biology Does that mean that all we can rely on are gurus who will interpret the political world for us? Of course not! Just because we cannot do perfect science does not mean we should do no science at all Which is why we need good comparative politics, building our theories carefully in a way that tell us: What to compare, and why, and what precisely to look for when we analyse the information which we have collected It is only by making careful and systematic comparisons that we can begin to get a real sense of political causes and effect in the real world a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  3a: Conceptualizing and measuring democracy and dictatorship Concepts vs. indicators Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Theories about the world are based on abstract concepts Concept: mental category or construct that captures the meaning of objects, events, or ideas Theoretical concepts cannot be observed; they exist only in our heads Different people have different ideas of democracy in their mind. We need to go beyond in the research process and come up with an indicator of the concepts we are studying. Concepts are not enough to do research because they only exist in our minds. When we want to test our theoretical claims, we have to translate our concepts into concrete measures or indicators (scientific tool) that we can actually observe. Measure/indicator: quantification of the thing we are interested in. Operationalization: process by which we translate a concept into a measure. We use a particular measure to operationalize a theoretical concept. First, we'll have a deduction process. Then, in order to see whether this holds in reality, we need to come up with indicators. This need applies to empirical social science. Defining democracies The central notion underlying our contemporary concept of democracy is that the 'people' rather than some subset of the people should rule. What for CGG is maximalism, for Pedro Riera is substantive, and what for CGG is minimalist, for Pedro it is procedural. Substantive vs Procedural Substantive definitions of democracy deal with the goals and effectiveness (outcomes) of the regime. Procedural definitions of democracy focus on how the regime is organized and its processes/institutions. They are more common than substantive definitions, because it is harder to define goals and reach to a consensus on what should be the goals that define a democracy as well as it is difficult to measure if they have been achieved. They can be maximalist or minimalist Minimalist vs Maximalist Minimalist: Democracy = Free and Fair Elections + Alternatives (more than one party to vote for) (Schumpeter) Maximalist: Democracy = Polyarchy (Dahl): Real-world cases The provision of substantive goods is not required But… elections are not enough Also: high inclusion and contestation a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Dahl’s Poliarchies Created by Robert Dahl, links democracy with an unrealistic utopian world. Therefore, the examples of democracy that he observes are imperfect democracies, they are not democracies, but something very close to the concept. He names these imperfect democracies “polyarchies”. These do not meet the perfect criteria that they should be a democracy. Two dimensions: Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. 1. Contestation captures the extent to which citizens are free to organize themselves into competing blocs in order to press for the policies and outcomes they desire. Citizens can compete politically: form a party, ranking in an election, owning a newspaper and criticize the government, etc. Contestation is the WHAT. 2. Inclusion has to do with who gets to participate in the democratic process. Having high inclusion means that almost all the population are taking advantage of their rights into the polyarchy. Inclusion is the WHO. A polyarchy is a political regime with high levels of both contestation and inclusion Dahl’s Conceptual logic: Liberal democracy POLIARCHY Contestation Inclusion Right to form Associational Freedom of Fairness of Extent of parties Right to vote autonomy press election suffrage Minimalist (“thin”) Schumpeter sees democracy as a solution, a procedure to solve the problem of social order. The only necessary characteristic for a democracy is having fair and free elections. Democracy is a procedure: "The democratic method is 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" Competitive, free and fair elections Voters determine government Contested elections (where more than one party compete for the political power) and competitive elections (elections where the expected vote margin between the parties is very small). An election can be contested and not competitive and still be democratic. As long as the election is contested it is DEMOCRATIC. To sum up Substantive Procedural: o Maximalist/thick/Madisonian/liberal/constitutional: also entails the provision of constitutional guarantees and controls on the exercise of executive power. o Minimalist/thin/populistic/popular/electoral: about elections and little more than elections a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Populism We considered it a thin-centred ideology, it is not a whole ideology because it does not present a way of political organization, it does not have defined principles/goals to achieve. It just claims that the will of the majority should rule the political system. It considers that It is connected to democracy because it limits and restricts the political rights and freedom of the minorities. Hybrids (Grey zone) Liberal vs Illiberal democracy Since 1989, the emergence of “illiberal democracy” = popular democracy and government “by” the people + limits and restrictions on individual rights and freedoms. Also known as electoral democracies (or delegate democracies). Current examples: Hungary, Poland. Between 1975 and 2008 we have the third wave of democratization. Most countries tend to be liberal and democratic (I.E., a full democracy), or not liberal and not democratic (I.E., a pure autocracy); the other combinations are relatively rare. Competitive authoritarianism Formal democratic institutions are widely viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority Incumbents violate those rules so often and to such an extent that the regime fails to meet conventional minimum standards for democracy Competition is real but unfair For example, Mexico pre-2000, current Russia, Turkey, etc. Neither fully democratic and nor fully authoritarian: (diminished) form of authoritarianism (Juan Linz) Type of regime Illiberal democracy Competitive authoritarian regime Democracy Autocracy Historical and normative approaches We live in a world that generally agrees on the importance and desirability of democracy. But it has not always been like that. The ancient Greeks were some of the first to start thinking about the merits of different forms of regime. What was democracy in ancient Greece? Demokratia is the Greek word meaning ‘rule by the demos’- Although the Greek word demos often gets translated as ‘the people’, it refers more specifically to the ‘common people’ - those people with little or no economic independence who are politically uneducated. Many believed that the demos would pursue their own interests at the expense of the commonweal. Plato did not see democracy as government by the people. Instead, he saw it as government by the poor and uneducated against the rich and educated. He believed that political decisions should be based on expertise and that allowing all people to rule would lead to mob rule and class warfare. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.  Aristotle saw democracy as the most dangerous of the corrupt forms of regime. Democracy was class ruled by the worst class. Democracy was not associated with elections. Until the 18th century, democracy was seen as a regime in which offices were distributed by lot. It was viewed as obsolete as it meant direct legislation, not representative government. Monarchy was consistently preferred to democracy by political thinkers. Things began to change in the Age of Revolution (1775-1848). People had talked about Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. representative government, not democracy. But ‘democracy’ and ‘aristocracy’ came to designate the main lines of cleavage in the Age of Revolution. The classical 3-way distinction between the one, the few, and the may was gradually replaced by the 2-way distinction between democracy and autocracy. Nowadays, having constituted fewer than one in four of world regimes in the 1950s and 1960s, democracies now count for almost 3 in 4. Comparing democracies Having constituted fewer than one in four of world regimes in the 1950s and 1960s, democracies now count for almost 3 in 4. Democracy has developed in waves, with the “third wave” coming in 1974 and reaching explosive proportions after 1989. What is a wave? “A wave of democratization is a group of transitions from nondemocratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that period of time” Huntington’s 3 waves of democracy: Reverse waves of democratization 1. 1828-1922: from “Jacksonian Democracy” in the US to Benito Mussolini in Italy 2. 1943-1962: Italy, West Germany, Japan, Austria... 3. 1974: Greece, Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Africa, Asia.. Why comparing? What had been once a small and homogenous group of democratic regimes has now become large and heterogeneous. Also... Neo-institutionalism: institutions as determinants of political outcomes Institutional engineering (associated with the “third wave”): specially interested in why some systems appear to perform “better” than others. Scholarly research focused on the quality rather than the quantity of democracy Criteria to classify democracies: 1. Head of state -> Republic or Monarchy 2. Horizontal division of powers -> Presidential (if republic), Parliamentary and Semi-presidential 3. Vertical division of powers: Unitary or Federal 4. Electoral Systems: proportional systems or majoritarian systems a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  3B: Conceptualizing and measuring democracy Democracy-Dictatorship (DD) Measure Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Cheibub, Gandhi and Vreeland (2010) provide an annual measure of democracy and dictatorship for 202 countries from January 1, 1946 (or independence) to December 31, 2008. The DD measure is a revised and updated version of the PACL measure of DD first developed by Przeworski et al. (2002) Democracies: regimes in which governmental offices are filled because of contested elections. A country is classified as a democracy only if all of the following conditions apply: 1. The chief executive is elected 2. The legislature is elected 3. There is more than one party competing in the elections 4. An alternation in power under identical electoral rules has taken place. (One exception would be South Africa as it is a democratic government but the party on the power has been wining election after election without any kind of manipulation) Two primary components: Governmental offices: chief executive and parliament elected Contestation (multi-party elections + alternation in power): Ex ante uncertainty (the Russia elections is an example of certainty, everyone knows without a doubt who is going to win them) Ex post irreversibility (once someone has won the elections, the result cannot be changed, it is irreversible. Repeatedly (elections must be periodical) The DD measure builds on Dahl´s insights in three respects: Based on a purely procedural view of democracy Focused strongly on Dahl´s notion of contestation It’s dichotomous. The operationalization is dichotomous because a country can only be considered a democracy or not a democracy. Relevant variable-> DEMOCRACY (dummy variable coded 1 or 0) Polity IV-V A data base between 1946 and 2013 created Marshall, Gurr and Jaggers (2010). Annual measure of democracy and autocracy for 190 polities from 1800 to the present (2018). The Democracy and Autocracy scores for each country both range from 0 to 10 Polity Score = Democracy – Autocracy It can go from -10 (ideal AUTOCRACY) to +10 (ideal DEMOCRACY) This variable is gradual. In practice, three categories Democracies: from +6 to +10 Anocracies or mixed regimes: from -5 to +5 Autocracies: from -6 to -10 a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Precise rules The competitiveness of executive recruitment The openness of executive recruitment The regulation of political participation The competitiveness of political participation The constraints that exist on the executive Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Very Dahlian in several aspects: Unlike DD, it measures democracy along a continuum Like DD, provides a largely procedural measure Unlike DD, it captures both contestation and inclusion It also adds limited government dimension Relevant variable-> POLITY (Continuous variable) Computed by subtracting the AUTOC score from the DEMOC score It ranges from -10 to 10 Freedom House (FH) It is an NGO, not carried out by academics. There are too many attributes, so you can accidentally fall into an explanation circle. It provides an annual measure of “global freedom” for countries around the world since 1972. (Cover 194 countries in 2011). Substantive definition. Potential problem: it is not technically a measure of democracy 2 dimensions: Political rights, covering three primary categories: (i) the electoral process, (ii) political pluralism and participation, and (iii) the functioning of government. For example: Is the head of state elected in free and fair elections? Civil rights, covering four primary categories: (i) freedom of expression and belief, (ii) associational and organizational rights, (iii) rule of law, and (iv) personal autonomy and individual rights. For example: Is the media free and independent? Each country is assigned two numerical ratings— from 1 to 7—for political rights and civil liberties, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The overall FH score for each country is simply the average score on each of the two dimensions. In practice Free (Democratic): 1-2.5 Partly Free (Mixed): 3-5 Not Free (Dictatorship): 5.5-7 Comparison with Dahl: Like him: Continuum & Contestation and inclusion Unlike him: Substantive definition Comparing DD, Polity IV and FH The three different measures of democracy and dictatorship are highly correlated This high degree of correlation across the 3 measures is largely driven by uncontroversial cases Unfortunately, there is considerable disagreement among the measures when it comes to classifying the mixed regimes. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Evaluating Measures of democracy and dictatorship Conceptualization Is the process of creating mental categories that capture the meaning of objects, events, or ideas: Its appropriateness will depend on the researcher ś question (for example, FH and democracy and economic inequality) It is easier to identify causes with minimalist measures (for example, FH and its 25 attributes) Validity Refers to the extent to which our measures correspond to the concepts that they are intended to reflect: Attributes, Aggregation Issues and Measurement Level For example, in FH and Polity IV, is it appropriate to weight each of the attributes equally? Reliability Refers to the extent to which the measurement process repeatedly and consistently produces the same score for a given case: The DD measure of regime type is highly reliable because it is based entirely on “observables” (and not subjective judgments) Replicability Refers to the ability of third-party scholars to reproduce the process through which a measure is created (coding rules and disaggregated data): DD and Polity IV provide much more detailed and clear coding rules for constructing their measures of regime type than FH does Boix-Miller-Rosato (BMR) Dichotomous Coding of Democracy, 1800- 2015 Two distinguishing features of the measure: Its dichotomous nature Its coverage from 1800 to 2015 Relevant variable → DEMOCRACY (Dummy variable coded 1 if the regime qualifies as democratic, and 0 otherwise) V-Dem One of the largest social science databases with over 350 indicators on democracy and political systems World-wide coverage from 1900 to the present Transparent and reliable indicators based on the knowledge of 2,500 international experts Free and easy online access High-quality research on democracy and policy outreach a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.  4: The economic determinants of democracy and dictatorship Democracy and dictatorship are the dependent variable Economic determinants are the independent variable Classic Modernization theory Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Most economic explanations for democracy can be linked to a paradigm called modernization theory. All countries in the world are passing through the same process of development. Modernization theory argues that all societies pass through the same historical stages of economic development. Although modernization theory was originally developed by economists, it was later taken up by political scientists. The development process: This transformation of become more modern and richer has a political consequence, the establishment of a democracy instead of a dictatorship. In the last decades, some countries have reached a post-modern stage that the modernization theory did not cover. Classic modernization theory predicts that as countries develop economically, they are: More likely to become democratic More likely to remain democratic We should see a strong POSITIVE relationship between economic development and democracy. According to this theory, a democratic emergence is going to be more likely in countries where there is an economic modernization. The higher the income of a country the higher the probability of democratic emergence. Two ways of linking income and democracy: 1. Classic modernization theory predicts that democracy is more likely to emerge and survive as countries develop and become richer 2. According to the survival story, high income helps to a democracy survival but has nothing to do with its emergence. The survival story predicts that democracy is more likely to survive as countries develop and become richer, but it is not more likely to emerge. According to Przeworski, if the GDP per capita is above 6,000 the system will not collapse, and the democracy will remain. He based this statement in the Argentina situation in 1975. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Mechanisms Why might increase income help democratic survival? Suppose you are a rich person living in a democracy Autocracy is a big gamble (a risk) because the probability of keeping your wealth depends on belonging to the closest circle of the Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. dictator. They have lots of things to lose being in an autocracy. Suppose you are a poor person living in a democracy Autocracy is less of a gamble. It would be the only chance in order to improve their economy, so you're more willing to take the risk. Implication of income in the transition to democracy, different depending on the theory: Modernization vs. Survival In the modernization theory both transition and continuity of democracy are affected by income. The higher the income, the more likely you are to see a transition to democracy. The higher the income in one country, the less likely you are to see a transition to democracy. The survival story: the higher the income, the less likely you are to become a dictatorship once you are democratic. Income doesn't change the probability of experiencing a transition to democracy, the possibility is the same whether you are a poor or rich country. Modernization theory and survival story Democracy is more common in rich countries than poor countries: YES Transitions to dictatorship become less likely as income increases: YES Modernization theory Survival theory Transitions to democracy become more likely Transitions to democracy are unaffected by as income increases: YES increases in income: NO Regime transitions may or may not become Regime transitions become less likely as less likely as countries become richer: YES countries become richer: NO Foreign aid How does foreign aid influence the democratization process? According to the modernization theory, we should fund democracies and dictatorships that are poor. If you help poor democracies to become richer, the probability of becoming dictatorships decreases. We also want poor dictatorships to become richer, so that the probability of becoming democracies increases. According to the survival story, we should fund poor democracies. We increase the income and decrease the probability of the democracy to become a dictatorship. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Modernization theory Democracy Autocracy Poor YES YES Rich NO NO Survival story Democracy Autocracy Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad. Poor YES NO Rich NO NO It’s there a foreign aid curse? Aid optimists think that foreign aid con spur democratization efforts Aid pessimists think that foreign aid has a negative effect on democratization reforms Foreign aid can hurt democratization efforts. By freeing governments from the need to raise taxes and providing them with access to ‘slack resources’ that can be strategically used to reward supporters and coopt opposition groups, foreign aid increases the autonomy of recipient governments from the demands of their citizens Foreign aid can help democratization efforts, but only if... 1. The recipient country is dependent on foreign aid 2. The aid donor wants to promote democratic reform 3. The aid donor can credibly threaten to withdraw the id if its demands for reform are not met Any democratic reforms that do occur are likely to be limited in scope. Natural resources- how do they influence democratization Natural resource curse: Countries that depend on revenue from natural resources, such as oil, diamonds, and minerals, will find it difficult to democratize. They are also more prone to corruption, poor governance, and civil war. The natural resources curse is usually about the emergence of democracy, not the survival of democracy Having natural resources is a bad thing from a comparative politics point of view because it decreases the chances of a country of becoming a democracy. As the level of natural resources increases, the level of democracy decreases. 2 Types of Explanations: Demand side Supply side Demand-side: They emphasize how resources revenues reduce both the citizens’ demand for democratic reform and government responsiveness to that demand. Resource revenues mean that taxes are low and governments are autonomous from citizen demands. People are less likely as well to demand democracy since dictators offer more ambitious social services, low taxes... These make the population happier and they want to remain in a dictatorship. This is possible due to all huge income that the country receives from the natural resources. a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7254733 Esta cuenta de ING es como la opinión de tu ex: NoCuenta.  Supply-side: They focus on how resource revenues enable dictators to resist pressure to democratize and help them to consolidate their hold on power. Resource revenues can be distributed as patronage to preempt or coopt opposition groups (paying them, offering them positions...), or used to repress them. Familiarity with the previous discussion on foreign aid. You don't want to give me one to a dictator, since he could reinforce the military forces, police... Even if you have money, there are people who demand change. The dictator deals with these demands in two ways: creating a very powerful repression apparatus or trying to co-opt the democratic leaders. Once the democracy demand exists, the dictator reacts with repression or co- option (coharción).