summary-comparative-political-institution.pdf

lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Summary Comparative political institution Comparative Politics (Universiteit Antwerpen) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Summary Comparative Politics Chapter 1...

lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Summary Comparative political institution Comparative Politics (Universiteit Antwerpen) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Summary Comparative Politics Chapter 1 (class) Intro Comparative political institutions (and political science) is a very recent discipline, starting from the first world war. Furthermore, it has its predecessors (voorgangers) that tried to address political issues. It is one of the main disciplines in political science that deals with internal political structures, individual and collective actors.  Main goal is describe, explain and predict similarities and differences across political systems. Definition Aspect 1: COMPARAITIVE: refers tot the methodology – how? We look at a variety of countries from all over the world. A method that is used frequently in the political world. Aspect 2: POLITICAL: what is the field of research. Aspect 3: INSTITUTIONS: Behavior that is socially constructed. It is created by humans and does not occur in nature.   Informal institution: Not written contractually, but rather personally. Mostly socially shared rules and in de majority of the cases inwritten. They are creates, communicated an enforced outside of officially channels. For example: friendship, group chat in WhatsApp. Formal institution: The law plays an important role. For example: marriage Both are important and relevant for the political system. Politics:    Human activity of making public authoritative decisions. It is public (FOCUS). Why?  it applies to all citizens and concern every aspect of a society’s life. We are not interested in what people or organizations do in the private sphere. They are authoritative: the government that makes such decisions is invested with the power to make them binding. They are supported by the possibility to sanction individuals who do not comply with them. Why are politics important? Aristotle: Because man is by nature a political animal (a social animal that live in societies). * Man is presented as a political animal by nature - this distinguishes us from animals. Even without intervention, people spontaneously develop a political system (organic), it happens automatically. * Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556   Politics is the exercise of the power of making such decisions. ((This study tries to answer all questions about decisions that are made (decisions play an important role in this course)). Polics is also the activity of acquiring (verwerven) this power. Power Weber: the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to achieve (bereiken) their own goals, when other are trying to prevent them to realize them.  The ability of forcing other people doing things that otherwise they would not do. 3 types: TRADITIONAL authority: Authority is based on respect for tradition and habits (gewoonte) CHARISMATIC authority: Authority rests on the personality of the ruler RATIONAL-LEGAL authority: Authority is based on respect for the rules. The definition of comparative politics (part 2) A science of politics Comparative politics is one of the 3 main subfields in political science. Together with political theory and international relations. Political theory:  Deals with normative and theoretical questions. International relations:  Deals with interaction between political systems. Comparative politics: Deals with empirical (empirisch) & normative questions. There is no concern about the fact that participation is good or bad but  Investigation of which forms of political participation people Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 choose to use and whether there are differences in how much groups participate.  political theory Deals with interactions within (binnen) political systems. It investigates which party is in the government. It is also concerned with power relationships between individuals, groups and organizations. The ultimate concern is power configuration within systems.  international relations. Following chapters and scholars make it clear that the distinction (onderscheid) between the disciplines is not neat / clear. Because of globalization and increasing interdependence between countries: comparative politics and international relations converge towards one single discipline. Important for the moment, is to understand that comparative politics is a discipline that deals with the very essence of politics (+sovereignty).  Questions of power between groups  Institutional organization of pollical systems  Authoritative decisions that affect the whole of a community. Comparative politics: What for? Describe cases: classification/typologies of institutions and actors.  This figure shows how we compare. A comparison between cases. Explain: formulate hypothesis, test them and make some statements about them.    Why in some countries radical-right parties are successful and in other they are not? Why some authoritarian regimes turn into democracy and other do not? … Making predictions: It is actually difficult to make predictions.   IRON LAW of OLIGARCHY: Every organization, eventually, ends up in an oligarchy. (bij dia geplaatst) DURVERGER LAWS: Electoral law! The simple-majority single ballot system favours the twoparty system. Both the simple-majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favour multipartism. Comparative politics, like hard science Political science is not experimental, we cannot replicate experiments in the same conditions of the first time. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 1. Every test is unique, the same for every actor or institution. 2. Political science is not a “lab” science! We can't repeat elections like in a lab. Everything is different, not always the same -> hence (vandaar) compare. In the natural sciences, for example, it is always the same. Furthermore, reality changes and with its actors + institutions. The same conclusions can be drawn for surveys and polls, they are not the same every time. Moreover, it is not an example of exact science, but it can be made that way (they are not exact science BUT they try to approximate) – we have now the tools that allow us to approximate (try) hard science: quasi-experimental designs Verduidelijking tekst: beide streven naar generalisatie in tijd en ruimte. Echter in het achterhoofd houden dat menselijke interactie erg verschillend is. Europa is inderdaad heel verschillend, en het kan een lab zijn voor sociale wetenschap MAAR we moeten bewust zijn dat het lab verschillende zaken vergelijkt dat wij als vergelijkbaar beschouwen, maar ze zijn verschillend (omdat mensen gewoon verschillend zijn!) Before the behavioural revolution 1. Research is mainly based on qualitative analyses such as: legal texts (comparison between 2 cases mostly), laws, discourses, etc. 2. Political science was mainly practiced by those with a law degree. 3. A lot of work on rights. 4. Big data was not available; research mainly on the field. Majority of single case studies/ small comparisons. 5. Interest in institutions, not on individuals “The first separate school of political science was established in 1872 in France as the École Libre des Sciences Politiques. Afterward: evolution of the national state and technology allowed the state to collect a large amount of data (not about individuals). Small comparison transformed into large comparison between higher numbers of states and actors. The focus of political science switched from states and laws to institutions, political organizations, etc. Individuals became the core only afterwards, there were some exceptions: Walter Lipmann Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Walter Lipmann He dealt with the issue public opinion in democratic regimes. He believed that the public opinion was not wise enough to make decisions about how to elect (see later).  Public opinion is irrational, cannot make a rational judgement. The behavioral revolution (1950-1960) It brought a different approach to pollical science:    From institutions to agency New data, new cases – more cases Statistics became the main point of reference Not just comparing a few cases but to analyze a whole pollical system. Interested in the big picture – systemic theory such as the one by David Easton  Political systems are seen as a cycle: Requirements / support  transposition (omzetting)  decisions  feedback  demands and support. So here is a different view of political science, not just comparing but also analyzing. New concepts, towards world level (example democracy). Concepts born in Europe that European comparatists want to apply all over the world. Before and after the behavioral revolution The second part of the behavioral revolution (individuals came to the front – became the most important part of the analyses in political science) Behavioral revolution was indeed a revolution.   Methods are similar to the ones we use now Otherwise, important limitations: - To abstract, concepts cannot travel easily - Apply universal concepts all over the world is not so easy as it seems. There is also a new focus on institutions: new institutionalism:    Historical institutionalism Sociological/normative institutionalism Rational choice institutionalism Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 What are the theoretical approaches of comparative politics? The 5 I’s are considered the main approaches (these aspects can be analyzed): Institutions (instellingen): Structures are important because institutions shape and constrain behavior of individuals. (instituties zijn belangrijk omdat ze het gedrag van individuen vormen en bespreken).   Institutional analysis before the BR – the core of comparative politics. Now: contemporary (hedendaags) new institutionalism - Approach to institutions is more conceptual and empirical - A large set of institutions is considered and studied Also an analysis on lower levels possible, Benelux. Interests (belangen/interesses): This aspect is related to individuals, strictly related to individuals.     An important aspect here is the rational choice theory: - Rational choice theory states that individuals use rational calculations to make rational choices and achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own personal objectives. Rational choice theory has been used to explain why actors in international relations behave the way they do.... The theory assumes that individuals act in their rational selfinterest, have sufficient information to make rational calculations. - Individuals are self interested people and want to maximize profit from an action. - Toepassing: mensen die niet op een bepaalde partij stemmen omdat ze de beste uitkomst voor zichzelf willen hebben (niet op partij stemmen die pensioenen willen verlagen). A less individualstic interpretation (collective identity is important). - Corporatism: The strong involvement of civil society (middenveld) in policy development. The government picks out certain organizations and gets privileged access to the consultation (overleg). Network theory: self organizing networks now provide governance, as the government are no longer able to = direct involvement of decision making. Consociationalism: Elites representing different communities, they come together around the need to govern. (NL + BEL) Ideas:     They can have different forms (vormen) -political, ideologies,… Political culture (social-capital) = the sort of habits that we develop when we are socialized in a specific institution. See Almond & Verba + Putman (Italy – regions whit the highest institutional performance are the black colors – they have the highest pollical culture) Ideologies are also very important (communism, fascism)  they are crucial for mobilizing people. Policy ideas (Keynesian economics): ideas can be translated into policy ideas. Crucial drivers for policy makers! Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Individuals   Individuals can be analyzed at the elite level (in particular leadership). Shows also a table of different styles of pollical leaders.  Individuals are also important for the mass level (the way we vote, attached to a specific party, a specific social class, education determine what you vote,… ) International environment (international milieu)    While we usually focus on individual countries, the international environment matters a lot. People can not be considered and analyzed in isolation! Man and woman are political animals. Example of the importance: Covid19, the warming of the earth – it is crucial. But also NATO – OEC – WHO. All these institutions affect directly states and us. For example, the rules about Covid19. The sixth I Interactions: Using one single approach can be detrimental (schadelijk). Most of the pollical events cannot be fully understood if analyzed on only one approach. Multidimensionality on pollical science! Institutions are a powerful source of explanations. However institutions do not act, individuals within them act. So we need to understand how institutions and individuals interact in making decisions. These 5 approaches provide the means of understanding almost any political issues. Yet they do not address the full range of political issues. Chapter 1: book Political science and the sub discipline of comparative politics has recently received increased attention. To answer the question like is comparative politics relevant? Many different answers could be given to this question! Comparative politics could be relevant for:   Informing the elite: giving advice to parties, how win elections, how politicians should act, etc. Informing the general public: Why does country Z have higher economic growth? Why is Gender equality better in some countries? Etc. In relation to public policy issues is that the task of researchers is to speak truth to power (informing elite) +public intellectual writing (general public). Researchers in comparative politics choose to stay away both from speaking and acting. A fear of being seen as normative seems to hinder many from becoming engaged in issues. Another problem is paternalism: The government is thwarting (doorkruist) the preferences of Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 individuals / companies, because they are considered not to pay enough attention to what is really in their interest (belang) a way out by Sen & Laureate  ensure for all individuals a set of basic resources that will equalize. Political institutions and human well-being It was long taken for granted (vanzelsprekend beschouwd) that the well-being of the population of a country rested on nonpolitical factors (natural resources, cultural norms, structure, etc). this changed during the 1990s = the institutional turn.  North was among the first to point the importance of (informal) institutions for explain why some countries were much more prosperous (wervarend) than others. = new institutionalism/ historical institutionalism.  - he also said that the importance of the informal institutions should not be overlooked + the importance of formal institutions has often been exaggerated. The institutional urn and comparative politics Link institutional turn: There is a lot of unclean water in developing countries. The problem is not due ta a lack of technical solution or anything else. The main problem seems to lie within the judicial and administrative institutions (lack on supervision and corruption in the public sector).  To become a successful society is decided by quality of political institutions. Some countries do always better, this is caused by their quality of government.  Social trust is an important informal institution that has been shown to have a strong impact on human well being. The many faces of democracy Almost all scholars in comparative politics agree that in producing a good society democratic political institutions are to be preferred (research in democratization = high on comparative politics agenda). Problem: far from all democracies produce high levels of human well-being. Problem: A democracy is in fact built on multiple separate institutions; every representative democracy must solve a number of issues for with different institutions have been created.  There is not a clear answer in democratic theory that tells us if a proportional system is preferred to be first past the post or a yow party system. An experiment shows that there are a lot of ways to construct a representative democracy.  there are clusters but also surprising differences.  Veto points are another important institutional variation. If there are many uncoordinated actors, the democratic machinery may be unable te produce coherent and affective policies. Democracy and state capacity The fact is that more countries than ever are now classified as being democratic + more people than ever live in democracies. Otherwise, there are also reasons to be disappointed: Nelson Mandela provide the introduction of democracy that would liberate people + improve social and economic situations.  The country has not improved the time frame of going to school, economic inequality remains, low life expectancy,….  The south African has not delivered many positive results. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Another example is provided by Sen (bad results in China and India). Yet anther study shows that there are no positive effects of democracy on the level of child deprivation. In short, a representive democracy is not a safe cure against poverty, child deprivation, economic inequality, being unhappy, infant morality, low school attendance etc. The spook that is haunting democracy Why had democratization not resulted in more democracy?  it is bad governance:    Governance that only serves the interest of elite Governance in corruption & abuse of power Governance that is not responding to the social aganda of reducing inequality/unemployment/poverty. According to diamond (who said this) is a representative democracy not enough for creating human well-being. Without control of corruption and increased administrative capacity, lifre situation will not improve. State capacity, quality of government and human well being. As we can see in the human development index, the correlation between human well being and the level op democracy is quite low. Definitions Large n-analysis = refers to quantitative analysis which employ various statistical techniques of data processing. These studies look for patterns in a large number of cases. Typical data are surveys of the population or register data. Small-n studies use a small number of cases. Data collected from archives, interviews…. Scale problem in comparative politics: research in corruption has until recently not been very prominent in CP. Most corruption varies a lot in scale and scope. This variation in scale creates a conceptual problem. Does democracy generate political legitimacy? In general, if people have the right to change their government through free and fair elections, they will find their system of rule legitimate. Based on comparative survey data, several recent studies show that performance or output measures such as control of corruption, government effectiveness and the rule of law (troeven zijn) in explaining political legitimacy. Does democracy cure corruption? A particular problem (which does not yet have a convincing explanation) is that many (but not all) democratic countries do not punish corrupt politicians. However, they are often re-elected = accountability mechanism does not work properly in a representative democracy.  Political parties (central and eastern Europe) that mobilize on a clean government have been successful in elections. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 What should be explained? The argument is that comparative political science has a huge potential for addressing issues about human well being, economic welfare, and social justice.  In addition It has been shown that the political institutions seem to be important for countries to achieve a high level of human development. Chapter 2 & 3 (class) Methodology Comparative politics is essentially based on a few crucial questions.  WHY we compare? See above  WHAT we compare? The object of our research  HOW? Which methods do we use Very important is the fact that the “what” influences the “how”. The “why” influences the “what” and the “how”. The why question is also related to comparative politics / politics. It is very important because it is concerned with our world. It indicates the grades of our research. Methods in political science Also useful to know how it used to be, before the political science. Aristotle book (A comparison of 3 regimes, Sparta, Crete and Carthage) According to Aristotle, Carthage appears to have a good constitution, with many outstanding features compared with those of other nations. On the other hand it looks nearly the same as the Spartan in some points.  These 3 constitutions look like each other but strong different from others. The table explains what the 3 regimes (according to Aristotle) were that constructed the ancient world. As you can see is a democracy according to him a corrupt form of politics. In between: Democracy is the most stable and most free s Western idea of democracy is the most commonly copied s that everyone prefers. According to Aristotle, the problem with democracy is: If to many people rule, de poors are going to rule and become more powerful than the rich. This is because there are more of them. (too much people would be problematic). This picture shows how comparison was made at the time. There were different regimes, and each of them represent a corruption of the previous form of government. Best city is a city by philosophers. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Before political science, there were philosophers whom work with comparison. Locke: Comparison is the “foundation and origin of all mathematics and every demonstration and certainty”.  Comparison is the heart of knowledge in general. Without comparison we can not know according to him.  Comparison is a testing procedure: comparing one idea with another (time, place, circumstances) The idea that we can know the knowledge, the truth, true comparison became very famous with the so called positivism. Compte plays here a big role. Comte was one of the first and the most prominent positivists of his time. He believed that comparison was a moment of checking empirically. It was possible to know the truth and to enrich our knowledge by comparing I order to emirically test. Social science begins mainly in the 19th century when several authors start to take comparison more seriously. The authors here below mentioned were the first that used somehow the comparative method to understand social reality.    Tocqueville: democracy in America, first case study analysis. A new political science is needed for a world altogether new. Comparitive. He uded the US as a point of camparison for other regimes in europe espacially France. (France was the main point of comparison for him). Durkheim: Used a large dataset on Suicide to understand it. He wanted to show that there were cultural reasons behind suicide and even political reasons. Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism – comparativist. Social science as a autonomous (autonome) discipline - For the first time, scoial science is conseived (opgevat) as a science that starts from theory. Then the teory can bes tested empirically in order to provide a causal explanetion of the phenomen. ATTENTION: we can not test social phenomena in the same way as we test natural phenomena. What? Concepts What political scientist usually do: find their “what” Relevant first steps are: interest in the issue, relevance of the theme. Second steps: knowledge of the literature, empirically precise formulation, empirical testability of the formulation. In order to translate the issues, I have in mind (potential what), We need concepts. Concepts = are the only way to translate phenomena in the real world (observed in society) into abstract ideas, something that we empirically test. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  We can test theories only true concepts, without concept there wont be knowledge.  Triangle that Sartori (above) made. - Word, any word. - Meaning: the definition of a specific word. - Real world phenomenon Good example.   In order to understand what populism is, we need a definition. A definition that translates in something that we can empirically test. We also need a definition to explain what is going on out there. This is probably the most know definition of populism. We have a phenomenon. We have someone who decides to call this specific phenomenon as populism AND we have someone who comes up with a definition of this specific phenomena. This definition allows us to empirically test what populism is. Defining a concept means to disambiguate (ondubbelzinnig maken) and clarify the meaning. We need concepts to clarify what is going on in the real world. To have a specific definition and a specific understanding of what a real phenomenon is – we need to found out which are the properties (eigenschappen) that help us understanding the object. That means that we have to stick to the main characteristics that define an object.  Empirical reserachers focus on those observable properties in order to do that. On the other hand, we need avoid the ambiguity (dubbelzinnigheid) of terms and vagueness (vaagheid).  If a concept has two or one of the two problems, we can not test it empirically. Snow Concepts are socially constructed: the need of intention changes from culture to culture. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 We only know one meaning for snow. If we use the term snow in a place like Siberia or the north pole will it be problematic. For them are there several more words for snow. They use different concepts to define – for us just one meaning. If we have to translate this in political science/issues, for example democracy. According to Schumpter, democracy is a method or arrangement for getting to pollical decisions in which individuals have the power to decide. A method to get to a decision.  This definition is somehow problematic because is hides some important features of democracy.  But at the same time, it allows us to distinguish (onderscheiden) between what democracy is and what not. This is why concepts and their definitions are important. They allow us to distinguish what a realworld phenomenon is and what it is not. Sartori’s rule for identifying a concept (These rules are related to the ambiguity and vagueness above mentioned.) We have to control if any empirical concept (= testable proposition)   Is ambiguous (dubbelzinnig)  meaning relates to the term. And whether it is vague  meaning relates to the referent Furthermore:     Always check whether de key terms are defined Whether the meaning declared by their definition is unambiguous (ondubbelzinnig) Whether the declared meaning remains unchanged (betekenis gedurende het hele argument ongewijzigd blijft). Always check whether the key terms are used univocally (eenduidig) and consistently in the meaning. Empirical definition what ambiguity means;   2 definitions for 1 concept = the definitions are useless – we can not empirically test them. 1 definition and 2 concepts = it would be meaningless to test empirically 2 words. Avoid: concepts = ambiguous So only 1 definition for 1 concept! Otherwise, is it problematic. Serval concepts, especially in politics, are not directly observable or empirical. We need definitions to find what they are + from definitions we abstract the concept that we measure (meten). Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 If we have a definition of populism, and we want to translate it to the real word. We need to specify it further. This can be done true operationalization.  Operationalization is the process of determining (bepaling) how an empirical concept can me measured (gemeten) or empirically detected. The operational definition: allows us to detect which are the main testable characteristics of a phenomenon. It includes the specification of the concept. It indicates how we label, detect, measure and thus identify a particular empirical concept.  Go a bit further in details in explaining what a specific concept is. More than de minimal definition. Example: I have my definition of populisme, but I want to translate it into testable proposition. Right Angle: Questions asked, this is how we translate a minimal definition into an operational definition - it goes into more detail. Minimal definition = should set boundries of a concept. - The definition of Dahl about a democracy is far more complex than de definition of Schumpter. We need concepts, because we need to know the real-world phenomena. These Phenomena are our “what”. To empirically test a real-world phenomena, we need to know HOW the analyze the real world phenomena. Methodology – From what to how Analyze a phenomena: 2 possibilities. Horizontal domain = for example - a comparison between political parties in a specific political system. Which of the political parties has the most members?  Horizontal; data from 2020 and compare the data of all political parties – then I can see which party has the most members. A temporal-longitudinal span: if we want to analyze an evolution for example. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The most basic approach to comparative politics The most basic methods that we can use Which are the main problems related to the two methods The methods are useful, but they only reveal evidence of probable causes (oorzaken). They do not provide explanatory power (verklarende kracht). Discovering causation (causaliteit) is an important step in understanding the world, but it is only a part. We also need to understand how and why causation function.  Answers to these questions go further than cause-effect (oorzaak gevolg) relations. We have to create theories and hypotheses – the base of scientific reasoning. We base us on 2 different methods: Case-oriented method (qualitative analysis): starts from cases we detect in the real world to get a cause of a specific phenomenon.  Single case study (small N cases): the number of cases is very low. One or few cases analyzed in dept Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Case studies: usually based on one single case.  Advantage: we can provide an in dept analysis of the case that we are studying.  Problem: the things that we discover in our research can not be translated to other cases. what we fin in Belgium con not be translated to France. - We can not provide predictions from single case  the evidence of a single case can not be transferred to similar cases without analyzing them. The main case studies: (1) Atheoretical case studies; no theory behind (2) Interpretative case studies; theory behind – no hypothesis to test (3) Hypothesis-generating case studies; There is maybe a relation between 2 things for example (4) Theory-confirming case studies; (5) Theory-infirming case studies; theorie ondersteunende (6) Deviant case studies: study of particular cases which are anomalous with respect to a given hypothesis (Afwijkende case-analyse is de studie van specifieke gevallen die afwijkend zijn met betrekking tot een bepaalde hypothese) Medium or Large N analysis (Quantitative): allow me to use a large amount of data to find patterns or generalizations. (data matrix)  Medium and Large N analysis are only possible when large datasets are available. Large datasets are costly, time consuming an difficult to handle.  State agencies were the first collectors of large data used for analyzing specific phenomena in the society.  Now everyone can get big data from the web. To run this large N analysis, we use free or not free software. The problem it appears that we are losing our theoretical roots (losing our long term view of real world phenomena  to much focus on details which are not that relevant). With case-oriented analysis, we have a lot of knowledge about singe cases but we can not generalize findings. With medium & large N we can generalize our findings. Which of the 2 quantitative or qualitive analysis is the best? It depends on what the purpose is of our analysis. The main stream is the large N analysis – sometimes small analysis are as affective as large N, in some cases far better. The use of data in the public opinion This is by definition large N analysis – when survey a huge number of individuals.  We survey individuals true polls: a study in which people are asked for their opinions about a subject or person. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 All surveys indicated that Hillary Clinton had 71 changes of winning the elections. In 2020 had 89 percent change. Is large N analysis the best way to know the people’s opinion? When we look at the timeline: Polls in 2016 and 2020 were not that inaccurate (In contrast to earlier years).  predicting the victory of popular vote ≠ predicting the victory a candidate. The overestimation these last years is not that huge. In the past the estimations were far worse than now. Overall overestimation is not that bad. Why polls & large N fail to predict? Mainly because surveys have specific rules that must be followed in order to be reliable (betrouwbaar). It is not impressive that a specific survey overestimate. It is impressive that a survey with enormous amounts of people can predict very well the outcome with a marge of 2 percent.  If the respondents are not representative of the whole population, then there mind me some overestimation. That is wat was going on in 2016 and 2020  a lot of people decline (afwijzen) to answer the survey – these people voted for Trump.  Polls got it wrong, but they are the best wat to know what people will vote. So, we need random select of the people we interview. This is very difficult. Furthermore, we need to find a high number of people that are representative of the population. Chapter 2 & 3: Book The political world is complex: range of institutions, actors an ideas that interact to provide governance (bestuur). The complexity of politics and government grow worse when we want to understand different political systems and compare how they work. So, we need to develop approaches that are useful across a range of pollical systems.  Political theories are the source of these approaches in comparison. Uses of theory in comparison. There is an interaction between theory and empirical research in all areas of the discipline of political science  important in comparative politics. Theories are the source to comparison (= comparison is fundamental for political science). Although, there is a difference between positivist and constructivist approaches to politics.  Positivism relies on empirical evidence (objective)  Social constructivism relies on learning through social interaction (Subjective) One crucial function of theory in comparative politics is to link micro and macro behavior. Much of political theory functions at micro level (understand individual choice).  Assumption about individuals is used to interpret and explain political phenomena. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The link between the micro and macro is crucial for comparative politics, because the primary concern is explaining the behavior of political systems and institutions rather than individuals. The logic of comparison is primarily about large structures and thinking about how individuals interact within parliaments, parties, etc. when researchers went to far down the individualist route, comparison would become irrelevant. Theory is the best friend + the worst enemy of comparative researchers. + = necessary for interpreting findings, providing questions. Without it, research would not advance the analytical understanding. Further, it predicts behaviors. - = Theory has also a set of blinders for the researcher. After finding a theoretical approach. Most people fin it too easy to find support for that approach. From this flows the difficulty of finding conflicting evidence (negative findings would be more useful). Comparative research could be improved by the use of triangulation: if we explore the same data with several alternative theories, we become more open to findings that do not confirm one or another approach. Major approaches to comparative politics Structural functionalism: used to identify the necessary functions of all political systems. Than compare how these functions were perform. System theory: this approach considered the structures of the public sector as an open system with a lot of input interaction whit its environment. Marxism: Class conflict is an explanation of differences among political systems. Corporatism: has attention for the central role of the state and society in governing (bestuur). Also for the legitimate role of social interest in influencing policy. Institutionalism: they are all focusing on the central role of structures in shaping politics and individual behavior. Governance: it has some similarities to structural functional analysis. It argues that certain tasks must be performed in order to govern a society. Scholars of governance are interested in the variety of roles that social actors may play in the process of making decisions. Comparative political economy: it is the analysis of how political factors affect economic policy choices 3. The method is the toolkit of what, when and how to compare political systems. In CP the issue of what and how to observe reality is part of the comparative method. The major modern development in comparative political science is on linking theory to evidence by mean of comparative methods. Theory = meaningful statement about the relationship between 2 real world phenomena (independent variable and dependent variable- change in one of the two has an effect on the other).  Comparative methods can be considered as a bridge between the research questions and research answers. This is what we label the TRAID (RQ – RD – RA) questions, design an answer). Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The role of variables in linking theory to evidence The comparative approach in political science has been considered highly relevant to theory development. The comparative method is about observing and comparing carefully selected information on the basis of a relationship between variables.  Variable = concept that can be observed in various situations. It allows to understand the similarities and differences between observed phenomena. Typologies are often used as a first step in examining the theoretical association between 2 variables. In sum, the comparative method allows us to investigate hypothesized relationships among variables systematically and empirically. Comparative politics provides a quasi-experimental workplace for political scientist and theoretical relationships among variables.  Our ability to establish (vastellegn) causal relationships through a comparative study design is a major advantage. Internal and external validity in comparative methods External validity: the ability to generalize the data about persons, situations and periods. Internal validity: the degree to which a causal conclusion based on a study is justified. Comparing cases and case selection Researchers must make decisions about what to compare and about how this information can be transformed into variables.  To develop a comparative research design is to decide which cases are useful for comparing, and how many can be selected. In comparative politics, cases denote (duiden) the units of observation to be compared. Cross-case and within-case Cross-case analysis is a method that involves the in-depth exploration of similarities and differences across cases with a view to supporting empirical generalisability and theoretical predictions.  Example; individual voters in serval countries  the country is the case, the voter is the unit of observation. The term case is used for any type of system included in the analysis.  It is sometimes suggested that this choice between few or many cases is related to the type of data(quantitative or qualitative) Within-case analysis in case study research is the in-depth exploration of a single case as a standalone entity.  The aim of within-case analysis is in-depth understanding and description of the phenomenon under study (fenomeen dat bestudeerd wordt).  Within-case analysis enables researchers to be thoroughly immersed in the data within a single case (onderzoekers in staat grondig ondergedompeld te worden binnen 1 case). Details: Comparative historical analysis Describing processes over time. It’s mode of analysis is to use time as the major operationalization of a variable.  It has a lot to offer to the comparative Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Path dependence student. Certain political choices made in the past can explain certain policy outcomes at present. The selection of cases and variables depends on a deliberate choice in relation to the research question. In comparative research, the term case is reserved for units of observation that are comparable at a certain level (micro, meso, macro). Case selection Cases are the building blocks for a theoretical argument. The number of cases directs the type and format of comparison. There are different options for selection, depending on how many cases and how many variables are involved. (zie afbeelding hieronder).  Intensive strategies: those with many variables and few cases  Extensive strategies : those with few variables and many cases single case study: it may be part of a comparative research design. As it stands alone, it is at best implicitly comparative, but external validity is low or absent.   For deviant, critical or crucial case study Used to control the general findings hold up in a more detailed analysis. Time series: inspect comparative change + analyse wich factors are relevant over time. Closed universe: serval cases are compared at the same time. It is a selection of those cases that are more alike than they differ. Pooled analysis (bundelen): the number of cases can be maximized bij pooling (bundelen) cases across time and systems. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The logic of comparison In comparative methods, there are 2 well known research designs that employ different type of logic.   Most different system designs. Most similar system designs. These are directly related to the type and number of cases + to the selection of variables. Both are developed by Mill’s    Experimental variance = points to the observed differences or changes in the dependent variable. Error variance = Occurrence (optreden) of random effects of unmeasured (ongemeten) variables Extraneous variance = These extraneous variables are related to things in the environment that may impact how each participant responds. The use of methods of agreement and difference in comparative analysis The logic of comparative investigation is meant to evaluate the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. Case selection has implications for the use of the logics of comparison. (2 logics). Method of agreement: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to see what they have in common. That commonality is identified as the cause.... If they have all but one thing in common, that one thing is identified as the cause. The method of difference is a method of comparing an instance of a phenomenon with an instance in which this phenomenon does not occur but that has most context variables in common. Constraints and limitations of the comparative method We often have too many different theories that fit the same data = collecting valid data for the cases we have selected to test theoretical relations can turn out difficult + undermine quality of the results. Conceptual stretching = distortion (vervorming) that occurs when a concept developed for one set of cases us extended to additional cases which the features of the concept do not apply in the same manner.  Sartori illustrated this problem – the ladder of generality. - Family resemblance = this method extends (breid uit) the initial concept by adding features which share some of the attributes of the original concept. (this is a solution) Radical categories = each step of extension (uitbreiding) – including new comparable cases - is defined by hierarchy of attributes belonging to the original concept. Galton’s problem = Refers tot the situation where the observed differences and similarities may well be caused by exogenous factors that are common to all the cases selected for comparison. Exogene factoren = factoren die van buitenaf komen. Individual and ecological fallicies (drogreden) = Fallacies are problematic for causal interpretations. Ecological fallacy: based on data at an individual level, making a statement at a national level (or nationally measured - influence gerdga individual level) Over determination (overbepaling) and selection bias = risk from case selection. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Chapter 3 (class) Nation-states Are the most relevant unit of analysis for comparativists and for International Relations scholars.  States represent THE most important unit of analysis when it comes to the forms (vormen) of (collective) organizations. What we know as “states” have supplanted almost in every part of the World the other political organizations: no more monarchies, no more tribes (almost), no more city-states (ancient Greek), no more empires. In Europe there are still micro-states…are states, nonetheless (het zijn niettemin staten). States are important because they are the most relevant unit of analyses for us. The number of united nation members increased a lot during the last 15 years – 90s.  The USSR fell + Balkan wars. State is not government Government (regering): the "rulers", people who manage the State's affairs. Government (short term entity) vs state (long term entity) State is not a political regime Regime: type of political organization within the state (e.g. democracy, authoritarian regime). There is no state without government. States to be as such have several features for which at least a weak form of central control is required. ( Staten die als zodanig zijn, hebben verschillende kenmerken waarvoor op zijn minst een zwakke vorm van centrale controle vereist is.) The 5 main features of the state 1. Monopoly of the legitimate use of violence (sometime challenged, as for contractors/aannemers) There are no other actors that can claim to use violence against other people within a portion (deel) of sovereign territory. Only recognized police can use legitimacy violence against other people. Hobbens; “I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up […] and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS.” Weber: the state is a specific and only feature. It is the only organization that can claim this monopoly. 2. The monopoly of the violence is exercised within defined borders. BORDERS: portion of a territory that exclusively belong to the state. TERRITORIALITY The European Arrest Warrant is a huge challenge for territoriality. I commit a crime in Italy and go to Belgium. Italy can ask Belgium to arrest me and send me back to Italy (because I violated Italian Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 law). Outside they border states can’t exercise teheir monopoly of violence. The Italian low is no longer apply abele within the united states. In the united states the monopoly is exercised with another authority. 3. SOVEREIGNTY (There can’t be two states that claiming sovereignity over the same part of the territory).  Within the borders, a state must exercise the monopoly of violence. Sovereignty is assigned to the person, body, or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people.  It is not a crucial issue in Europa, but in other parts of the world is it a very important: one of the main causes of war.  It is no longer universally valid. Why; because of a concept introduced in the united nations = responsibility to protect. o Political commitment to end the worst forms of violence and persecution (vervolging). o It seeks to narrow the gap between Member States’ pre-existing obligations (reeds bestaande verplichtingen) under international humanitarian and human rights law and the reality faced by populations.  Nevertheless it is a very important feature of the state. The responsibility to protect challenges the idea that a state is sovereign within a portion of a territory when crimes against humanity are committed. The UN is allowed to stop the violence – breaking the idea of sovereignty. 4. Plurality In the international society there are no states that have pre-eminency (voorrang) over other states. States law cannot be challenged by other states’ law (The EU law in this regard is an exception). 5. The state is composed (gevormd) by a political community in which a minority (the rulers) act in accordance (in overeenstemming) with the majority of the people living within the state (the ruled or better said, the polity). Link with the population.  Polity: "community”; politically organized societies such as the nation-state and the empire.  Politics: theory and practice of the power struggle between the players inside the polity.  Policy: collectively binding decisions by public bodies in social domains (finance, environment etc.). The main functions of the state (what do states do?) 1. Monopoly of violence means + bureaucracy: make laws and enforce them. 2. Provide public goods: the most basic is the protection from external threats 3. With what? Taxes! 4. Taxes are used to “solve” collective action problems: public goods (such as environment).  A problem that a society as a whole is facing (climate change,…)  A situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 State and nations State: Political legal unit defined by monopoly of violence, territoriality and laws Nation: An imagined community: a group of people defined by shared identity or culture based on language, ethnicity, religion, etc. (relatively new because of Enlightenment, secularization) In this interpretation, states made nations: not the other way around: the nation-state invents its own people and give them citizenship, to make them feel part of something bigger. Nation state: A political unit, in which the majority of the population believe to be part of a nation. The nation state in making. The making of the nation state is related to the possibility of the state to detain (vasthouden) the monopoly of violence. This process is also related with the process of secularization. Just like the peace of Westphalia is crucial: for the first time – the concept of sovereignty became the normality. In the 19th/20th century, the nation state became the norm in Europe (after WWI): The development of a public law replacing religious norms, managed by the state authority. Centralized organizations Differentiation between state and society: state deals with political activities Secularization, property rights & capitalism, further distinction between state, religion and economy.  Formation of a public sphere: citizens can observe activities of the state, communication about them etc.  Democratic participation  Civil, political, and social rights     How nation states are structured The nation state in the making – the historical context History matter: path dependency De tendens Is het proces waarbij gebeurtenissen of keuzes uit het verleden van invloed zijn op de loop van latere ontwikkelingen.  It is very important. An historical example is the way states were built afther the french revolution. Portugal, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands were all influenced by the French (centralized) model of the state.  The frech footprint still influences the way Spain en Belgium structered right now. The Different nation state: one common principle Nation-states are unitary (must be), regardless (ongeacht) of the diversity among them. Yet, not all states succeeded in maintaining unity. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  From UK and Ireland (1801 and 1921)…to Yugoslavia. In other cases (Belgium, Spain) nationalism was “contained” and “successfully” managed. The Different nation state: dealing with diversity Some states have shared culture(s) and language. As a consequence, linguistic/cultural/ethnic cleavages do not directly impact the way the state is structured (USA, Germany).  In some countries is maintaing unity very simple than in other countries. In some countries there are no conflicts. Other cases have one main cleavage (1 hoofdsplitsing), with a large (Canada) or small minority(ies) minderheid (Spain). In other cases, there are linguistic/cultural/ethnic and religious cleavages at the same time (India). Unitary (France) VS Federal states (US) These two countries are believed to be the main examples, even though the US is more a deviant case than an actual example. In a unitary government, the power is held by one central authority but in a federal government, the power is divided between national government or federal government and local governments or state governments.  Federalism = ideology that support the federalist principles in state organization.  Federal state = a state which applies federalism principles Italy is an example of a hybrid case. 5 regions have a special autonomy. In totale there are 20 regions. The 5 have more power than the others. Regions as political actores: Regionamizations As the italian case shows, regions are recent actors in the italian political system. In other cases, the evolution toward regionalization is even more recent: France, UK,… Regions in Europe France en UK are two states that recently gave up part of their central power to the regions. The devolution is different, in the UK the devolution implied a huge transfer to historic nations. In France the devolution was very limited. Another example Spain and Greece   Greece, extremely centralized (regions have a limited power) Spain, autonomy like Catalonia. Some parts in Spain reforms to federalism. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The most recent example of region that consider itself as a nation and wants to become independent from the central state = Catalunya. Why?  Longstanding tradition (imagined community which translated into nationalism)  Historic nation  Resistance against dictatorship Referenda Scotland Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. Scotland has a large degree of autonomy and, for example, has its own parliament. The call for (renewed) independence from Scotland has never gone away, nationalist and separatist groups and parties have always stirred in 'British' Scotland. 1979: devolution (first attempt) failed 1997: devolution process was put in place by a labour government. 2014: referendum in independence – 55 percent vote against the independence  Eventually, after the results came in, it became clear that Scotland had not chosen independent. 55 percent of Scots voted against independence, while 45 percent voted for. Chapter 4 & 11 (book) In this context we suggest that the expression state is more used to express the polities characteristics (de staatsvormen) of the political environment in Western Europe at the end of the Middle Ages. A portrait of the state: Monopoly of legitimate violence, Territoriality, Sovereignty, Plurality, Relation to the population. A more expansive concept A definition of the state in Weber’s economy and society stresses on what we have said so far. The primary characteristics of the modern state are:  It has an administrative and legal order (administratieve en juridische orde) to which the organized activities of the administrative staff are oriented.  This system of order claims authority  A compulsory organization with a territorial basis (territorial basis). This definition points additional features of states active in the 19 th and 20th century. Individual states display them in different ways. The role of law Law plays a significant role in the construction and management of states. It has two functions:  Put down antisocial behavior.  Allocate access over material resources. This use of law developed first in the Greek polis, Roman Republic, etc. Local judges and juries were said to find the law and were not meant to make it. This changed and rulers undertook to play a more active legal role. Above all they asserted themselves as the source of a new kind of law – public law.  Control the relations between organs and offices of the state + between the state and various categories of individuals and groups. Centralized organization Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 These instruments make up a hierarchy of legal sources (juridische bronnen). The constitution lies on top. The distinction between state and society (Hegel) This distinction is reflected in the constitution of several Western states.  The state is an ensemble of arrangements (regelingen) and practices (praktijken) which address all and only the political aspects of the management of a territorial. It represents and justifies itself as a domain of political activities (legislation (wetgeving), police, military action, etc.).  Individuals undertake (ondernemen) those activities in their private capacities, wich are not the concern of public policy. Religion and the market At the center of the society are 2 sets of concerns which for a long time the state had considered very much. 1. The state became secular (niet te maken hebben met kerk of godsdienst). 2. The state entrusted the two central institutions central institutions of private law: property and contract. Typical, the modern sate is a taxation state, it extracts resources from the societies economic system. Such levies (heffingen), that are authorized by the law and carried out by public officials, are compatible with the security of private property and operations of the market. In the modernization of different societies, the distinction between state and society is accompanied by further processes of differentiation. Within the state, the so called separation of powers between legislature, judiciary and executive constitutes (wetegevende, rechtelijk en uitvoerende macht). The public sphere Behind the aspects of political modernization lies the public sphere. It is like a scharnier between the state and the society. The public sphere is an area in social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. The term was originally coined by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas who defined the public sphere as "made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state" The burden of conflict Parties often derive (ontlenen) their conflicting policy orientations from deep and long-lasting social fractures. Those splits represent different orientations + cultural differences. In most modern states this treat is hold back by 2 strategies: citizenship (burgerschap) and nation) Citizenship and nation (burgerschap en natie) Citizenship: finds its expression in the dictum: all citizens are equal before the law. The principle came to signify the progressive inclusion of all individuals making up the people into a equal relationship to the state. (Het principe betekende de geleidelijke opname van alle individuen die de mensen vormen in een gelijkwaardige relatie met de staat.) Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  Individuals placed under the same obligations and enjoying the same entitlements as the state were made to feel more equal to another. Nationhood: this second strategy seeks to generate in the whole society a shared sense of solidarity grounded on the nationhood. Imagened communities The nation is a imagined political community:  Because the members will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear them.  Imagined as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion hum beings.  It is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in enlightenment and revolution.  It is imagined as a community, the nation is always conceived of as a deep horizontal comradeship. The conceptual portrait recapped. The modern political environment is composed of a plurality of states sharing some formal characteristics. Thanks to its monopoly of legitimate violence, each state exercises sovereign power over a population over a population in bordered territory, often referred to as a nation. A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or historical criteria. Nations are socially constructed units, not given by nature.... A NationState is the idea of a homogenous nation governed by its own sovereign state—where each state contains one nation. State development As we have seen, all states in making operated in the presence of one another, wich le dosme states to imitate some aspects of others or to emphasize their differences. Natievorming is het proces waarbij de culturele identiteiten van verschillende gemeenschappen in een staat steeds meer op elkaar gaan lijken en de onderlinge verbondenheid steeds groter wordt. Het volgt vaak op staatsvorming en wordt mogelijk gemaakt door de modernisering waardoor de onderlinge contacten toe konden nemen. Staatsvorming of statenvorming is het proces waarbij vanuit een politiek centrum gezag wordt uitgeoefend over territoriale eenheden en de binnen deze territoria levende bevolkingen. Voorwaarden voor het ontstaan van een staat zijn een betrekkelijk hoge mate van differentiatie in de samenleving en het monopoliemechanisme, waarbij sterkere machten de zwakkere weten te onderwerpen en een centrale macht het geweldsmonopolie in handen krijgt en daarmee het belastingmonopolie. Thus, in some cases state building voorafgegaan to nation-building, in other cases it is the opposite. In volgend deel onderscheidene we die hoofdfasen binnen het verhaal van staatsvorming en ontwikkeling. Patterns of state formation We can get 5 paths of state formation:  Absolutist kingship (absolutistisch koningschap) which obtained independent power by building up armies and bureaucracies responsible to monarchs.  Kingship facing judges and representative bodies, which developed strength to become independent powers.  State forming from below trough conderderation or federation Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  State formation trough conquest (verovering) and unification (eenwording)  Stae formation trough independence 11. 2 logics underpin multi level governance:  Functionalist logic: sees governance as an instrument for the efficient delivery of goods that individuals cannot provide for themselves. - Benefits and costs of providing a public good are contained (vervat) within the local community. It is also better to let the local government decide. - The optimal design is to bundle policies (beleid) in a limited number of widely spaced tiers of government  Russian dole arrangement (regional governments are nested in national governments and so on up to the globe.  Demand for self-rule by those living in sperate/distinctive (onderscheidende) communities. The larger the population of a state, the greater the number of levels of government within it and fewer above it. - Such communities demand self rule, they seek to gain authority in ways that break the uniformity of authority across the country. - The result will be a differentiated governance = regions in a country will have authoritative competences that distinguish them from other regions in the same country. Concepts and definitions Multi level governance Decentralization Federalism Unitary government Self rule Shared rule Confederation Devolution Home rule Dispersion (spreading) of authority within and beyond national states. The shift of authority from the center to regional or local governments within a country Practiced where government functions within a country are shared between the central government and regional governments. Neither the center nor the regions may unilaterally change the system. The central government may share authority with local and regional governments. The central government can change the system unilaterally The regional government exercises authority in its territory. The regional government exercises authority within the country as a whole. The central government is constituted (gevestigd) by sovereign units that may unilaterally change the association. Common policies are often limited to defence, foreign policy, etc. Process of allocate legislative autonomy to one or serval regions within a unitary framework. The region has extensive self rule so that it exercises some key functions of a sovereign state. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 What are chief trends? The growth of multi level governance within states since WOII amounts to a quiet revolution. It almost never catapults countries into a full-blooded federalism (Belgium is here an exception). Yet the growth of MLG has affected almost every non-federal country. The Regional Authority Index (RAI) is a measure (maatstaf) of the authority of regional governments in 81 democracies. The local authority index covers local government. Both indices break authority down in administrative, political and fiscal components. There are 3 trends:  There has been a rise in both regional and local authority. (by 2010 every European country had authoritative local government or regional government or both.) (just information: Spain and italy are described as quasi federal = self rule and shared rule for their regions).  Differentiated governance: governments at the same territorial level have divergent (afwijkend) political, administrative or fiscal powers.  Scaling up of subnational government. That is the concentration of populations and resources in fewer, larger units. The median size of regional units has increased – especially in Europe. - Scaling up the local level has come in 2 forms: proliferation of inter-municipal cooperation arrangements + the creation and empowerment of metropolitan areas. (Proliferatie van intergemeentelijke samenwerkingsverbanden + het creëren en versterken van grootstedelijke gebieden.) Drivers of multi-level governance:  Ethno-territorial identity = demand for self-rule by territorially concentrated groups pressures central states to decentralize authority.  Democracy  Interdependence = nation states become too small to tackle large scale effects such as climate change.  Affluence (welvaart)  Peace Three literatures Literatures motivate an understanding of decentralization and multi level governance. The theory of fiscal federalism sets out guidelines for assign tasks to levels of government. Wallace Oates: decentralization summarizes a golden rule of multi level governance: decentralize where you can and centralize where you must. He identifies conditions that can tip the balance in one direction or the other.  Promises that each public good is provided at the appropriate scale.  The government acts as an uninterested custodian (bewaarder) of the public interest. There is no politics, no self-interested actors. Treisman: Instead of assuming that public decision makers are afstandelijke social planners, the second-generation literature models political actors as self-interested utility (nut) maximizers.  Politicians may centralize authority in an effort to increase their chances for re election. The third-generation literature examines the effects of territorial identity and the demand for self rule to help explain the structure of the government.  Many national states encompass distinctive communities, and when mobilized, they care more about self rule than about optimal task allocation. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  Within states, peripherical groups are most liable top demand self rule. Graphical isolation, linguistic patterns, etc. lead members of a group see themselves as a people entitled to self rule. The effects of multi level governance Democracy Multi level governance and democracy engage different questions. Multi level respinds to the who question, democracy responds to the how question. Democracy says nothing about the territorial structure of governance; multi level governance says nothing about how decisions are made. Ethno-territorial conflict (etnisch territorial conflict). Does multi level governance soften or worsen ethno-territorial conflict? On the one hand multi level governance gives regionalist some of what they want, and this may weaken their appeal. On the other hand, it can transform national monitories into regional majorities with the institutional capacity to intensify autonomy. Social policy The development of social policy in multi level systems illustrates how a functional approach to social policy can be overshadowed by political interest and identity. Chapter 4 (class) What is a democratic regime? Regime: set of government (overheid), institutions (instellingen), norms, that are either formalized or are informally recognized as existing in a given territory and a given population.  There are a lot of regimes, not all of them are political regimes. Democracy: much more difficult to define; a very controversial term which is used as adjective for many different regimes.  It is a relative term. Democracy and adjectives: normative definitions In the list mentioned in the PowerPoint, each of them has a specific characteristic of democracy. Each definition (with adjective) insists on a specific aspect of democracy. We should be aware of the fact that the liberal democracy, which is usually the standard through which we measure how democratic a regime is, is a “normative” definition, which in some ways “limit” the “democraticness” of the regime (we will be back on this).  All the adjectives are normative, they define how a democracy work. Definition of democracy: first distinction (onderscheid). Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Two schools of tought Minimalist: people have to decide true the election. The elections are a procedure that a regime use to have in order to make a decision – procedural definition.  The main characteristics are elections, once we have elections – we have a democratic method of making a decision.  This definition includes a wide variety of regimes that according to our knowledge might not be defined as democratic. For example, north Korea.  It is based on vertical accountability: kind of accountability that goes from voters to representatives or rulers. Maximalist: there are no democracies regimes that can be considered a perfect democracy. In between the two pools there is the so-called mid range theories (Bobbio). Minimal democracy is important because elections are crucial to define a democratic regime. But we need more features that a democracy should comply with in order to have a democratic regime.  Focus: horizontal accountability: there must be independent organs that are able to control what rulers do (on order the prevent abuse of power by rulers).  Checks and Balances, there must be some other powers beside the government that can control what governments do. “This “mid-range model” includes participatory democratic ideas that go beyond constitutional containment (or safeguarding) of democracy and call for further democratization of economy and society. Which is the best? Minimalist concepts, due to their exclusive focus on free electoral competition and vertical accountability, do not possess an adequate analytical sensorium to early recognize when substantial parts of the democratic state are already in crisis. (Beschikken niet over een adequaat analytisch bewustzijn om vroegtijdig te herkennen of delen van de democratische staat al in crisis verkeren) Maximalist concepts have the opposite analytical problem: They have such high normative. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Definition of democracy: Maximal definition A maximal definition of democracy says that horizontal accountability is not enough. We need more. A democracy must reduce inequality + balance the gap between high incomes and low incomes (economic point of view).  There must be more than the formal respect of the law. Criteria for a democratic regime. Dahl’s polyarchy Polyarchy = A democracy in the making. According to him and his books, the maximalist definition of democracy set up high standards for a democracy. It is almost impossible for regimes to comply with these high standards. Polyarchies is a kind of democracy, a regime that comply with almost all democratic standards (most relevant features).  Polyarchies: ensure certain minimal democratic standards, but fall short (voldoet niet) of the ideal democratic model. According to Dahl, in order to have a polyarchic regime, that we can also call a democratic regime, we need 2 main features:  Inclusiveness (inclusiviteit): used to indicate those aspects related to the possibility of people to participate in the policy making. (3, 4, 5, 7 -only fair)  Public contestation (openbare betwisting): a regime must allow people to freely organize/ express their opinion and participate in het society. People must be free to express their opinion freely. 7 main institutions that a regime must comply with in order to define as democratic/polyarchic. (1) Freedom to form and join organizations (2) Freedom of expression (3) Right to vote (4) Right of political leaders to compete for votes (recht politieke leiders om te strijden om stemmen) (5) Eligibility for public office (geshiktheid voor openbaar ambt) (6) Alternative sources of information (7) Free and fair elections For the minimalist definition there must be just inclusiveness. For dahl both are needed to have a polyarchic regime.  Only public contestation = oligarchy A more complex way to define and measure democracy is through the socalled “qualities of Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 democracy”, i.e. specific characteristics that democratic regimes should possess in order to be labelled as such. Rule of law:  Law must be universal, stable, unambiguous (ondubbelzinnig), publicly known, nonretroactive (niet terugwerkende kracht).  Individual Security and civil order  Independent Judiciary (rechtelijke macht)  Administrative capacity  Effective against abuse of power  Security forces must be under civilian control. Electoral accountability:     Accountability has three dimensions: information, justification, punishment/compensation From electors to the elected (periodic) Different levels (included) Vertical (from the voters to the representatives) Inter-institutional accountability: (Interinstitutionele verantwoording)  Related to checks and balances. There must be institutions within democratic regime that are independent and judge independently what rulers are doing. Participation:  There must be a possibility for all citizens to participate in the election and citizens must be free to join political a non political organizations. Competition:  Political parties are free to organize and the competition among them must be fair.  More than 1 actor is involved in the decision making.  Competition must be non-violent and respectful of the rules. We need to have political competition; it is structural for democracy. But on the other hand, there mind be free political competition between parties – BUT according to mid range theories and maximalist theories this does not mean that a regime is democratic. There are other conditions that must be respected! Freedom and Equality:  Very crucial aspect of democracy.  Freedom means a set of political and civil rights.  Equality is related to the rights every citizen must enjoy (civil rights and social rights). Responsiveness (ontvankelijkheid) – the outcome  Policies at the core of public interest (beleid centraal in het algemeen belang)  Services guaranteed to individuals and groups. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  Distribution of goods  Distribution of symbolic goods Responsiveness = legitimacy V-DEM index Varieties of Democracy is a new approach to conceptualizing and measuring (meten) democracy around the world. The V-Dem project distinguishes (onderscheid) among five high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, and collects data to measure these principles.(goed voor taak)  Op basis van de huidige gegevens publiceert V-Dem jaarlijks een democratierapport dat de toestand van de democratie in de wereld beschrijft. Non democratic regimes Autocracies and hybrid regimes “Nondemocratic regimes, however, not only impose de facto limits on minority freedoms but establish generally well-defined legal limits, leaving the interpretation of those laws to the rulers themselves, rather than to independent objective bodies, and applying them with a wide range of discretion.” (Linz 2000: 58—59) (“Niet-democratische regimes leggen echter niet alleen de facto beperkingen op aan de vrijheden van minderheden, maar stellen over het algemeen welomschreven wettelijke grenzen, waarbij de interpretatie van die wetten aan de heersers zelf wordt overgelaten in plaats van aan onafhankelijke objectieve organen, en ze toepassen met een breed scala van discretie. " (Linz 2000: 58-59)) There are very different ways true which non democratic regimes organize. The most relevant non democratic regimes are those regimes led by political parties. The guiding principal of these regimes is usually ideology/ guided by religious principles – head of the state is a religious figure. Examples: North Korea, Hitler, China Different types of authoritarian regimes PERSONAL RULE: The power is concentrated in one single person Dictatorial monarchies: mainly in the Arab world (Saudi Arabia). Yet, not only there (MENA region: other monarchies, different level of authoritarianism: V-DEM, for more).  The power in concentrated mainly on one single person.  British empire: recognition of some ruling families (stability). Monarchical dictator: personalized dictatorship 2.1) Sultanism (privatization of public power). Take control of the state, via member of the family, loyalists etc. 2.2) Presidential monarchy 2.3) Populist presidential “monarch”. Usually in Latin America. Access to power true Auto-golpe: people elect the president, who then becomes an autocrat. Democratic legitimacy, only superficial (oppervlakkig): usually from democratization process. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 MILITARY RULE: Military rule, political regime in which the military as an organization holds a preponderance (overwicht) of power. The term military rule as used here is synonymous with military regime and refers to a subtype of authoritarian regime. Common in the 70s in the Third World. 1.1) Open military rule – Military Junta (Myanmar)  the army is leading the country. 1.2) Disguised military rule: semi-competitive systems, in which the army (and the dictator) usually is elected. ONE-PARTY RULE: A non democratic regime which is characterized by the presence of one part only. The party and the state became one thing. 1.1) One-party state (Italy under fascism, Germany under Nazism) 1.2) Disguised (verkapte) one-party state: where parties are prevented from compete properly or they are just puppet (no competition). Sometimes, it is not dissimilar from some forms of populist monarchical rules or disguised military rule (military leaders who found a party to compete in the election). Sum up of the different types of auditarian regimes Differences between totalitarian an authoritarian regimes Both are non democratic regimes, but they are different in being non democratic. Totalitarian regimes:  Specific case of authoritarian regime. Much rare than authoritarian ones, why? Difficult to have all these conditions at the same time. Totalitarian ideology: State-nation-party are one single unit that cannot be separated. The party enters the state and becomes the state. The one party that rules the state is a mass party. Single-mass party. One party, mobilized continuously, highly centralized (monolith) Mobilization of the masses: support (coerced) from below. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 PLUS: subordination (ondergeschiktheid) of the army. Army is not an independent actor (e.g. Red Army in USSR)  If one of the three conditions is not present, then it is more like an AUTHORITARIAN REGIME. AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES:  Limited pluralism (more than one party, yet non-competitive elections). The results are already known before the election take place. Only one party that is dominant!  Ideology: present, yet not omnipresent. An ideology is present but is not the defining trade.  Limited role of ideology in shaping the polity (staatsbestel).  Limited political mobilization.  Limitation to the absolute rule of one leader/actor. (Beperking tot de absolute regel van één leider). Hybrid regimes A hybrid regime is a mixed type of political regime that is often created as a result of an incomplete transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Hybrid regimes combine autocratic features with democratic one.  Hybrid regimes share something with democracies: they do have elections, elections with limited competition. Examples: quasi democraties, semi democarties, illiberal democarties, defective democraties,… Hybrid regime are stable: even if they are in between two regimes, they are consolidated regime (otherwise it would be democratization process). A set of institutions, persistent for about a decade, preceded (voorafgaand) by authoritarian regimes, traditional regimes or minimal democracies and which are characterized by limited pluralism and limited participation. Fail (Falen NIET) the minimal requirements for a democracy: a) Universal suffrage (algemeen kiessrecht), b) competitive elections, c) multipartism, d) open media sources. Example hybrid regime: Russia before Putinism Chapter 5 & 6 (book) What is democracy (and who created it?) In daily life it has multiple meanings. First, it is an ideal for social organization, a system where social equality is pursued + freedom + justice +etc. In the most common usage, modern democracies are built on the liberal principles of the eighteenth century: political rights, social and human rights. The government is expected to respect such rights. 4 defining attributes (kenmerken) of a modern democracy:     Free and fair elections Universal participation civil liberties Responsible government Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 (Freedom House is an American NGO that researches and supports democracy, political freedom and human rights.) Types of democracy Democratic regimes always display the four attributes here above mentioned. Although, democratic regimes can be quite different in many regards. Parliamentary or presidential This is the most important distinction.  Parliamentary democracies come from the transformation of monarchies into democratic regimes. In parliamentary systems, citizens vote to elect members of the parliament – the majority in the parliament determines who become the head of the government. If no party has the majority, there will be a coalition. - Because they came from monarchies, there is a separation between the head of the government (prime minister) and the head of state (monarch). - The political role of the monarchs is weak.  Presidential democracy: it comes original from te VS and is spread to Latin America, parts of Africa and Asia. - Clear separation of powers but no separation between head of state and head of the government. - Voters participate in separate electoral processes: elect members of the legislature (congress)+ de head of the government (president). This creates a separation of powers between the two elected branches. - The president cannot dissolve the congress. Some countries have blend elements of presidentialism and parliamentarism. Semi-presidential regimes combine a directly elected president and a prime minister who is responsible to parliament. This concept must be clearly distinguished from the concept of hybrid regimes. According to Linz, presidential constitutions make the political processes rather rigid. 3 features of presidentialism are in this view dysfunctional for democracy. 1. Winner takes it all contest; the prince cannot be shared with multiple parties. 2. President serves as head of state and of government; he or she may be claim he is the only true representative. 3. Because the president and the governance are elected separately = disagreements. Advantages: voters have more clarity + greater choice. Majoritarian or consensus? We can find this in the work of Lijphart. Who argues that some democratic regimes are organized to facilitate majority rule while others are designed to protect minorities.  Majoritarian democracies: typically produce government by single party and limited autonomy for local governments. (UK and US) - Disproportional electoral system. Voters elect just one candidate (candidate with the largest number of votes) to represent each district. This system is easier for larger parties. - Unwilling to waste their votes on smaller parties with little chance of winning, voters will concentrate their support on the two largest parties (2 party system). - Ten to have unitary and centralized government + unicameral Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Because the will of the majority at national level is expected to define the organization of government at the national and the local levels, the constitution is flexible an easy to change.  Consensus democracies: designed to protect the power of minorities. Therefore they embrace coalition governments to favor national agreements and federalism to preserve local autonomy. - They adopt proportional electoral systems. Because votes count even when citizens support a small party, electoral rules will sustain a multiparty system. - It is unlikely that any single organization will control a majority of the seats. - Balanced relation between the executive and the legislature. - The best option for plural societies an divided nations. - Bicameral - Constitutional reforms require large majorities and additional ratification. - Powerful supreme courts(strong judicial review). - Why some countries have democracy and others do not. About half of the worlds population still lives under regimes that cannot be considered democratic. Transition = countries suffer a dictatorship may under the right circumstances adopt a democratic regime. Breakdown = countries that have a troubled democratic regime can slide back into dictatorship. No single explanation can account for why some countries enjoy democracy while others do not. In general, theories seeking to explain the causes of democracy have emphasized 4 types of variables: Structural factors: The role of economic development as condition (voowaarde) for democratization. Lipset: the more a nation has to do, the greater the chances that I will sustain democracy.  Also, later scholars found a strong correlation between economic development and levels of democracy. Wealthy countries almost always have democratic regimes. Very poor nations towards authoritarianism. During the modernization theory, some scholars questioned the optimistic view linking development and democracy. Przeworski: authoritarian regimes may democratize for a number of reasons, but once a democracy is established in a wealthy country, it is very unlikely to backslide into authoritarian rule.  Most economists argue that development does not cause democracy but better institutions facilitate economic growth. In societies where wealth is very unequally disturbed, economic elites resist democratization because democratically elected governments will redistribute income in favor of the poor. Institutions. Presidential regimes face indeed a greater risk of breakdown than parliamentary ones. Other say that they are just more fragile. Just as institutions may produce fragile democracies, some authoritarian institutions may also produce fragile dictatorships. Also, military regimes are more likely te democratize than other types of dictatorship. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 Actors and agency The role of leaders, organizations, and social movements in democratic transitions has been a matter of scholarly concern for decades.  Rustow: Democracy arises when leaders of warring streidende factions realize that it is impossible to impose their positions unilaterally (standpunten eenzijdig opleggen)  O Donnell and Schmiter noted that transitions to democracy occur when the coalition of actors supporting a authoritarian regime faces internal divisions.  Perez – Linan showed that authoritarian regimes are more likely to democratize, en democracies are less likely to collapse when political leaders express normative commitments (verplichtingen) to democracy. In turn Chenoweth argued that the use of nonviolent strategies by social movements is more likely to trigger a transition to democracy than violent resistance against authoritarian rule. International forces Some important forces driving (stimuleren) the emergence (de opkomst) and survival of democracy originate outside the country. Some countries like the united states and European countries have been active promotors of democracy across the world in recent years.  Using the V dem’s electoral democracy index, we see that the average level of democracy in the world has grown since 19000. During some historical period’s countries adopt democratic practices.  Huntingston describes waves of democratization: - 19th century = North USA, western Europe embraced democratic principles - At the end of WOII (independent countries such as India, overturn dictators, etc) - Mid-1970: Portugal, Spain and Greece overcame their dictatorships. After the fall of the SU, democratization for eastern Europe was allowed.  Democratization in one country will influence the perceptions and expectations of actors in other countries. External actors can play an important role in democratization. Chapter 5 (class) Definitions  (Political) Assembly (vergadering): a legislative body (wetgevend orgaan). Generic (algemeen), not informative.  Legislature (wetgevende macht): a political body, which can legislate over a political unit. (Kan wetten maken over een politieke eenheid).  Parliament: the supreme (hoogste) legislative body of a political unit  Congress: the supreme legislative body (synonym of parliament). Yet, used for specific political systems. Main differences between political systems Fused-power system: Parliamentary system. Voters elect the members of legislature (wetgevende macht)/ the member of the parliament. The members of the parliament elect the Executive branch (uitvoerde tak)/ prime minister/ government (regering). = chain of delegation Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The executive branch is in power as long the members of the legislature allow it to stay in power.  Execute branch can call for new elections this results in dissolution (ontbinding) of the executive branch as well.  Members of the legislative are able to fire the executive branch trough a no confidence vote. Example: The German Case The people elect the parliament (Bundestag – lower chamber). The Bundestag elect the federal chancellor (kanselier) and will be appoints (benoemd) by the federal president. The French case is also concidered as a fused system. There is a double procedure of election: The people elect de members of the Bundestag who elect the federal Chacellor. The federal President has an important role because he or she appoints the federal government and the federal chancellor. Separation of power system: the congress Voters elect seperatly the legislature ande executive branch. The most famous case is the US: renewal of the congress + the predident). In tyhis case there is no chaine of delegation that goes from voters tot the legislature to the executive branch.  The executive cannot dissolve (ontbinden) by the legislature.  The legislature can remove the executive only in case of legal wrongdoing (juridisch wangedrag -impeachment). Example: The US case US voters elect the legislative, the senate and the house of representatives + executive which is the president of the united states.  The cabinet is chosen by the president. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556  There is no confidence vote linking (vertrouwensstemming) which connect the legislative and the executive powers. The role of the legislative bodies  As agent  As principal  As legislator As Agent Linkage: Legislative bodies are the link between the people and the executive in the fused systems. They exemplify the will of the people and make the will of the people represented in the highest political body of a democratic country. The link depends on the electoral law (direct, FPTP or “less” direct – not indirect - Proporz). In order to represent the will of the people, members of legislative parties have to vote, have to stand for the people they want to represent. (De federale wetgevende macht maakt de wetten en controleert de uitvoerende macht. Ze wordt uitgeoefend door het parlement en de koning. Het parlement bestaat uit twee kamers, de Senaat en de Kamer van volksvertegenwoordigers.) There are 2 different conceptions of how a member of the parliament should represent the will of the people: trustee model and delegate model. Edmund Burke is here a central figure.  Trustee: Member of the parliament as unbounded, interest of the nation.  Delegate: MP as bounded (They can’t do what they think is right for the nation), interest of the constituency (kiesdistrict). As principal What are the differences between separation of power system and fused system in terms of control?  In the SOP system, the executive and the legislative bodies are not directly related to another. The executive cannot be removed by the congress (parliament/ legislative) except for the impeachment.  In the fused power system, the executive can be removed by the parliament true the motion of censorship or vote of no confidence = a divided government is not possible ------------------------------------------ Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 The impeachment in US Trump have faced two unsuccessful impeachment attempts. Super-majority needed in the Senate. The senate has a preeminent role. Two-third of the member of the senate (so members of the senate of the same party of the president must vote in favour of the impeachment). Difficult to get a president impeached. Impeachment procedure rare: Johnson (18651869), Clinton, Trump (twice).  Absolute majority = 51 percent + 1 of the total number of representatives. Vote of no confidence: Instrument true which the legislative branch decides whether the executive branch stay or not in power in the fused power system. In the countries where to vote of no confidence applies, there are different procedures. This is depending on how the political system is structured.  In some countries only the prime minister, in other countries also individual ministers can get a vote of no confidence.  Constructive vote of no confidence (Germany and Spain). They are quite difficult to pass. The parliament must find another different majority in order to the vote of no confidence to be approved. As a principal The legislative party has an oversight (toezichthoudende) function in the political system: It rolls the government accountable for what the government does in each policy making affairs. There are different ways: More important in SoP system: US 1) Question time 2) Specific questions 3) Investigative committee 4) Reports on specific issues, requested by the legislatures (wetgever) The main function from an historical standpoint is the control over the budget: Budget control - the king in UK needed Parliament approval to increase taxes. Very first and crucial function in the parliament. Still important, yet not the only function of a Parliament. Downloaded by Pan ii ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|4118556 There are also other ways trough which the parliament contrast (tegenstelling vormen) somehow the power of the executive branch.      Consultation (overleg) Delay (negative power) Veto power (negative power) Amendment (wijziging) (positive power) Initiation (positive power), yet now executive-dominated Governments The head of government is elected by the electorate or by the parliament. The head of government stays in power for fixed term or not fixed term. PM is here the prime minister. Fixed terms mean that the president or the directorial government cannot be removed by the legislative branch. If there is not a fixed term, a confidence relationship between the legislative branch (they can remove the legislative branch) and the executive branch. The semi presidential system is a sort of hybrid system: France. Presidential Government The US president is the main example of presidential system but there are of course others. Cabinet and ministerial government The prime minister has the same role as other ministers. There is a limited action of the prime ministers. Cabinet government is less relevant tha