Riassunto esame Comparative politics, Prof. Carlotti Benedetta, libro consigliato Comparative Politics, Daniele Caramani

Lesson 1 – 29.9.2021

What is comparative politics?

Comparative politics is one of the three main subfields of political science (alongside political theory and international relations) focusing on internal political structures, actors, processes and analyzing them empirically by describing, explaining, and predicting their variety (similarities and differences) across political systems (also over time).

What is politics?

It is the human activity of making public and authoritative decisions.

• Public → Citizenship, territory, area
• Authoritative → Exercise of power. Possibility to make BINDING decisions forcing individuals to comply by coercive means.
• → Politics is the exercise of POWER

The three main traditions/types of comparative politics

• Single country studies → Inception of the discipline
• Methodology oriented → Establishing rules and standards to study political phenomena
• Analytical tradition → Combines methods and substance. Where are the differences and the similarities? GENERALIZABLE OUTCOMES

Mantra of comparative politics

• D → Describe what is the situation
• E → Explain the hypothesis about your arguments
• P → Predict the outcomes of your research question

How did comparative politics develop?

Before the Second World War → Narrow scope of the discipline the so-called “Old institutionalism”. Focus on single cases (almost North America and Western Europe).

Between the '30s and the '60s → The “golden age” of C.P. The behavioural revolution.

• Communist regimes
• Democratic regimes other than the Westminster type of majoritarian democracy
• Populism in Latin America
• Decolonization
• Patrimonialism in Africa
• Rise of the European Union (at least its inception)

During the '70s: Fine with behavioural revolution but we need more generalizable and «travelling concepts» (Sartori 1970). Back to neo-institutionalism:

• Few cases
• Narrow focus
• Narrow theories

During the '80s: The rational choice turn:

• Inspired by the developments in economy
• Individuals are rational and able to rank options according to their interest.
• Reinforce the role of institutions (rational choice institutionalism) constraining the behaviour of individuals

The systemic paradigm (David Easton 1965)

Method evolves hand-in-hand with theory

• Small-N analyses → Case oriented
• Core role of statistic → Behavioural revolution
• Large-N analysis → Rational choice

Why do we study comparative politics?

• Inform the elite (the so-called grey eminences)
• Inform the wide public
• Contribute to human well-being (how can we improve human well-being?)

How can we improve well-being?

Institutional turn → Institutions are the rules of the game.

• Are developing countries not receiving enough clean water due to the lack of it or due to the lack of technical installations? → NO
• Inefficiency of judicial and administrative institutions mixed with a high level of corruption in the procurement process results in the extremely low-quality of the infrastructure being put in place. (Rothstein 2011)
• Consequence: The quality of governance and the role played by institutions do matter.
• However, which institution is more important? Formal vs informal institutions

Lesson 2 – 4.10.2021

Theories & approaches to study political phenomena

Comparing is fundamental. To compare something, we have to develop useful approaches, that is political theories.

Positivist theories and constructivists theories → Positivism and constructivism

Which is the best approach? I don't know, maybe a mix.

Why do we need theories? Theories are sources of questions for researchers. For example, it does not make sense to compare the size of cabinets between different states per se.

• Ground theories: Trying to explain everything (at least the new phenomena, remember the behavioralist). They were too general, no meaningful prediction reached. UNIVERSE
• Mid-range theories start from empirical phenomena, abstract from them, and create general statements that can be verified by data (generalizability of findings). DETAIL

The 5+1 IS of comparative politics

1. Institutions

The origin of the discipline (OLD institutionalism) → focus on constitutional structure and institutions created by those constitutions. Institutional understanding predicts quality of governance.

• Political parties as institutions → Shift toward individualistic perspective
• Behavioural revolution → From individualistic perspective
• New-institutionalism → From individual perspective to connection between individuals and institutions:
  • Normative institutionalism: Rules shape institutions → institutions shape individuals
  • Historic institutionalism: Role of ideas and persistence of institutions over time (even if dysfunctional)
  • Rational choice institutionalism
  • Empirical institutionalism: Does differences in institutions make difference at all?

Studying institutions means study persistency rather than change. Exceptions the so-called “critical juncture”. Ex: the end of the Second World War

Formal institutions include (generally written): Constitutions, laws, policies, regulations enforced by authorities.

Informal institutions include (generally not written): Social norms, customs, traditions, corruption. They shape thoughts and behavior of a specific society.

2. Interests

Interest that actors pursue through political actions. Indeed, politics “is about who gets what”. Rational choice arguments: Individual behavior is motivated by self-interest and collective bargaining conflict. Behavior is the aggregation of individuals’ one through:

• Corporativism: Legitimated interest groups and their access to the decision-making system
• Network of interests: Same approach but mixes individual (groups) and collective (society) interest bounded in a loosely defined way
• Consociationalism: Political elites representing an interest that is not material (religion, rights). Concept of cleavage (=distinction, something that divides the society in 2,3,4,5,… parts) in society
• Comparative political economy: Government is one of the major economic actors crucial to reduce inequalities (Ex of Salvini: prima partito del Nord, adesso si chiama Lega perché è di tutti) → Interests are the basis of conflict

3. Ideas

Ideas are an amorphous concept that might seem not closely connected to governmental choices… but they are!

• Political culture: Set of patterns toward political actions. Surveys are crucial to understand it and split it into dimensions (ex: hierarchy vs equality, liberty vs coercion, trust vs distrust)
• Political ideology: Communism, fascism, Nazism, neoliberalism: are they dead? (ex: obiettori di coscienza = no aborto, LGBT+)
• Specific (policy) ideas: Economic performance (from uncontrollable to Keynesian management to monetarism and so on)

Ideas do matter even though they might have subtle effects and might be difficult to observe.

4. Individuals

Substantial wrong assumption that individuals’ ideas tend to converge. Study of political elite:

• Psychological approach (pathology)
• Less psychological approach based on individuals’ actions
• Social approach: Leaders’ sociological roots shape their actions

Citizens:

• Voters
• Participates into groups
• Consumers of media

5. International environment

Can we describe, examine, and compare countries in isolation? No, because we influence each other.

• Influences from the international context vary across countries (ex: more economic autonomous countries vs less economic autonomous countries)

Case of the EU and the multilevel governance (regional + national + supranational) influenced also by the international environment.

→ Is a specific pattern observable at the national level the result of endogenous or exogenous forces? Both?

6. Interactions

We can explain political phenomena relying on the 5 elements. However, it is crucial to understand that political phenomena are complex and, as such, they are the result of interactions among such elements.

Ex social movement theory:

• Type of institutions (less formalized)
• Are composed by individuals
• Reflect ideas/ideologies (ex: environmentalism)
• Reflect social interest (even though differently from interest groups)
• Might experience international influence (ex: Fridays for future)

Political process and outcomes

Process: We should understand the 5(+1) elements as dynamic and non-isolated. They change over time and among countries.

Outcomes: What we want to explain in the end = dependent variable. According to the used approach we will have different dependent variables and different independent variables (=what we use to explain our object).

Method

Implicit vs explicit comparison

R.Q. → R.D. → R.A.

• R.Q.: What we ask. Starts from theory as a meaningful statement of relationship between a dependent variable (Y) and our independent variable(s) (X )s
• R.D.: The method chosen that suits the research goal and enables to obtain R.A. (research answer)
• R.A.: Authoritative (valid), irrefutable (reliable), postulate (generalizable)

From the theory we decide what are the dependent and independent variable. Once we have decided this, we have to understand what our method is. Method depends on theory, and it is constrained also by other factors, such as data availability. The research design (= method) lets us reach the goal/result.

What is a variable?

A variable is a concept that can be observed systematically and “measured” in various situations. A variable varies, otherwise, it would be a constant.

Comparative politics relies on conclusions that derive from comparison, not from experiment. Therefore, it is called quasi-experimental.

Typology: Examine the relationship between two variables. Used in the first step for descriptive purposes. A typology to be considered as such must have all its cells filled.

Example

R.Q.: Does politics matter in the development and functioning of the welfare state? (Y)

R.D.:

1. Elaborate hypotheses based on theory:
   • X₁ presence of relatively strong left-wing parties and trade unions in the country
   • X₂ Socio-economic development of the country itself
2. Operationalize your variables (Y, X₁, X₂)
3. Choose your method: Regression analysis
4. Get your R.A. based on theory
5. Is there a causality nexus? Does the dependent variable evidently and systematically vary in relation to the independent variables? → Descriptive inference

Lesson 3 – 5.10.2021

Methods in comparative politics

An example of typology

Two core dimensions/variables: support for the European integration (beliefs) & support for the EU (structure).

We cross these two variables. Each of the cells is a category. To work perfectly, this typology has to match with a real case in reality, which means that at least one case must fit in these cells.

Crossing the variables, we obtain 4 possibilities/results:

• Euroenthusiast
• Europragmatist → means that they the principles of the EU but they are optimist → ????
• Eurosceptic
• Eurorejects

The Europragmatist category does not exist, or it is really hard to find. It is rather impossible to find a party (or any other actor) that rejects the European integration but is optimistic about its action.

R.Q.: Does politics matter in the development and functioning of the welfare state? (Y)

R.D.:

1. Elaborate hypotheses based on theory
   • X₁ Presence of relatively strong left-wing parties and trade unions in the country
   • X₂ Socio-economic development of the country itself
2. Operationalize your variables (Y, X₁, X₂)
3. Choose your method: Regression analysis
4. Get your R.A. based on theory
5. Is there a causality nexus? Does the dependent variable evidently and systematically vary to the independent variables? → Descriptive inference

Internal validity

Is the degree to which descriptive or causal inference coming from a given set of cases are indeed correct for most, if not all, the cases under inspection.

External validity

Is the extent to which the results of the comparative research can be considered to be valid for other more or less similar cases that were NOT included in the research itself.

Cases and case selection

We need to reduce real-world complexity:

• What we compare
• How we translate it into variables

In C.P. a case denotes the unit of observation.

Two types of comparison:

1. Cross-case comparison → We compare electoral behavior in Italy and France:
   • Cases: Italy and France
   • Unit of observation: Each single voter in Italy and France
2. Within-case comparison → We compare party governments in Italy:
   • Case: Italy
   • Unit of observation: Governments’ performance

Strategies

Intensive strategies: All those strategies that entail many variables and few cases. Case of consociationalism (Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland) → several cleavages in society (linguistic or religious) but, in spite of this, they work.

Extensive strategies: Few variables, many cases.

Rule of thumb: Less than 10-15 cases the strategy to be picked is intensive because you can go in depth in analyzing. More than 15 cases the strategy is extensive.

Analysis

• Longitudinal analysis: The same case(s) through time (in different points in time) with quantitative methods.
• Historical analysis: The same case(s) through time with qualitative methods.

1. Single case study: Has low external validity. Generally used for deviant or critical cases
2. Time series or longitudinal analysis:
   • Compare variation within cases (change)
   • Factors as causes over time
3. Closed universe: Few cases in few intervals in time (e.g.: critical junctures)
4. Cross-section analysis: Many cases in one point in time. Circumstances remain the same while variables vary (enhance internal validity)
5. Pooled analysis: Many cases and many intervals. Attention to the impact of pooling is that the effect of time is kept constant across cases

What constrains the freedom in case-selection?

• Selecting cases depend on the theoretical relationship that we want to explain (X→Y)
• Type of available empirical data limits the case selection
• The relationship between cases and variables determines the method: We cannot use statistical methods if our N (number of cases) is too low
• The R.Q. might limit the N (number of cases) that we include in our analysis

Relate cases to variables

When we relate cases to variables we must:

1. Maximize experimental variance: The independent variable(s) must vary possibly over time and space. Otherwise, we talk about constant, and we do not see their effect on the dependent variable.
2. Minimize experimental error: Minimize the random effects of unmeasured variables. The error should be as much as possible close to 0. But remember, social sciences and comparative politics are quasi-experimental.
3. Control extraneous variance: Control for variation in the dependent variable might be caused by a variable that is not included in the study. In other words, a third variable affects both the dependent and the independent variables.

Lesson 4 – 11.10.2021

Difference between nationhood and citizenship

The travelling problem (Sartori):

• The wider the world under investigation, the more we need tools able to “travel” and explain the concept of political reality → Pay attention to biases (Western world)
• Conceptual stretching → We gain extensional coverage of a concept, but we lose connotative precision. We might gain universal concepts, but this might lead to the no-difference problematics.
• Criticism to the quantification approach in comparative politics → Concept formation stands prior to quantification (THEORIES).

Attention: Concept should be understood not only as part (elements) of the theoretical system but also as data containers with discriminating power.

1. The higher their discriminating power, the more facts are gathered in the correct way.
2. The lower their discriminating power, the higher facts are miss-gathered.

The ladder of abstraction (Sartori)

• In the article, it deals with concept formation (set of data containers’ boundaries).
• The degree of abstraction of a concept depends on its intention, how many properties (or attributes) we provide to define that specific concept.

According to the number of properties, we can (almost arbitrarily) find 3 types of concepts:

1. HL: Concept with high level of abstraction → Provide global denotation instead of classification (e.g., Easton political system)
2. ML: Concept with medium level of abstraction → Are the so-called general classes
3. LL: Concept with low level of abstraction → Denotation is scarified in favor of connotation

Example: Animals (all) → Felines (lions, tigers, cats) → Domestic felines (cats)

Extension and intention

• Extension: Take a concept of political reality and take it everywhere.
• Intention: Provide properties, attributes, … you put on that concept to define a specific concept.

Polity and policy

Polity: Institutional system substantially forming the framework for each political activity (human activity at the centre of comparative politics).

Policy: The content or even the material dimension of politics.