Compari(ve poli(cal ins(tu(ons
Lecture 1: introduc(on to comparitave poli(cs
Introduc(on
- We can only understand our own poli3cal context if we put it in perspec3ve
- Comparing different poli3cal regimes, ins3tu3ons and actors to find differences and similari3es among them
Regimes
- Democracy
- Autocracy
Ins3tu3ons
- Legislatures
- Governments
- Mul3level
- Judicial
- Elec3ons
Actors
- Ci3zens
- Par3es interest groups
- Media
- Gender (guest lecture)
What is compara(ve poli(cs
- Poli3cal theory
• Norma3ve ques3ons
o Norma3ve= concerned with what ought to be
• How we should structure poli3cal systems, what we should strive for
- Compara3ve poli3cs
• Empirical ques3ons
o Empirical= explains why we have unitary or federal states, why some countries experience
populism, and how poli3cal phenomena develop in the real world
• Interac3ons within systems
- Interna3onal rela3ons
• Interac3ons between systems
• Explains events such as why poli3cal figures like Trump emerge in the first place (on the global stage)
Defini3on
- Seen as the human ac3vity of making public authorita3ve decisions
- It’s about acquiring and maintaining power which leads to conflict and compe33on
• Conflict= arises from different visions, leading to clashed clashes of perspec3ves
• Compe33on= struggle for power, influence and resources within and between poli3cal actors
- ‘at the root of all poli-cs is the universal language of conflict’
• Meaning that poli3cs fundamentally revolve around disagreements and struggles over power, resources and
values. Conflict is inherent because different groups have compe3ng interest and visions for society, making
nego3a3on and compe33on essen3al aspects of poli3cal life
Important ques3ons in compara3ve poli3cs
- Which decisions are made (the output)
• e.g. invest in renewable energy, changing cons3tu3on, higher spending for military
- How are decisions made (what causes them)
• e.g. referendums, elec3ons, protests, lobbying
- Who makes or influences these decisions
• e.g. par3es, lobby groups, voters
Aims of compara3ve poli3cs
- Describe
• Differences and similari3es between poli3cal systems
• Classifica3on and typologies (e.g. two-party vs mul3-party)
, - Explain
• Explain why these differences and similari3es occur
• Formula3ng hypotheses
- Predict
• Which factors could cause such outcomes
• We are s3ll not accurate/ exact (not exact but we can make predica3ons)
Defini3on of compara3ve poli3cs
- One of the three main subfields of poli3cal science focusing on internal poli3cal structures, actors, processes and
analyse them empirically by describing, explaining and predic3ng their variety (similari3es and differences) across
poli3cs systems over 3me
-> Compara3ve poli3cs studies internal poli3cal by comparing systems on any level
Comparison between
- na3onal poli3cal systems predominantly
- but keep these certain things in mind (poli3cal structures don’t exist in isola3on: following influence and interact
with na3onal poli3cs)
• sub-na3onal regional poli3cal systems
o local governance can have autonomy and impact na3onal decisions
• suprana3onal units
o organiza3ons like the EU or UN shape na3onal policies through regula3ons, agreements, and
collec3ve governance
• types of systems
o poli3cal systems vary, affec3ng governance and decision-making processes
• single element of system
o studying individual ins3tu3ons (parliaments, courts, …) helps analyse broader poli3cal framework
History of compara(ve poli(cs
1. State in ins3tu3ons (before WW2)
• Focus on formal ins3tu3ons and legal text, primarily in the Western world
• Norma3ve in nature
2. Behavioral evolu3on became the central study (30s-60s)
• Examined processes within ins3tu3ons (based on sociology)
• Expanded focus beyond the West
• Empirical approach
3. New ins3tu3onalism
• Influenced by behavioral evolu3on
• Ins3tu3ons shape individual preferences
• Dicta3ng them how to behave
4. Mid-range theories
• Not the idea we should explain everything with one defini3on
• Don’t want to explain the general -> but why certain things happen
• Narrowed geographical focus + studying a few countries in depth
o Not applicable to all countries, but some -> narrow the geographical focus
5. Case oriented analyses
• Study specific
• 1 phenome and dick deeper
• Developed from mid-range theories, analyzing a small number of cases
• Compara3ve in nature: by studying one country, it can tell a lot about other
6. Ra3onal choice (late 80s)
• Driven by self-interest: focused on individuals and organiza3ons as ra3onal actors
• Cannot achieve full ra3onally -> can explain in poli3cs what we see
• All poli3cs do what they think is best, even though this could end in a loss
Compara3ve poli3cs xtoday
- David Easton
- Developed a general model of poli3cal system that is applicable to all countries
(regardless of their poli3cal structure (democracy, autocracy))
- Diagram
• We live in environments: surrounded with society and external factors that
influence poli3cs
, • Input: ci3zens and groups express demand (e.g. need for affordable housing) and show support (e.g. vo3ng)
• Poli(cal system: government processes these inputs, leading to decisions
• Output: the system produces policies, laws or decisions (yes or no)
• Feedback: public reacts, shaping future demand (e.g. if policy fails, people protest or change vo3ng behavior)
- examples
• Trump: ci3zens demand led to decisions that influences feedback and future elec3ons
• Housing system: public demand for affordable housing results in government decisions (funding,…), affec3ng
future policies
• Autocracy in Korea: inputs are limited, as state suppresses demands + decisions made without broad public
feedback
Importance of theory in compara3ve poli3cs
- Providing answers to puzzles and ques3ons
- Provides us with a guideline for conduc3ng research
- Helps us interpret findings
- Micro vs. macro level (individual and ins3tu3ons)
- Explains why X has an influence on Y (why independent variable influences a dependent variable)
Approaches in compara(ve poli(cs
Why x has an impact on y (the 5 I’s)
- Ins3tu3ons
- Interest
- Ideas
- Individuals
- Interna3onal environment
Ins3tu3ons
- Are at the center of compara3ve poli3cs
• Shapes norms and rules
• Presiden3al vs. parliamentary poli3cal systems (is it federal or unitary, etc)
• Not only physical but also informa3on (elec3ons, types of government)
• Included formal (parliaments) and informal (elec3ons) types
Interest pursued by actors
- Who gets what (when and where)
- Basis in ra3onal -choice theory
• Not always self-centered: it can also involve inves3ng in sustainable prac3ces because you believes it is the
bejer choice
- Concepts such as corpora3sm, networks, consocia3onalism
Ideas can indirectly shape outcomes
- Ideas that exist in our society (framework in which outcomes are shaped)
- Poli3cal culture (tension between values), general level
• Social capital (Robert Putnam): trust, networks, and norms that shape civic engagement
- Ideology
• Powerful in the past (communism. And fascisms)-> less influen3al today due to neoliberalism
- Policy ideas
• Most concrete form of ideas directly influencing poli3cal decisions
Individuals
- Stems from psychological studies, personality: it takes the elite as predominant focus
• is because it’s an outcome of people that behave in poli3cs, the way he behaves shapes the decision making
- Includes poli3cal elites, but also ordinary ci3zens par3cipances in interest groups
, Interna3onal environment
- We cannot understand our own context unless we zoom out and look at interna3onal rela3ons
- Poli3cs takes place in a globalized environment
• Na3onal poli3cs are not isolated but shaped by interna3onal trade, ins3tu3ons, global actors
- Impact varies across countries (e.g. US is not as dependent as other countries)
• A large and economically powerful county is less dependent on external influences compared to smaller
economies
- EU
- Difficult to make inferences
• Because effects of globaliza3on vary -> hard to generalize poli3cal trends across all countries
Interac3ons
- Poli3cs is defined by authorita3ve decision which inherently produce conflict
- Compara3ve poli3cs aims to describe, explain and predict poli3cal phenomena by comparing similari3es across
different levels, from communi3es to states
- The importance of theories stems from tradi3ons that have shaped the five main approaches in compara3ve
poli3cs
- The element interac3ons reg=cognized that no single approach can fully explain poli3cal complexity
• Since the world is too complex, combining different approaches allows for a more comprehensive
understanding of poli3cal systems
Compara3ve method
- Too to inves3gate hypotheses rela3onships between variables
• how and why an independent variable has an impact on a dependent variable
o hypotheses
o dependent variable
o independent variable
• we aim to establish causality and meaningful rela3onships
o but remember the complexi3es of the real world: factors can impact funding for renewable energy
o but could be other variables that can influence the outcome (we are not exact science, we make
predic3on)
• compara3ve method is strong test of rela3onships because it is quasi-experimental
o control. Vs treatment groups (e.g. country with weak and strong green par3es)
Research ques+on: iden'fies the poli'cal phenomenon to be studied
Research design: defines the methodology, ensuring validity,
reliability and generalizability of findings
• MDSD = compares very different cases with a similar
outcome to iden'fy common factors
• MSSD = compares similar cases with different outcomes to
find key dis'nguishing variables
Research answer: provides conclusions based on analysis
How does compara3ve method work
- Most different system design (MDSD)
• method of similarity
• cases have similar outcomes, despite major case differences
• goal is to iden3fy common factors (X) across different cases that might explain the shared outcome
• example:
o Nepal and Ukraine: despite major differences (geography, culture, poli3cal history), both have
experienced poli3cal instability and violent parliamentary conflict
- Most similar system design (MSSD)
• Method of difference
• Cases that are very similar in most aspects but have different outcomes (Y)
• Goal is to find the key differences (X) that explains why theory poli3cal outcomes diverged
• Example
o Belgium Flemish and Walloon regions-despite similari3es (same country, ins3tu3ons) have
different poli3cal dynamics, sugges3ng specific factors (language or economic differences) explains
the varia3on
Lecture 1: introduc(on to comparitave poli(cs
Introduc(on
- We can only understand our own poli3cal context if we put it in perspec3ve
- Comparing different poli3cal regimes, ins3tu3ons and actors to find differences and similari3es among them
Regimes
- Democracy
- Autocracy
Ins3tu3ons
- Legislatures
- Governments
- Mul3level
- Judicial
- Elec3ons
Actors
- Ci3zens
- Par3es interest groups
- Media
- Gender (guest lecture)
What is compara(ve poli(cs
- Poli3cal theory
• Norma3ve ques3ons
o Norma3ve= concerned with what ought to be
• How we should structure poli3cal systems, what we should strive for
- Compara3ve poli3cs
• Empirical ques3ons
o Empirical= explains why we have unitary or federal states, why some countries experience
populism, and how poli3cal phenomena develop in the real world
• Interac3ons within systems
- Interna3onal rela3ons
• Interac3ons between systems
• Explains events such as why poli3cal figures like Trump emerge in the first place (on the global stage)
Defini3on
- Seen as the human ac3vity of making public authorita3ve decisions
- It’s about acquiring and maintaining power which leads to conflict and compe33on
• Conflict= arises from different visions, leading to clashed clashes of perspec3ves
• Compe33on= struggle for power, influence and resources within and between poli3cal actors
- ‘at the root of all poli-cs is the universal language of conflict’
• Meaning that poli3cs fundamentally revolve around disagreements and struggles over power, resources and
values. Conflict is inherent because different groups have compe3ng interest and visions for society, making
nego3a3on and compe33on essen3al aspects of poli3cal life
Important ques3ons in compara3ve poli3cs
- Which decisions are made (the output)
• e.g. invest in renewable energy, changing cons3tu3on, higher spending for military
- How are decisions made (what causes them)
• e.g. referendums, elec3ons, protests, lobbying
- Who makes or influences these decisions
• e.g. par3es, lobby groups, voters
Aims of compara3ve poli3cs
- Describe
• Differences and similari3es between poli3cal systems
• Classifica3on and typologies (e.g. two-party vs mul3-party)
, - Explain
• Explain why these differences and similari3es occur
• Formula3ng hypotheses
- Predict
• Which factors could cause such outcomes
• We are s3ll not accurate/ exact (not exact but we can make predica3ons)
Defini3on of compara3ve poli3cs
- One of the three main subfields of poli3cal science focusing on internal poli3cal structures, actors, processes and
analyse them empirically by describing, explaining and predic3ng their variety (similari3es and differences) across
poli3cs systems over 3me
-> Compara3ve poli3cs studies internal poli3cal by comparing systems on any level
Comparison between
- na3onal poli3cal systems predominantly
- but keep these certain things in mind (poli3cal structures don’t exist in isola3on: following influence and interact
with na3onal poli3cs)
• sub-na3onal regional poli3cal systems
o local governance can have autonomy and impact na3onal decisions
• suprana3onal units
o organiza3ons like the EU or UN shape na3onal policies through regula3ons, agreements, and
collec3ve governance
• types of systems
o poli3cal systems vary, affec3ng governance and decision-making processes
• single element of system
o studying individual ins3tu3ons (parliaments, courts, …) helps analyse broader poli3cal framework
History of compara(ve poli(cs
1. State in ins3tu3ons (before WW2)
• Focus on formal ins3tu3ons and legal text, primarily in the Western world
• Norma3ve in nature
2. Behavioral evolu3on became the central study (30s-60s)
• Examined processes within ins3tu3ons (based on sociology)
• Expanded focus beyond the West
• Empirical approach
3. New ins3tu3onalism
• Influenced by behavioral evolu3on
• Ins3tu3ons shape individual preferences
• Dicta3ng them how to behave
4. Mid-range theories
• Not the idea we should explain everything with one defini3on
• Don’t want to explain the general -> but why certain things happen
• Narrowed geographical focus + studying a few countries in depth
o Not applicable to all countries, but some -> narrow the geographical focus
5. Case oriented analyses
• Study specific
• 1 phenome and dick deeper
• Developed from mid-range theories, analyzing a small number of cases
• Compara3ve in nature: by studying one country, it can tell a lot about other
6. Ra3onal choice (late 80s)
• Driven by self-interest: focused on individuals and organiza3ons as ra3onal actors
• Cannot achieve full ra3onally -> can explain in poli3cs what we see
• All poli3cs do what they think is best, even though this could end in a loss
Compara3ve poli3cs xtoday
- David Easton
- Developed a general model of poli3cal system that is applicable to all countries
(regardless of their poli3cal structure (democracy, autocracy))
- Diagram
• We live in environments: surrounded with society and external factors that
influence poli3cs
, • Input: ci3zens and groups express demand (e.g. need for affordable housing) and show support (e.g. vo3ng)
• Poli(cal system: government processes these inputs, leading to decisions
• Output: the system produces policies, laws or decisions (yes or no)
• Feedback: public reacts, shaping future demand (e.g. if policy fails, people protest or change vo3ng behavior)
- examples
• Trump: ci3zens demand led to decisions that influences feedback and future elec3ons
• Housing system: public demand for affordable housing results in government decisions (funding,…), affec3ng
future policies
• Autocracy in Korea: inputs are limited, as state suppresses demands + decisions made without broad public
feedback
Importance of theory in compara3ve poli3cs
- Providing answers to puzzles and ques3ons
- Provides us with a guideline for conduc3ng research
- Helps us interpret findings
- Micro vs. macro level (individual and ins3tu3ons)
- Explains why X has an influence on Y (why independent variable influences a dependent variable)
Approaches in compara(ve poli(cs
Why x has an impact on y (the 5 I’s)
- Ins3tu3ons
- Interest
- Ideas
- Individuals
- Interna3onal environment
Ins3tu3ons
- Are at the center of compara3ve poli3cs
• Shapes norms and rules
• Presiden3al vs. parliamentary poli3cal systems (is it federal or unitary, etc)
• Not only physical but also informa3on (elec3ons, types of government)
• Included formal (parliaments) and informal (elec3ons) types
Interest pursued by actors
- Who gets what (when and where)
- Basis in ra3onal -choice theory
• Not always self-centered: it can also involve inves3ng in sustainable prac3ces because you believes it is the
bejer choice
- Concepts such as corpora3sm, networks, consocia3onalism
Ideas can indirectly shape outcomes
- Ideas that exist in our society (framework in which outcomes are shaped)
- Poli3cal culture (tension between values), general level
• Social capital (Robert Putnam): trust, networks, and norms that shape civic engagement
- Ideology
• Powerful in the past (communism. And fascisms)-> less influen3al today due to neoliberalism
- Policy ideas
• Most concrete form of ideas directly influencing poli3cal decisions
Individuals
- Stems from psychological studies, personality: it takes the elite as predominant focus
• is because it’s an outcome of people that behave in poli3cs, the way he behaves shapes the decision making
- Includes poli3cal elites, but also ordinary ci3zens par3cipances in interest groups
, Interna3onal environment
- We cannot understand our own context unless we zoom out and look at interna3onal rela3ons
- Poli3cs takes place in a globalized environment
• Na3onal poli3cs are not isolated but shaped by interna3onal trade, ins3tu3ons, global actors
- Impact varies across countries (e.g. US is not as dependent as other countries)
• A large and economically powerful county is less dependent on external influences compared to smaller
economies
- EU
- Difficult to make inferences
• Because effects of globaliza3on vary -> hard to generalize poli3cal trends across all countries
Interac3ons
- Poli3cs is defined by authorita3ve decision which inherently produce conflict
- Compara3ve poli3cs aims to describe, explain and predict poli3cal phenomena by comparing similari3es across
different levels, from communi3es to states
- The importance of theories stems from tradi3ons that have shaped the five main approaches in compara3ve
poli3cs
- The element interac3ons reg=cognized that no single approach can fully explain poli3cal complexity
• Since the world is too complex, combining different approaches allows for a more comprehensive
understanding of poli3cal systems
Compara3ve method
- Too to inves3gate hypotheses rela3onships between variables
• how and why an independent variable has an impact on a dependent variable
o hypotheses
o dependent variable
o independent variable
• we aim to establish causality and meaningful rela3onships
o but remember the complexi3es of the real world: factors can impact funding for renewable energy
o but could be other variables that can influence the outcome (we are not exact science, we make
predic3on)
• compara3ve method is strong test of rela3onships because it is quasi-experimental
o control. Vs treatment groups (e.g. country with weak and strong green par3es)
Research ques+on: iden'fies the poli'cal phenomenon to be studied
Research design: defines the methodology, ensuring validity,
reliability and generalizability of findings
• MDSD = compares very different cases with a similar
outcome to iden'fy common factors
• MSSD = compares similar cases with different outcomes to
find key dis'nguishing variables
Research answer: provides conclusions based on analysis
How does compara3ve method work
- Most different system design (MDSD)
• method of similarity
• cases have similar outcomes, despite major case differences
• goal is to iden3fy common factors (X) across different cases that might explain the shared outcome
• example:
o Nepal and Ukraine: despite major differences (geography, culture, poli3cal history), both have
experienced poli3cal instability and violent parliamentary conflict
- Most similar system design (MSSD)
• Method of difference
• Cases that are very similar in most aspects but have different outcomes (Y)
• Goal is to find the key differences (X) that explains why theory poli3cal outcomes diverged
• Example
o Belgium Flemish and Walloon regions-despite similari3es (same country, ins3tu3ons) have
different poli3cal dynamics, sugges3ng specific factors (language or economic differences) explains
the varia3on
