Summary Theories of comparative politics
College 1:
The goals of the course are as follows:
• To introduce you to core readings within the field of comparative politics
• To do so within the framework of our program
The core of the course themes can be summed up as follows:
• Democracy
• Challenges to democracy (authoritarianism)
• Political representation
• Ideas of political representation
• Cleavages and structures of representation
• Political mobilization
To think theoretically about Comparative Politics
Scholars from IR often contend that Comparative Politics does not have theory.
Comparative Politics often appears to have a messy center.
The idea is that IR has theories, but the comparative department doesn’t. This isn’t true. The
comparative department is theoretical in a different way. Theory is often reduced to the method:
the comparative method. That is not the right way to look at theory. Theory is just used differently in
IR. They use larger world views. IR uses theories that can be described more as meta theories:
lenses through which you see the world or science. Comparative politics has a more midrange
theory. Theory is not as important in comparative politics as in IR, because in comparative politics it
is reduced to perspective. In the comparative compartment theories are not a larger theory about
how the world is put together, some say. Zaslove says that behind our mid-range theories there is a
larger understanding about how the world is put together. You look at a phenomenon like cleavages
or populism.
But there are assumptions that you have when you do your research, and your approach can match
a certain school.
There are three schools:
1. Rational choice theory
2. Structural theory
3. Culturalist theory
Theory of collective action: this may be rational choice oriented
Theory of cleavages: this might be more structurally oriented
Theory about norms and values and democracy: this might be more culturally oriented
Comparative politics do have theory and do have a theoretical core. Theory is crucial for the type of
research that we do. Comparative politics is not only about rational choice, like some assume. This is
because of the history of political science.
Political science is a very new discipline. The “classics” that we read aren’t even political scientists. It
began in the early 1900s. After WWII political science began to really develop. That’s why political
science tended to borrow from other disciplines. They tried to move into generalizations. They tried
to unify the discipline. In the 1960 was the behavior revolution. This failed and produced two strains:
rational choice and fragmentation. There was fragmentation: people started developing niches
fields. They borrowed the rational choice from economics, trying to establish a more general theory.
Lichbach says there IS a theoretical core to comparative politics and it is more than rational choice
(although he is a rational choicer himself).
Lichbach says there is three ideal types
1
, 1. Rational choice
2. Structural
3. Culturalist
He is simplifying things. So there definitely is theory in comparative politics.
Rational choice:
It is about preference maximization: people have preferences and they want to maximize these.
Rational choices say that people know their preferences and are able to order (hierarchy) their
preferences. They can rationally structure their preferences and maximize them. If your first choice
isn’t there, you can go to your second choice. Rational choices begin with the individual, but the
individual can also be a party for example. They focus on individuals but study the community
outcome. They are aware that the individual is a part of a material context. This can mean an
economy, a societal context, etc. Rational choicers are very aware of structures. Structures change
and can break equilibriums. Individuals are rational in the sense that they know how to order their
preference.
Culture:
Culture is about publicly shared meanings. It is holistic. Meanings are shared between individuals. A
culturalist would look at the language, symbols and actions, tradition, culture, flags for example that
individuals share. Culture is difficult to explain, because it is broad. Objects can have different
meanings in different contexts.
Lichbach makes a distinction between inter-subjective and subjective. Inter-subjective: discourse
analysis, content analysis. Subjective: Culturalists can do quantitative research. They search for
cultural patterns.
Structure:
Structuralist argue that there are entities within society where individual actors are imbedded. They
look at things like states, institutions, cleavages. Entities structure, make rules, for individuals in
which they act. Structuralist are interested in concepts. Concepts can be states, bureaucratic
institutions, cleavages. They can be very specific, like institutions, or be very broad, like society.
Individuals are imbedded in these different structures. They want to uncover these structures. The
structures do exist but there is a world behind that.
Beyond the theories
• There are underlying assumptions behind every approach
• It is not that one approach is better than the other
• But there are limits to each approach
It is about the used ontology, methodology and comparison.
The ontology behind these approaches is about how the world is constructed and how we
experience it. How you see the world is an influence on how you do research.
Ontology of rational choice:
• methodological individualists
• the world begins with the individual
• they are interested in intentions
• the individual must be cognizant of his/ her intentions
• intentions are not rational (always)
• actually interested in collective outcomes
They are mythological individualists. The world begins with the individuals. These individuals have
intentions. Researchers are interested in the nature in these intentions. The researchers are
2
,interested in observing their intentions. It’s not psychological. The assumption is that the intentions
are rational. They assume that individuals maximize their preferences. They are interested in
collective outcomes. The intentions and the outcomes are not always collectively rational. They
research how this is possible when the actors act rationally.
Ontology of culturalists:
• holists
• “norms are intersubjective and transindividual”
• individuals are embedded in culture
• “culture is constitutive of both consensus and conflict”
• the cultural ontology believes that individuals are embedded and
• this has important consequences for the individual and group
o identities
o subjectivists
o intersubjectivists
They are holists. It is not about the individual, but what goes on between individuals. They are
interested in group identities.
Ontology of structure:
• holists
• but they study linkages and networks from the whole system
• they are about relationships
• but also important regarding the relationship between the agent and the structure
They are holists. They study linkages and networks from the whole system. They are interested in
relationships.
Methodology of rational choice:
• comparative statics– comparing events with external shocks
• use a sort thought experiment
• they look to how external shocks influence individuals
• but they are essentially interested in collective (irrational) outcomes
They observe behavior and action.
Methodology of culture:
• interpretation of meanings, frames, intentions
• but the key is the process of meaning interpretations, Interpreting
Methodology of structure:
• Realists – the world exists
• but the world is built upon social kinds
o states, parties, movements
• the world needs to be uncovered
Less interpreting, more uncovering. They are kind of realists. The world is out there, you can observe
it, but it takes hard work to uncover it.
Comparisons:
This is the key for comparative politics. Social science is about explanations. This is about
generalizations.
Rational choice comparison:
3
, They are more positivists. There is an external reality. You can observe the reality and make
generalizations. You can predict human behavior and make generalization. The purpose is to build
theory and make generalizations.
Culture comparison:
They says you can’t make generalizations. It’s about interpretations and understanding. It is much
more particular. They are cautious about generalizations.
Structural comparison:
They say you can make generalizations, but only among kinds. You can make generalizations
between concepts, among concepts. Comparison is possible and generalization is possible, but they
are cautious in two ways:
- generalizations among kinds
- the scientist has to work to uncover these generalizations
1.1 Literature: Social Theory and Comparative Politics, Lichbach and Zuckerman
Problem: there is no self-conscious theoretical reflection in the field of comparative politics. We
don’t take our theories or our theorists seriously. The problematic consequence is that the quest for
generalizations, by contrast, moves its role to the forefront. A good research design without a theory
is blind. One must begin with theoretically embedded observations, not with evidence.
The three ideal-type research traditions:
1. Rationalist/social choice: Bates
2. Culturalist/interpretivist: Scott
3. Structuralist/institutionalist: Skocpol
Our field is more than just a messy center.
Each tradition shares an ontology, a methodology and a philosophy of science.
4
College 1:
The goals of the course are as follows:
• To introduce you to core readings within the field of comparative politics
• To do so within the framework of our program
The core of the course themes can be summed up as follows:
• Democracy
• Challenges to democracy (authoritarianism)
• Political representation
• Ideas of political representation
• Cleavages and structures of representation
• Political mobilization
To think theoretically about Comparative Politics
Scholars from IR often contend that Comparative Politics does not have theory.
Comparative Politics often appears to have a messy center.
The idea is that IR has theories, but the comparative department doesn’t. This isn’t true. The
comparative department is theoretical in a different way. Theory is often reduced to the method:
the comparative method. That is not the right way to look at theory. Theory is just used differently in
IR. They use larger world views. IR uses theories that can be described more as meta theories:
lenses through which you see the world or science. Comparative politics has a more midrange
theory. Theory is not as important in comparative politics as in IR, because in comparative politics it
is reduced to perspective. In the comparative compartment theories are not a larger theory about
how the world is put together, some say. Zaslove says that behind our mid-range theories there is a
larger understanding about how the world is put together. You look at a phenomenon like cleavages
or populism.
But there are assumptions that you have when you do your research, and your approach can match
a certain school.
There are three schools:
1. Rational choice theory
2. Structural theory
3. Culturalist theory
Theory of collective action: this may be rational choice oriented
Theory of cleavages: this might be more structurally oriented
Theory about norms and values and democracy: this might be more culturally oriented
Comparative politics do have theory and do have a theoretical core. Theory is crucial for the type of
research that we do. Comparative politics is not only about rational choice, like some assume. This is
because of the history of political science.
Political science is a very new discipline. The “classics” that we read aren’t even political scientists. It
began in the early 1900s. After WWII political science began to really develop. That’s why political
science tended to borrow from other disciplines. They tried to move into generalizations. They tried
to unify the discipline. In the 1960 was the behavior revolution. This failed and produced two strains:
rational choice and fragmentation. There was fragmentation: people started developing niches
fields. They borrowed the rational choice from economics, trying to establish a more general theory.
Lichbach says there IS a theoretical core to comparative politics and it is more than rational choice
(although he is a rational choicer himself).
Lichbach says there is three ideal types
1
, 1. Rational choice
2. Structural
3. Culturalist
He is simplifying things. So there definitely is theory in comparative politics.
Rational choice:
It is about preference maximization: people have preferences and they want to maximize these.
Rational choices say that people know their preferences and are able to order (hierarchy) their
preferences. They can rationally structure their preferences and maximize them. If your first choice
isn’t there, you can go to your second choice. Rational choices begin with the individual, but the
individual can also be a party for example. They focus on individuals but study the community
outcome. They are aware that the individual is a part of a material context. This can mean an
economy, a societal context, etc. Rational choicers are very aware of structures. Structures change
and can break equilibriums. Individuals are rational in the sense that they know how to order their
preference.
Culture:
Culture is about publicly shared meanings. It is holistic. Meanings are shared between individuals. A
culturalist would look at the language, symbols and actions, tradition, culture, flags for example that
individuals share. Culture is difficult to explain, because it is broad. Objects can have different
meanings in different contexts.
Lichbach makes a distinction between inter-subjective and subjective. Inter-subjective: discourse
analysis, content analysis. Subjective: Culturalists can do quantitative research. They search for
cultural patterns.
Structure:
Structuralist argue that there are entities within society where individual actors are imbedded. They
look at things like states, institutions, cleavages. Entities structure, make rules, for individuals in
which they act. Structuralist are interested in concepts. Concepts can be states, bureaucratic
institutions, cleavages. They can be very specific, like institutions, or be very broad, like society.
Individuals are imbedded in these different structures. They want to uncover these structures. The
structures do exist but there is a world behind that.
Beyond the theories
• There are underlying assumptions behind every approach
• It is not that one approach is better than the other
• But there are limits to each approach
It is about the used ontology, methodology and comparison.
The ontology behind these approaches is about how the world is constructed and how we
experience it. How you see the world is an influence on how you do research.
Ontology of rational choice:
• methodological individualists
• the world begins with the individual
• they are interested in intentions
• the individual must be cognizant of his/ her intentions
• intentions are not rational (always)
• actually interested in collective outcomes
They are mythological individualists. The world begins with the individuals. These individuals have
intentions. Researchers are interested in the nature in these intentions. The researchers are
2
,interested in observing their intentions. It’s not psychological. The assumption is that the intentions
are rational. They assume that individuals maximize their preferences. They are interested in
collective outcomes. The intentions and the outcomes are not always collectively rational. They
research how this is possible when the actors act rationally.
Ontology of culturalists:
• holists
• “norms are intersubjective and transindividual”
• individuals are embedded in culture
• “culture is constitutive of both consensus and conflict”
• the cultural ontology believes that individuals are embedded and
• this has important consequences for the individual and group
o identities
o subjectivists
o intersubjectivists
They are holists. It is not about the individual, but what goes on between individuals. They are
interested in group identities.
Ontology of structure:
• holists
• but they study linkages and networks from the whole system
• they are about relationships
• but also important regarding the relationship between the agent and the structure
They are holists. They study linkages and networks from the whole system. They are interested in
relationships.
Methodology of rational choice:
• comparative statics– comparing events with external shocks
• use a sort thought experiment
• they look to how external shocks influence individuals
• but they are essentially interested in collective (irrational) outcomes
They observe behavior and action.
Methodology of culture:
• interpretation of meanings, frames, intentions
• but the key is the process of meaning interpretations, Interpreting
Methodology of structure:
• Realists – the world exists
• but the world is built upon social kinds
o states, parties, movements
• the world needs to be uncovered
Less interpreting, more uncovering. They are kind of realists. The world is out there, you can observe
it, but it takes hard work to uncover it.
Comparisons:
This is the key for comparative politics. Social science is about explanations. This is about
generalizations.
Rational choice comparison:
3
, They are more positivists. There is an external reality. You can observe the reality and make
generalizations. You can predict human behavior and make generalization. The purpose is to build
theory and make generalizations.
Culture comparison:
They says you can’t make generalizations. It’s about interpretations and understanding. It is much
more particular. They are cautious about generalizations.
Structural comparison:
They say you can make generalizations, but only among kinds. You can make generalizations
between concepts, among concepts. Comparison is possible and generalization is possible, but they
are cautious in two ways:
- generalizations among kinds
- the scientist has to work to uncover these generalizations
1.1 Literature: Social Theory and Comparative Politics, Lichbach and Zuckerman
Problem: there is no self-conscious theoretical reflection in the field of comparative politics. We
don’t take our theories or our theorists seriously. The problematic consequence is that the quest for
generalizations, by contrast, moves its role to the forefront. A good research design without a theory
is blind. One must begin with theoretically embedded observations, not with evidence.
The three ideal-type research traditions:
1. Rationalist/social choice: Bates
2. Culturalist/interpretivist: Scott
3. Structuralist/institutionalist: Skocpol
Our field is more than just a messy center.
Each tradition shares an ontology, a methodology and a philosophy of science.
4
