⑲ CP Notes
g
e
,lecture 1 why compare?
Tom Pepinsky said on twitter that comparatieve politics is another term for political science
but there is a broad debate about what comparative politics is exactly
carmani: one of the main subfields of political science, focussing on internal politics and analysing them empirically
think more about the questions asked who makes political decisions? for what group of people
how did they acquire the authority to make such decisions? where does this authority come from?
difference between IR and CP is power between vs within countries
traditions within CP the study of single countries,
:
methodological:rules and standards of comparative anlysis
analytical: identify and explain similarities and differences across political systems
the development of CP as a subdiscipline had different phases
phase 1 is about the study of formal institutions and had a lot of overlap with law and history
the empirical focus was on constitutions and formal rules, mostly in europe and north america
phase 2 had the behavioural revolution (1920s - 1960s) with a lot of change
ww2 introduced politics as a mass phenomenon / more decolonisation and more democracies / computers
become available and more and farther travel is possible
empirical focus on politics in practice and non-western cases
alternative models of democracy,
from institutions to ideologies and belief systems,
the idea of convergence and alternative forms of order,
new political actors,
emphasis of systems and functional equivalents (easton 1965)
new, mostly quantitive, methodes because of computers
phase 3 was a reaction to the behavioural revolution
first step was ‘bringing the state back in’
institutions as rules, procedures and social norms that
shape how individuals formulate preferences
step two was a focus on mid-range theory rather than universal theories
then step three was a shift from sociology tot economics
the focus on rational actors that can rank preferences and act according ‘neither clocks nor clouds’
phase 3/4 includes the second scientific revolution after 1989
an epistemological shift on contruction and testing of causal theoretical models
also emphasis on research design that makes it possible to test theoretical propositions
how are theories built? focus of micro-foundations
causal theories can be falsified and individuals are not purely instrumental or rational, ideas and identities matter
CP describes similarities and differences by classifications and typologies
explain similarities and differences with theories and hypoheses
engage in predictions by focussing on effects of institutions?
mair 1996: ‘CP is defined by a combination of substantive focus and a method of explaining and identifying’
we use a variety of research designs: intensive: few cases, many variables like comparative historical analysis
extensive: many cases, few variables like quantitive with large n comparison
also mixed methods so small n combined with large n
, both observational data and (quasi) experimental/RCT is used in CP
this methodological diversity because of the diversity of questions, dimensions and units of analysis
the way we compare is by focussing on concepts, comparable or non-comparable are not proporties of things
whether meaningful comparison is possible or not, depends on the concepts we have at our disposal
concepts are a basic unit of thinking distinguish A from what is not-A
a concept can be a theory of what something is, what are its defining characteristics?
concepts are building blocks for theory, both dependent and independent variables
Lecture 2 the state and early state formation
how do we know which contexts are homogenous enough to compare
to avoid making invalid comparison you have to keep conceptual and empirical in mind
be mindful of the ladder of abstraction and the knowledge of different political systems
there is also a difference between potential range of research questions vs actual range of research questions
geographical blind spots and substantive blind spots
/
our knowledge is not universal because we have not studied every single scenario
these blind spots come from what is seen as important by society, what gets attention?
the things we research are influenced by lived experiences of scholars
availability to conduct fieldwork
: data availability
funding for specific topics
·
career incentives
·
language
this is a problem justice and equality
empirical knowledge about states and societies in unequal
who has the resources to conduct research? who gets to decide which questions are important?
depends on resources of the countries and in turn resources of the scientists
in tension with finding generalisable causal patterns
truncated sample if we base on analysis on where data exist (or where data collection is possible)
concepts and theories that we know are coloured by a limited range of countries
need to be mindful of blind spots throughout the course
what is the state? max weber as a key scholar when talking about the state
“a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly
of the legitimate us of physical force with a given territory”
how did he develop this conceptualisation? probably only looking at the states in western europe
the monopoly of legitimate violence: internal sovereignty
1. de facto control of violence within the territory (security forces, police)
2. violence by other actors is not considered legitimate
why do people obey? the power to define what is legitimate and what is not
territory: external sovereignty hard aspects and soft aspects
geographically distinct, fixed continuous boundaries (military as defence)
territory idealised as the motherland or fatherland: cradle home of tis population
human community: population, which also has hard and soft aspects
g
e
,lecture 1 why compare?
Tom Pepinsky said on twitter that comparatieve politics is another term for political science
but there is a broad debate about what comparative politics is exactly
carmani: one of the main subfields of political science, focussing on internal politics and analysing them empirically
think more about the questions asked who makes political decisions? for what group of people
how did they acquire the authority to make such decisions? where does this authority come from?
difference between IR and CP is power between vs within countries
traditions within CP the study of single countries,
:
methodological:rules and standards of comparative anlysis
analytical: identify and explain similarities and differences across political systems
the development of CP as a subdiscipline had different phases
phase 1 is about the study of formal institutions and had a lot of overlap with law and history
the empirical focus was on constitutions and formal rules, mostly in europe and north america
phase 2 had the behavioural revolution (1920s - 1960s) with a lot of change
ww2 introduced politics as a mass phenomenon / more decolonisation and more democracies / computers
become available and more and farther travel is possible
empirical focus on politics in practice and non-western cases
alternative models of democracy,
from institutions to ideologies and belief systems,
the idea of convergence and alternative forms of order,
new political actors,
emphasis of systems and functional equivalents (easton 1965)
new, mostly quantitive, methodes because of computers
phase 3 was a reaction to the behavioural revolution
first step was ‘bringing the state back in’
institutions as rules, procedures and social norms that
shape how individuals formulate preferences
step two was a focus on mid-range theory rather than universal theories
then step three was a shift from sociology tot economics
the focus on rational actors that can rank preferences and act according ‘neither clocks nor clouds’
phase 3/4 includes the second scientific revolution after 1989
an epistemological shift on contruction and testing of causal theoretical models
also emphasis on research design that makes it possible to test theoretical propositions
how are theories built? focus of micro-foundations
causal theories can be falsified and individuals are not purely instrumental or rational, ideas and identities matter
CP describes similarities and differences by classifications and typologies
explain similarities and differences with theories and hypoheses
engage in predictions by focussing on effects of institutions?
mair 1996: ‘CP is defined by a combination of substantive focus and a method of explaining and identifying’
we use a variety of research designs: intensive: few cases, many variables like comparative historical analysis
extensive: many cases, few variables like quantitive with large n comparison
also mixed methods so small n combined with large n
, both observational data and (quasi) experimental/RCT is used in CP
this methodological diversity because of the diversity of questions, dimensions and units of analysis
the way we compare is by focussing on concepts, comparable or non-comparable are not proporties of things
whether meaningful comparison is possible or not, depends on the concepts we have at our disposal
concepts are a basic unit of thinking distinguish A from what is not-A
a concept can be a theory of what something is, what are its defining characteristics?
concepts are building blocks for theory, both dependent and independent variables
Lecture 2 the state and early state formation
how do we know which contexts are homogenous enough to compare
to avoid making invalid comparison you have to keep conceptual and empirical in mind
be mindful of the ladder of abstraction and the knowledge of different political systems
there is also a difference between potential range of research questions vs actual range of research questions
geographical blind spots and substantive blind spots
/
our knowledge is not universal because we have not studied every single scenario
these blind spots come from what is seen as important by society, what gets attention?
the things we research are influenced by lived experiences of scholars
availability to conduct fieldwork
: data availability
funding for specific topics
·
career incentives
·
language
this is a problem justice and equality
empirical knowledge about states and societies in unequal
who has the resources to conduct research? who gets to decide which questions are important?
depends on resources of the countries and in turn resources of the scientists
in tension with finding generalisable causal patterns
truncated sample if we base on analysis on where data exist (or where data collection is possible)
concepts and theories that we know are coloured by a limited range of countries
need to be mindful of blind spots throughout the course
what is the state? max weber as a key scholar when talking about the state
“a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly
of the legitimate us of physical force with a given territory”
how did he develop this conceptualisation? probably only looking at the states in western europe
the monopoly of legitimate violence: internal sovereignty
1. de facto control of violence within the territory (security forces, police)
2. violence by other actors is not considered legitimate
why do people obey? the power to define what is legitimate and what is not
territory: external sovereignty hard aspects and soft aspects
geographically distinct, fixed continuous boundaries (military as defence)
territory idealised as the motherland or fatherland: cradle home of tis population
human community: population, which also has hard and soft aspects
