See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331149289

Understanding Comparative Politics

Chapter · April 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,457

1 author:

Pushpa Singh
Miranda House, University of Delhi
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Politics of Knowledge in Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pushpa Singh on 16 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Paper: Introduction to Comparative Government and Politics

Lesson: Understanding Comparative Politics

Lesson Developer: Pushpa Kumari

College/ Department: Miranda House/ University of Delhi

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Table of Contents:

Title of the Chapter: Understanding Comparative Politics

 Introduction: Comparative Politics as a Sub-Field of Political Science

 Topic 1: Why Compare
 Topic 2: How to compare: Methods of Comparisons
 Topic 3: Domains of Comparative Politics: Regime Types as Subject of
Study
 Topic 4: Evolution and Changing Nature of Comparative Politics

4.1 Pre-modern Phase

4.2 Modern Phase

4.3 Post modern Phase
4.4 The New Insights: Third World Perspective
 Topic 5: Problems and Future Prospects: Going Beyond Euro centrism
 Summary
 Conclusion
 Exercise: Questions For Consideration
 Objective Questions
 Glossary
 Objective Questions
 References
 Web links

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Understanding Comparative Politics

Introduction: Comparative Politics as a Sub-Field of Political

Science

The act of comparison is a basic human nature. Knowingly or unknowingly we keep on

comparing everything around us. Comparison helps us understand issues and events in
better manner. Within the field of Political science, Comparative Politics is that major
subfield,1 which makes comparison its essence. It is concerned with the comparative
study and analysis of political systems.2 The greatest contribution of this field has been
that it essentialised comparison as a fundamental method of inquiry. By doing so it also
produces a nuanced understanding of the world. So much is the significance of
comparison that one cannot easily make assertion about particular characteristics of an
event, institution or form of behaviour without making comparisons with another. 3 A
comparative method helps us go beyond mere descriptions, towards looking for ways in
which political and social process can be explained and based on such explanations
general theoretical propositions made.4 Thus remarks Edward A. Freeman that the
establishment of comparative method of study has been the greatest intellectual
achievement of our time.5

Kopstein and Lichbach consider Comparative Politics, Political Theory and International
Relations as three important poles in Political Science. Political Theory and Comparative
Politics have developed in close proximity and the earliest comparativists have been
political theorists. From the Greek political discourse, Aristotle came up with the first
comparative study of different kinds of political regimes. Though, unlike political
theorists, comparativists attempt to distance themselves from value judgement and stick
to systematic explanations of the world as it is. Comparativists describe and explain,
whereas the political theorists bring out the deeper philosophical meanings of these
findings. Scholars of international relations concentrate on politics that occur between
the states and comparativists focus on politics within countries.

1
Kopstein J. and Lichbach, M. (eds) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a
Changing Global Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.p2.
2
Pennington, Mark “Theory; Institutions and Comparative Politics” in Comparative Politics (eds.) Judith Bara
and Mark Pennington, Sage Publications, India, 2009.p. 13.
3
Bara, Judith “Methodoligies for Comparative Analysis” in Comparative Politics (eds.) Judith Bara and Mark
Pennington, Sage Publications, India, 2009.p. 45.
4
Roy Anupama “Comparative Method and Strategies of Comparison” in Punjab Journal of Politics, p.14.
5
Freeman,Edward A.(1872) Comparative Politics, Macmillan And Company Limited, p.1.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Value addition—Comparative politics in Political science

Political Theory

Comparative Politics International Relations

Political Science

Conceptualisation of Comparative Politics as three important poles of Political

Science by Lichbach and Kopstein.

However, in recent times there is increasing realisation of fuzziness of such boundaries

in political studies as any event in the domestic politics may hugely impact the global
scenario. On the other hand, the international events are having predominant influence
over national and state politics. The earlier attempt of compartmentalising different
disciplines may not be very helpful for in-depth understanding of the subject. New forces
like the upsurge of globalisation and related phenomenon have impacted all systems.
One is compelled to critically engage with the cross-sections of all determinants and
variables at the local as well as global levels. Relations between countries and their
interdependence also shape politics at global level.

Did You Know

Aristotle was one of the earliest philosopher to study Greek City State by
applying
Comparative method. He classified political system in different kinds based on
quality and quantity. Aristotle considers six forms of government: Monarchy,
Aristocracy, and Polity on one side as 'good' forms of government, and Tyranny,
Oligarchy, and Democracy as 'bad' forms.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

(Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists#Aristotle

Topic1: Why Compare

The scholars engaged in this field believe that the comparative method of inquiry
enables us to get precise account of phenomenon happening in the world and in the
domestic politics. By comparing different political institutions, their functioning, different
political organisations, associations and their influence, confrontations put up by non
state actor’s and states response to all of them introduce us to the various ways in which
politics take place. Comparative method immediately opens the gate for intensive study
of the subject and projects nuanced understanding of the political life that a single case
study alone could never provide.

Comparing the similarities and the differences between the political phenomenons
across the countries allows the social scientists to judge if and how the experiences of
some state are similar to that of others. It also helps us to assess whether theoretical
models of decisions making are able to claim universal validity.6 In fact comparison
should be the method of all political inquiries. But comparison does not mean merely
finding similarities and dissimilarities between and among phenomenon. It must go
beyond that and seek to discover relationships.7 The comparative approach to political
science is thus not by itself exclusive, but if we follow the idea that concepts derived
from theories about the real world need to be investigated by means of controlling
variation as observed in the real world, we cannot abstain from this approach.8

Kenneth Newton and Jan W. Van Deth give us three most important reasons why we
should study Comparative Politics. First, that we cannot understand our own country
without knowledge of others. Second, we cannot understand other countries without

6
Pennington, Mark “Theory; Institutions and comparative Politics” in Comparative Politics (eds.) Judith Bara
and Mark Pennington, Sage Publications, India, 2009.p. 13.
7
Mohanty, Manoranan (1975),“Comparative Politics Theory and the Third World Sensitivity” in Teaching
Politics, No. 122, pp. 22.
8
Lijphart Arend, “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American Political Science Review,
Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 1971),p p. 682, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1955513

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

knowledge of their background, institutions and history. Third, we cannot arrive at valid
generalisations about government and politics without the comparative method. 9 From
Lasswell to Almond most political scientist viewed comparison as the basic function of
political science and an unswerving strategy of research.

Topic 2: How to Compare: Methods of Comparisons10

Value Addition-know it better

For Mill’s method of comparison-go to

poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/Mill.htm





After accepting that comparison is the essential for accurate understanding and robust
research, next question is how and what we should compare. Should we compare the
phenomenon between the states, while comparing how much consideration should be
given to historical analysis, how were we going to use quantifiable variables? There are
various method of comparison available to us like the Experimental Method which is
mainly used in natural science, Case Study that produces detailed study of a specific
case, Statistical method that uses categories and variables which are quantifiable and
represented by numbers e.g. voting pattern, public expenditure, political parties, voter
turnout, etc. Statistical methods in research help the numerical representation of the
factual information. Focused comparisons restrict themselves to certain case studies
keeping specific issues of research in mind. Historical Method highlights the significance
of historical analysis. It is the task of the researcher to identify which method will be
appropriate for her/his investigation. Sometimes a single method is not sufficient and
one has to employ combination of methods of comparison for comprehensive study.

J S Mill has proposed two useful strategies of comparative research. Most Similar System
.jpg

design also called Mills Method of difference and Most Different Systems Design or Mill's
Method of Similarity or Mill’s Method of Similarity. While the first is employed in
comparing similar cases having dependent variables, the later is used to compare
dissimilar cases having independent variables. However while comparing, one should be
careful about what to compare and how to compare. One cannot go on comparing apples
and oranges. Addressing this, C. E. Black observes that here is much greater value in
comparing contemporary events and institutions than those that are widely separated in
time. The comparison of societies or smaller groups that are concerned with reasonably

9
Newton, Kenneth and Deth, Jan W. Foundations of Comparative Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
pp.1.
10
For detailed discussion on different methods of comparison, refer to Roy, Anupama “Comparative Method
and Strategies of Comparison” in Punjab Journal of Politics, pp.8.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

similar problems is more likely to lead to satisfactory conclusions than comparisons

between societies existing many centuries apart. 11 Sometimes the variables in the
subject of study are so extensive and bewildering that the researcher gets baffled and
loses the control over the research process.

Prominent Contributions in the Field of Comparative

Politics

 Aristotle: Classification of Governments: Aristotle considers six

forms of government: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Polity on one
side as 'good' forms of government, and Tyranny, Oligarchy,
and Democracy as 'bad' forms.
 Max Weber: Classification of Authority (Traditional Authority,
Legal Rational Authority and Charismatic Authority).
 Gabriel Almond and Birmingham Powell: Political System
Approach.
 Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba: Work on Civic Culture
(The first major cross national survey of attitude to determine
the role of political culture in maintaining the stability of
democratic regimes).
 Montesquieu: Remarkable work on law, linking the institutional
and modern phase.
 Finer: Classification of Regimes into Liberal Democratic,
Totalitarian and Autocratic types.
 Alexis de Tocqueville: Analysis of Democracy in America.
 Barrington Moore: Work on Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern
World (1966)
 Theda Scokpol: Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and
China were the scholar compares the major revolutions of
France, Russia and China: three basically similar events which
took place in three very different contexts)
 Geovani Sartori: Analysis on Parties and Party System
 Arend Lijphart: Analysis of Patterns of Democracy
(Comprehensive study of democracies around the world)

11
Black,C. E. (1966) The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History, New York: Harper and
Row, p.39

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Charles Montesquieu

(Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists#Montesquieu)

Topic 3: Domains of Comparative Politics: Regime Types as

Subject of Study

The focus of study of scholars of comparative politics has been on the origin and impact
of various types of government or regime types or political orders in the world. In their
study, they explore their characteristics, reason and time of occurrence. Kopstein and
Lichbach have identified three important tools of analysis as determinants of
comparative politics: interests, identities and institutions.12 Among these, ‘interest’
appears to be the most decisive. People tend to support that political regime that
maximises their material benefits. In order to do so, they organise themselves in form of
interest groups, trade unions, social movements and political parties.

Kopstein and Lichbach identifies three important tools of

analysis as determinants of Comparative Politics: interests,

identities and institutions.

12
Kopstein J. and Lichbach, M. (eds) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a
Changing Global Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.p2.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

On the other hand some comparativists maintain that interests of citizens are guided by
their ascriptive identities like religion and ethnicity. These identities are seminal in
shaping their political choices in terms of voting preferences, support for certain policies.
An interesting example is given by Kopstein that in United States of America, most Jews
vote for the Democratic Party and most Southern Baptists vote Republican as these
respective parties appear to share similar ideas by these respective groups.13 This fact is
specifically true about most of the post colonial societies where primordial affiliations are
very strong and political choices are strongly decided on the basis of religion, ethnicity,
race, gender, caste identities (as in case of India). The growing complexities of modern
societies supplement the new variants to these identities, based on sexual orientation,
commitment to environmentalism etc. which is either accommodated or rejected by the
political order.

The third determinant happens to be the institution. Contemporary political analysis finds
the role of institutions decisive in running a political regime. Scholars who belong to the
school of Neo-Institutionalism have put the entire focus back on institutions as structure
that controls the flow of power through the dynamics of its actions and interactions with
the other, variables and determinants. Institutions represent the long nurtured rules and
formalisation of political process in a society. These institutions run the wheels of
government machinery and are the bedrock of political life. Therefore, what emerges
from the discussion is that these are institutions like elections, parliaments, judiciary,
and political parties etc. that make any political regime work. At the same time one must
remember that the institutions and their functioning may vary in different political
systems.

Scholars may apply these different approaches and line of reasoning to understand any
particular problem. For example, in order to explain prevalence of democracy or the lack
of it, the interest perspective will highlight the size of middle class, the identity
perspective will try to analyse it from presence or absence of population’s commitment
to representative government and participation. Institutionalists will try to figure it out
by viewing the kind of political arrangement of institutions in the society. Similarly
another interesting example given by Kopstein and Lichbach is the case of health
insurance and pension. We find that the most advanced democracies have publicly
funded health system, United States of America being the exception. This fact can be
explained from interest point by showing the influence of powerful insurance company
and medical practioners who oppose government interference in the market. On the
other hand, the explanation from identity view will highlight the scepticism towards
state’s interference in the market. Institutional explanation will emphasise the manner in
which legislators related to health is easily blocked by same legislators.

Topic 4: Evolution and Changing Nature of Comparative Politics

Like other disciplines, Comparative Politics has also evolved with time gradually. Most
specifically, it has been the post second world war era that it got entrenched as a sub

13
ibid.p2.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

discipline and consolidated itself under leadership of David Easton in American Political
science Association (APSA).

Value Addition-Begining of Comparative Politics

Did You know

Comparative Government and Politics has been able to establish itself as a

separate sub-discipline of Political Science only after 1950s. It has been
basically the Behavioural Movement under leadership of David Easton in
American Political science Association (APSA) that projected it as a
separate scientific inquiry.

Jean Blondel has produced a critical account of evolution of Comparative Politics by

categorising it in three phases- from beginning till middle of 18th century and from mid
18th century till 1914 and from then to the present time.14 In his review of Comparative
Politics, Blondel remarks that before 1914, Comparative Politics has successively taken
two main forms. First phase extends up to mid 18th century where blueprints for
organising societies were proposed, and second from mid 18 th century to 1914. The
initial phase employed normative approach, explicit in the work of Thomas Aquinas to
Locke and Rousseau. The subsequent period adopted a legalistic and constitutional
approach till First World War. Unfortunately, both the normative as well as legalistic
phases were very general and failed to secure Comparative Politics a special status. 15
Subsequently, democracy got firmly established in many countries therefore setting up
successful constitutional rule. Scholarship of that time concentrated on the issue of
constitutional rule and procured this discipline a special status. Best example is
Montesquieu’s work that acted as the vestibule linking two dominant phases in
Comparative Politics. It initiated a sequence of relevant works in the subject by many
like Tocqueville, Bagehot, Bryce, Lowell, Ostrogorski, Mosca, Mitchell. They all followed
inductive method and appealed all to recognise their limitations.

A new phase started from 1914 when comparative politics became separate and special
branch of study of politics.16 New works from various scholars in twentieth century
gradually expanded the domains of the subject providing some truly comparative works.
Some examples are H. Finer, Theory and Practice of Modern Government (1949),
Herbert Simon Administrative Behaviour (1947), Maurice Duverger Political Parties
(1950), etc. The decade of 1950s was outlined by behaviouralism, 1960s with
developmental models, dependency approach, political culture approach, and the most
recent ones as new institutionalism, rational choice theory.

14
Blondel,Jean “Then and Now: Comparative Politics, Political Studies, (1999), Vol XLVII, 152-160, p.153.
15
Ibid.p.153.
16
Ibid, p.155.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

David Easton, the pioneer of the System Analysis

(Source of the picture: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton)

Klaus von Beyme‘s attempt to understand the entire history of Comparative Politics by
dividing it in 3 different phases find resonance with similar attempts by other scholars
like Chilcote. Beyme names these three phases as pre-modern, modern and post-
modern, which bear some semblance with other typology in form of pre-paradigmatic
and paradigmatic phases proposed by Chilcote.

4.1 Pre-modern phase

Pre-modern phase was highly speculative and normative, mostly ethnocentric, used
comparisons in an anecdotal way, but hardly ever attempted systematic comparisons
over time.17 Pre-paradigmatic phase do not have presence of single theoretical approach
in scientific community. The pre-modern or pre-paradigmatic phase is the traditional
phase ridden with many limitations like being descriptive, assumptive, too generalised
and impressionistic. Pre-modern comparisons mostly aimed at classification of whole
political orders.18 As such this phase was marked by porosity of boundaries of different
disciplines like philosophy, history, jurisprudence etc. There was pressure to find
similarities and overall the objective was to establish classification or typologies rather
that focused or meticulous study of any particular systems.

4.2 Modern Phase:

17
Beyme, Klaus von “The Evolution of Comparative Politics” in Daniele Caramani (ed) Comparative Politics,
OUP, 2008,P.28.
18
Ibid, p. 29.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

The Comparative Politics in modern times have been able to overcome many of the
lacunae of its preceding paradigm. This paradigm bloomed due to contributions coming
from various corners. Machiavelli unleashed the unconventional, followed by
Montesquieu, Tocqueville, J S Mill. Scientific temperament was specially encapsulated by
approaches adopted by Darwin, Spencer, Talcot Parson, Max Weber, Karl Popper, and
Charles Merriam. The more recent works of David Easton, Almond Powell, Sydney Verba,
Crane Brinton, Theda Schokpol etc. have greatly expanded the nature and scope of the
discipline and this process is ongoing.

The phase of modernity had overwhelming stress on scientific comparisons, empiricism,

experimentations. It resulted in establishment of separate disciplines such as Political
Science and sociology in social sciences and aided scientific and aimed comparative
studies. This endeavour was formalised with the Behavioural movement under David
Easton in post Second World War era.

Value addition-surf and know

For Understanding Behavioural movement in Political science

Go to: k-12.pisd.edu/schools/pshs/soc_stu/comp_gv/Ch3_04_3.pdf

The book Politics of Developing Areas by Almond and Coleman published in 1960 sharply
defined the character of the new Comparative Political Movement. 19 This got further
momentum from functionalist system theories. Rigorous criteria for scientific
comparisons were developed and new impetus to venture beyond the studies of just
evolution and history got impetus. Under influence of scientism, scholars started seeking
data for interpretation and substantiating their research and findings. Scholars tried to
spot regularities to establish generalisations. Research activities became more
integrated. This behavioural upheaval expanded the frontiers of political science by
stressing interconnections between social, cultural and sometimes economic aspect of
life.20 However in the following decade, the tenets of behaviouralism were subjected to
scathing criticisms as it was neither able to predict or explain new problems nor was able

19
Mohanty, Manorajan (1975),“Comparative Politics Theory and the Third World Sensitivity” in Teaching
Politics, No. 122, pp. 24.
20
Ibid. pp.24.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

to come up with satisfying solutions for the same.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton/Easton%27s_models/Theory#mediaviewer/Fil
e:Easton-System_of_political-life.PNG

Sooner the problems in the behavioural approach in comparative politics led to rise of
new approaches in the field like the Modernisation theory and Development school.
These theories held that all societies progress following similar stages of development as
the western countries. In a way they were on one hand trying to entrench the superiority
of their discourse of knowledge and colonial ventures, one the other hand; they were
also offering little hopes to the developing and under developed societies that someday
people of these societies will also be fortunate enough to live the desired lives (like that
of the west).

Modernisation theory and political development approaches was typically ethnocentric

and Eurocentric.21 Its severe limitation gave rise to the Dependency theory,
practically, the first approach emerging from the non western countries. Dependency
theory tried to analyse the inequality and problems of the developing counties in light of
the global pursuits of imperialism and colonialism. It offered the understanding of the
globe in terms of centre and periphery. This theory stated that it has been the imperial
rule and colonial drainage of resources, labour and raw material which responsible for
the impoverished conditions of the developing societies. By doing so, it also exposed the
unjust, oppressive and exploitative enterprises of the developed west that has virtually
ruined these societies. In the globe, the core or centre is represented by the handful

21
Please refer to my next Chapter on “Going Beyond Euro Centrism” in the same syllabus for the detailed
discussion on the same.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

countries of the developed west and the periphery or the margin is signified by the
developing societies. The core gets richer by the continuous and perpetual usurping of
resources from the poor and vulnerable peripheries. The Dependency thesis can be
elaborated with the following diagram:

Core
Developed Western Countries

Globe/world
Periphery
(Developing Countries or post colonial societies)

Dependency Theory

Source: Self Creation (Pushpa Kumari).

Value addition-surf and know

Understanding Dependency theory

www.clas.ufl.edu/users/.../Dependency_A_Critical_Synthesis.pdf


However, this theory failed to recognise the nuanced variation among the developing
societies by clubbing it under one roof. It ignored the influence of vital determinants like
history, culture, different colonial experience of these societies. Also racism, ethnicity,
gender dimension were not factored in its analysis.

The problems in one mode of understanding lead us to discover a new one.

Consequently, the Political Culture approach appeared in 1960s, having a larger
canvass and greater inclusivity. It emphasised the study of set of belief, orientation and
attitudes, those governing the polities. Psychological and historical dimensions of the
societies and citizens were highlighted. Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba initiated the
discourse on political culture and Arendt Lijphart made required modifications to it. The
most recent approach that has created considerable interest in the field is the New
Institutionalism that came in late 1970s. It symbolises the renewed interest in
studying the vitality of institutions. Important work in this regard has been done by
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen. This approach called upon the researchers to take
into account the interaction of the institutions amongst themselves and its effect on the
society. It shifted the focus to study how these institutions influence citizens,
organisations, associations and other variables in that society. In this way we see that
Comparative Politics is continuously evolving by inputs coming from various directions
and new ways of understanding.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Value addition-surf and know

Understanding the political culture:

users.polisci.wisc.edu/schatzberg/ps657/chilton1988.pdf

4.3 Post modern Phase:

The Post Modern era stands with clear difference with its predecessor, the phase of
modernity. In some ways it negated and challenged all the earlier established modes of
knowledge and understanding. It claimed that social facts are social constructs. As such,
there cannot be any universal concept of good or bad. Different societies differ in terms
of their values, political system everything. Post modern impetus caused many hiccups
in comparative politics as in absence of certain set rules and universal standards, it
became very difficult for researcher to compare and arrive to any conclusions. In that
sense it de-centred the entire discourse. Many scholars felt helpless, as such theories
like post modernism and relativism opened a Pandora box of problems, but never came
up with any solutions. Serious research cannot be conducted in utter relativism, where
there is no parameters to compare and evaluate. Gradually, scholarships came to terms
with this impending danger and sought a balance with having certain reference point on
the one hand but at the same time abstaining away from any ethnocentric or Euro
centric prejudices and presumptions.

4.4 The Newer Insights: Third World Perspective

The contribution of post modernism can be seen in terms of providing inner critique and
scepticism rather than adding some substantial new theories to the field. Along with
other factors, newer insights like post modernism also strengthened the confidence of
post colonial societies to create an alternative understanding of their selves and
societies. In the decade of 1950s and 1960s, the emergence of third world as been seen
as the most significant aspect of social science. In fact it gave rise to new mode of
understanding known as ‘third world perspective.’ Third world began to acquire a distinct
character by the end of sixties, the Eurocentric discourse of social science gradually
started to acknowledge it and also introspect its own credentials due to unpredicted
crisis like youth uprisings, anti-war movements, China’s Cultural Revolution etc.22
Analysing the discourse of comparative politics in 20 th century, Manoranjan Mohanty
state that this field has undergone three phases of development: (a) The period of
institutionalism from the 1920s till the middle of the 1950s, (b) the period of
behaviouralism and modernisation which saw its climax in the mid sixties (c) The
emergence of third world challenge since the beginning of seventies. 23 Comparativists
increasingly started recognising the peculiarities of Asia, Africa and Latin America
(ASAFLA) due to its colonial past and present encounter with neo-colonialism.

22
Mohanty, Manoranan (1975),“Comparative Politics Theory and the Third World Sensitivity” in Teaching
Politics, No. 122, pp. 25.
23
Ibid, pp23.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

Arend Lijphart

(Source of the picture: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton)

Conclusion

It may be concluded that one of the greatest contribution of comparative politics lies in
the fact that by necessitating comparison, in some ways it also glorifies the value of
‘plurality’; plurality of the ways in which politics operate and diversity of the alternatives
that exist in the world. No doubt, the field lies in certain disarray, but that cannot
besiege its future. Newer developments are gradually unfolding thus bolstering the
discipline. By becoming self reflexive, creative, open and critical, comparativists
constantly aim to expand our vistas. As Lijphart aptly remarks that a "conscious thinker"
in comparative politics should realize the limitations of the comparative method, but he
should also recognize and take advantage of its possibilities.24

Summary:

 Within the field of Political science, Comparative Politics is that major subfield,
which makes comparison its essence.
 The greatest contribution of this field has been that it essentialised comparison as
a fundamental method of inquiry.
 Political Theory and Comparative Politics have developed in close proximity and
the earliest comparativists have been political theorists.
 Kopstein and Lichbach consider Comparative Politics, Political Theory and
International Relations as three important poles in Political Science.
 Kopstein and Lichbach have identified three important tools of analysis as
determinants of comparative politics: interests, identities and institutions.
 It is in the post second world war era that Comparative Politics firmly established
itself as a sub discipline and consolidated itself under leadership of David Easton
in American Political science Association (APSA).

24
Lijphart Arend, “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American Political Science Review,
Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 1971), p. 685, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1955513.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

 Klaus von Beyme attempts to understand the entire history of Comparative

Politics by dividing it in 3 different phases as pre-modern, modern and post-
modern while Chilcote refers to two phases- pre-paradigmatic and
paradigmatic.
 Comparative Politics has developed through various theories proposed by
comparativists like, Institutional, Behavioural, Modernisation approach,
Political Development approach, Dependency theory, Political Culture and
New institutionalism which is the most contemporary.
 By end of 1960s new mode of understanding known as ‘third world
perspective’ emerged that represented voices of post colonial societies.
 By becoming self reflexive, creative, open and critical, comparativists constantly
aim to expand the discourse of Comparative Politics.

Questions for consideration

1. Discuss Comparative Politics as a major sub-field of Political Science.

2. Illustrate the contributions of various comparativists in expanding the
domains of Comparative Politics.
3. Describe the challenges in front of the discipline of Comparative Politics in
the contemporary times.
4. Do you think that Euro centrism in Comparative Politics is one of the
biggest challenge that needs to be overcome. Elaborate.

Some Objective Questions:

a. Comparative Politics is a major subfield of Political science, which makes

comparison its essence. (True/False)

b. Political Theory and Comparative Politics have developed in close proximity and
the earliest comparativists have been political theorists. (True/False)

c. Changing dimensions of society and politics do not bother comparativists.

(True/False)

d. Comparison should be the essence of political inquiry. (True/False)

e. David Easton’s inputs brought revolutionary changes in Comparative Politics.

(True/False)

f. Modernisation and Development approach provided all solutions to the existing

problems in Comparative Politics. (True/False)

g. Dependency Theory is the first approach appearing from non western counties.
(True/False)

h. Political Culture and New Institutionalism qualify under traditional approach in

Comparative Politics. (True/False)

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

(Answers are provided in the end)

Glossary:

Ascriptive Identities: Those identities that are not under ones control and one is born
with them like race, ethnicity, gender, religion, caste, species etc. Sociologists think that
these are the reason for stratification in any society.

Behaviouralism: A phase in Comparative Politics that is associated with the scientific

method, value neutrality and empiricism under leadership of American Political Science
Association.

Comparativists: Scholars studying/ researching Comparative Government and Politics.

Ethnocentrism: Te privileging of western race, culture, religion and ways of living and
prejudices against the post colonial societies.

Euro centrism: Bias towards Western institutions and processes that emanates from
various sources including the colonial domination and presumed inferiority of the non-
western societies.

Institutionalism: Known as the traditional approach that had study of political

institutions as it central focus.

Neo-Institutionalism: Denotes a new phase that refers the study of institutions and its
functioning as most vital for study of Politics. But it is different from old institutionalism
as it includes many other crucial determinants in its approach.

Paradigmatic: Classification based on various paradigms (phases of Knowledge).

Political Culture: Signifies sum total of set of belief, orientation and attitudes o the
citizens towards their polities.

Political Theorists: Scholars engaged with study ad theorisation of Political theory, one
of the sub-disciplines of Political Science.

Post modernism: Denotes a departure from the usual lines of analysis, where the given
set of universal assumptions are rejected and subjective interpretations becomes the
reference point.

Answers to Objective questions of exercise 2.1

a. True
b. True
c. False
d. True
e. True

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

f. False
g. True
h. False

References

Bara, Judith and Mark Pennington (2009). Comparative Politics (eds.) Sage Publications,
India.

Beyme, Klaus von (2008) ‘The Evolution of comparative Politics’ in Comparative Politics
(ed) Daniele Caramani, Oxford university Press, oxford, New York.

Blondel, Jean (1999) ‘Then and Now: Comparative Politics in Political Studies Vol.47 (1).

Chandhoke, Neera (1996) ‘Limits of Comparative Political Analysis’, Economic and

Political Weekly, vol. 31. January 27, No. 4.

Chilcote, Ronald, H. (1994) Theories of Comparative Politics, Boulder, West view.

Kopstein, J. and Lichbach, M. (eds) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities,

and Institutions in a Changing Global Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lichbach, mark Irving and Alan S. Zukckerman (2009) Comparative Politics Rationality,
Culture and structure, Cambridge University Press.

Lijphart Arend, “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 1971), p. 682- 693, URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1955513.

Mohanty, Manoranjan (1975) ‘Comparative Political Theory and Third World Sesitivity’ in
Teaching Politics No. 1&2.

Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth (2010) Foundations of Comparative Politics, (
Second Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

O’ Neil, Patrick H. (2007) Essentials of Comparative Politics (second Edition), W. W.

Norton and Company, New York, London.

Roy Anupama (2001) “Comparative Method and Strategies of Comparison” in Punjab

Journal of Politics.Vol XXV (2).

Web links

http://polsci.colorado.edu/RES/theory.html

www.nd.edu/apsacp

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton/Easton%27s_models/Theory#mediaviewer/Fil
e:Easton-System_of_political-life.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton/Easton%27s_models/Theory#mediaviewer/Fil
e:Easton-System_of_political-life.PNG

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 Understanding Comparative Politics

(Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists#Montesquieu)

J J JJ J JJ J

http://ppaulluss.typepad.com/photos/panopt/js_mill.jpg

(Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists#Aristotle)

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

View publication stats