INTRODUCTION TO

COMPARATIVE POLITICS
 Overview of the Course
Introduction

Nation States
Origin of nation-states Governance and Media and
The politics of nation-
Democracy and Political Political Actors Politics
states Democratization Structures Executive, legislature
Understanding Media as a
and Judiciary
multinational states political entity
Federal & Unitary Role of constitution in
Sovereignty and separation Political discourse
governance
of power in politics What is democracy? Systems, and public
Accountability and rule of Bureaucracy
law
Waves of Parliamentarism, opinion
Democratization Importance of civil
Authoritarian and Presidentialism society Globalization
totalitarian regimes

Case Studies: South Asia – Pakistan, India, Afghanistan; East Asia – China; Middle East – Arab Spring; Africa – South African Apartheid
What is Politics?

Everything
 What is Politics?
1 2 3
• Individuals • Law • Voting
• Institutions • Justice • Constituencies
• Societies • Power • Representation
4 5 6
• Tuition • Wealth • Gender
• Curriculum • Taxes • Distribution
• Research • Markets • Development
7 8 9
• Opinion • Conflict • Opportunity
• Influence • Negotiation • Equality
• Responses • Security • Equity
 Politics is…

Who gets what, when, how and

why?
It is the authoritative allocation of scarce
resources in a given community
Politics will always have winners and losers
 Politics

• Politics is the process by which individual

interests are reconciled with the collective action.
“OR”
• It is a process through which “individuals and
groups reach agreement on a course of common,
or collective, action—even as they disagree on
the intended goals of that action”
- Samuel Kernel
 Politics
• Politics is often associated with negative perceptions,
such as corruption, conflict, and abuse of power.
However, the purpose of politics and government is
creating the conditions for pursuit of good life.
• Politics has narrowly been seen as embracing institutions
and actors operating in a ‘public’ sphere concerned with
the collective organization of social existence.
• However, when politics is understood in terms of power-
structured relationships, it may be seen to operate in the
‘private’ sphere, as well.
 Politics
The vague nature of politics can better be understood in association
with two broad approaches:
a) Arena (Location) in which case behavior becomes ‘political’ because
of where it takes place.
• It is called arena because of the “place or institutional forum” in which
politics takes place. This place or institutional forum is usually that of
formal government. Politics as an arena is characteristically associated with
the realm of public politics. 
b) Process in which case behavior is the political behavior that exhibits
distinctive characteristics, that can take place in any social context.
The political behavior is independent of location, and is viewed as a
mechanism
• Politics as a process is a universal phenomenon occurring in a much wider
range of institutions, activities and groups
 Politics
• Both approaches have an implicit conception of political behavior in common, as
a particular type of human conduct or activity.
• Adopting the arena approach, politics is a particular type of human activity–
making and implementing “public policy” that occurs in a particular place – a set
of institutions of government, where human actions constituting politics, are
those associated with the influence of a public institution, i.e., government
• Defining politics as a process, it is a universal aspect of human behavior, which
comprises all the activities of “co‐operation, negotiation and conflict”, whereby
people go about organizing the use, production or distribution of resources,
including human, natural and others. As a general process, politics occurs not
only in the formal public domain but also in the informal, the private one.
• Politics is about the process of decision making that rational individuals engage
in, when faced with a problem of collective choice – a problem that may arise in
the whole range of human institutions.
 Comparative Politics
• Comparative politics focuses on understanding and
explaining political phenomena that take place within a
state, society, country, or political system
• Comparative politics focuses on internal or domestic
dynamics, which distinguishes it from International
Relations (IR) - a field of study largely concerned with the
“external” relations or foreign policies of states.
• Comparative politics studies politics in foreign countries,
whereas IR studies politics between or of foreign countries
 Comparative Politics
• Comparative politics involves a comparative study of politics—a
search for similarities and differences between and among political
phenomena, including
 Political institutions
such as legislatures, political parties, or political interest groups;
 Politicalbehavior
such as voting, demonstrating, or reading political pamphlets; or
 Politicalideas
such as Liberalism, Conservatism, or Marxism
• Everything that politics studies, comparative politics studies; the
latter just undertakes the study with an explicit comparative
methodology in mind
(Mahler, 2000)
 Comparative Politics
• Comparative politics involves the systematic study and
comparison of the world’s political systems. It seeks to
explain differences between as well as similarities among
countries. In contrast to journalistic reporting on a single
country, comparative politics is particularly interested in
exploring patterns, processes, and regularities among
political systems
(Wiarda 2000)
 It is getting inside the Black Box

• Quantitative analysis does a job of showing a correlation between

X and Y but usually it does not explain why this correlation exists
in the first place. Getting inside the black box of explanation is the
core task of qualitative comparative analysis. Hence,
Comparative Politics is getting inside the black box
 Approaches to the Comparative Study of Political Systems
Traditional Approaches
• Traditional approaches were mainly associated with the traditional outlook of
politics which underlined the study of the state and government
• Traditional approaches are principally concerned with the study of the
organization and activities of the state and principles and the ideas which
motivate political organizations and activities.
• According to Political philosophers supporting these approaches, the study of
Political Science should be limited to the formal structures of the government,
laws, rules and regulations.
• Therefore, they stress various norms such as what 'ought to be' or 'should be'
rather than 'what is’. E.g., 'what should be an ideal state?’
• Traditional approaches have been least successful to identify the role of the
individuals who are important in molding and remolding the shape and nature
of national and international politics.
• Main Contributors: Aristotle, Plato, Finer, Sartori
 Traditional Approaches
Philosophical Tradition
• This approach states that values are inseparable from facts. It is
mainly an ethical and normative study of politics, hence is
concerned with what 'should be’.
• This approach seeks to understand the fundamental nature of
human beings, recognizing principles and standards of right
conduct in political life. It believes in developing norms or certain
standards.
Pros: Cons:
• It examines every aspect of political phenomena • Its practical
without any partiality application
appears to be a
• It uses reason to explore the truth myth
 Traditional Approaches
Historical Approach
• This approach highlights on the study of history of every political reality
to analyze any situation. Political theorists like Machiavelli, believed
that politics and history are strongly inter-related, and therefore, the
study of politics always should have a historical viewpoint
• Main attribute of historical approach is that history as a written or
recorded subject and focuses on the past events. From history,
researchers come to know how man was in the past and what he is now
Pros: Cons:
History communicates researchers how Past evidence does leave alarming
government, political parties and many other gaps. Political history is often simply
institutions worked, their successes and a record of great men and great
failures and from these, they receive lessons events, rather than a comprehensive
which guide them in determining the future account of total political activity
course of action.
 Traditional Approaches
Institutional Approach
• Institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal political
structures like legislature, executive, and judiciary
• It focuses on the rules of the political system, the powers of the various
institutions, the legislative bodies, and how the constitution works
• It originally concentrated on the development and operation of legislatures,
executives and judiciaries. As the approach developed, the list is extended to
include political parties, constitutions, bureaucracies, interest groups and other
institutions which are more or less enduringly engaged in politics.
Pros: Cons:
Helps compare state, constitution and other Undermines the role of
legal institutions individuals and ignores
Includes non formal institutions – such as international politics
party system, movements
Approaches to the Comparative Study of Political Systems
Modern Approaches
• Many theorists regard modern approaches as a reaction against the
traditional approaches. These approaches are mainly concerned with
scientific study of politics.
• Modern Approaches believe in inter-disciplinary study. They stress
scientific methods of study and attempt to draw scientific conclusions
in Political Science.
• Its focus is on the analysis of institution as the basic unit of study. With
the advent of industrialization and behavioral revolution in the field of
political science, emphasis shifted from the study “what ought to” to
“what is”.
• Today, political scientists are more interested in analyzing how people
behave in matters related to the state and government.
• Main contributors: David Easton, G. A. Almond, Morton A. Kaplan, Marx
 Modern Approaches
Positivism and Constructivism
• Most of contemporary comparative politics is founded on positivist assumptions,
implying real facts that are observable and verifiable by different individuals
• Social phenomena can be studied in the same way as natural sciences
phenomena, through hypothesis testing and theory formation.
• Political scientists who believe in modern approaches assume that there are
dimensions of individual political thought that can be measured through survey
and analysis
• Constructivism considers facts to be socially embedded and socially constructed.
Thus, the individual researcher cannot stand outside political phenomena as an
objective observer, but rather imposes his own social and cultural understanding
on the observed phenomena.
• While most positivist research assumes that individual is the main source of
social action, constructivism asserts the importance of collective understanding
and values
 Modern Approaches
Political-Economic Approach:
• The political scientists who contributed to this approach have
highlighted the heterogeneity of interests between the classes, as
classes are formed based on economic interests.
• This approach believes that Capitalists’ profit-making motives lead
to exploitation of workers. politics is controlled by the persons who
own sources of production and manage the process of distribution.
• Outside economic influence, politics has no independent authority.
Pros:
Cons:
• Studies developing countries • Negates Capitalism
• Believes in inter-disciplinary study • Believes in dictatorship of proletariat
• Adopts scientific method of classification
 Modern Approaches
Behaviouralism:
• Behaviouralism emphasizes on the study of political behaviour which
refers to acts, attitudes, preferences and expectations of human beings
in political context.
• Behavoiralism’s main methodological claim is that uniformities in
political behaviour could be discovered and expressed as
generalizations but such generalizations must be testable by reference
to observable political behaviours such as voting, public opinion or
decision making
Pros: Cons:

• It makes Political Sciences, a scientific study
• It identifies the behaviour of individuals in
political situations as the basic unit of analysis
• Human beings do not behave in similar
ways in similar circumstances
• it is difficult to always use scientific
method in the study of Political Science.
 Modern Approaches
System Approach:
• This approach signifies that a political system operates within the social
environment. Consequently, it is not possible to analyze political events in
isolation from other aspects of the society. To put in other way, influences from
the society, be it economic, religious or otherwise, do shape the political process.
• The political system operates within an environment, which produces demands
from different parts of the society such as demand for employment, minimum
wages, transportation, and health facilities. This establishes input, which is
received by the political system. The inputs are converted into 'outputs' by the
decision makers in the form of policies, rules, and laws.
Pros: Cons:
• Presents macro image of interaction between • Does not reveal policy process
socio-economic environment and political
system • Does not have future perspective
• Little information on the black box
• Can be applied to any country and society
 Modern Approaches
Structural-Functional Approach:
• The structural-functional approach may be considered as an offshoot of the
system analysis. According to this approach, political systems are special
systems of interaction that exist in all societies performing certain functions.
• This approach believes that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs
into outputs. Unlike the System approach, this approach explains the process
inside the black box through three-folded classification of governmental
functions relating to policy making and implementation. These functions are
 Rule making
 Rule application, and
 Rule judgement
Pros: Cons:
• Structures and functions are
• Attempts to decipher the black box intertwined
• Micro analysis of political systems • More focus on the process and less
on output
 Crux of the Approaches to Comparative Politics
The Five ‘I’s
1. Institutions: The roots of comparative political analysis are in the study of
constitutional structures and institutions created by those constitutions
2. Individuals: Citizens are consumers of public services. However, most
individual level explanations are focused on political elites and their role in
politics. the aggregation of individual behaviors makes collective behaviors
3. Interests: Who gets what; evaluation of interests can produce useful comparative
analysis. Individual behavior is assumed to be motivated by self-interest
4. Ideas: Ideas (such as norms, culture, ideologies, religion, and specific ideas about
policy) exert influence on choices made by the government
5. International Environment: Political systems are influenced by other nations
and organizations and this influence vary across countries. Wealthier countries
maintain much of their exceptionalism, while poorer countries lack economic
independence, which makes them politically dependent
 The Sixth ‘I’: Interactions
• Institutions do not act, the individuals within them act, through interaction. For
instance, individuals who are successful in some political settings, may not be in
others. Margaret Thatcher, a successful prime minister in British system might
have been unsuccessful in Scandinavian countries
• Another example is the interaction between international environment and
institutions. European and North American states have opted for liberal economic
model that fits their position better. Owing to this international environment
many Asian and Latin American states adopted a ‘developmental’ model to cope
with their relatively weak position in international market
• These interactions can vary across time. A bargainer in mid-twentieth century
(such as Bhutto) is likely to have been unsuccessful in early twentieth century
• The quality of research in comparative politics can be enhanced by understanding
this dependent variable “interactions”
Aristotle’s classification/comparison of politics
 Questions For Self-study/Discussion
• Can comparative politics focus only on what happens inside
countries?
• Is it possible to understand the internal politics of a place
without understanding and accounting for the impact of
external or transnational/international forces?
• Are economic, social, and cultural phenomena also political,
or do they fall into a completely different category?
• Is comparison in comparative politics different from
comparison in sociology or any other field of study?
 REFERENCES

• Comparative Politics, By Daniele Caramani

• Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues,
by Samirendra N. Ray
• Overview Of Comparative Politics, By Carles Boix And Susan C.
Stokes