TLDR;
This video introduces the field of comparative politics, defining it as the study and comparison of domestic politics across countries. It explores key concepts like power, institutions, analytical concepts, methods, and ideals, particularly the balance between freedom and equality. The lecture also discusses the evolution of comparative politics as a science, from early descriptive approaches to more rigorous, data-driven methods, and addresses limitations and conflicts within the field, such as methodological divides and differing assumptions about human behavior.
- Comparative politics involves studying domestic politics across countries, focusing on power dynamics and decision-making.
- Key concepts include analytical concepts (assumptions and theories), methods (tools for testing theories), and ideals (beliefs about desired political outcomes).
- The field has evolved from descriptive studies to more scientific methods, influenced by historical events and technological advancements.
Introduction to Comparative Politics [0:01]
Comparative politics is the study and comparison of domestic politics across different countries. Politics involves the struggle for power within a group, where power is the ability to influence others or impose one's will. This competition for public power is central to politics. Comparative politics focuses on internal dynamics within countries, contrasting with international relations, which examines relations between countries.
Key Concepts in Political Science [2:39]
Political science and comparative politics involve three main categories: analytical concepts, methods, and ideals. Analytical concepts are assumptions and theories that guide research, focusing on cause and effect relationships. Institutions, defined as self-perpetuating organizations or activities valued for their own sake, establish rules, norms, and structures. Methods are tools used to study and test theories, seeking explanations for political events. Ideals are beliefs and values about desired political outcomes, such as the balance between freedom and equality.
Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method [5:22]
Comparative politics compares the pursuit of power across countries, using specific methods to argue cause and effect. It addresses questions like why some countries are democratic while others are authoritarian, and why power distribution varies. The comparative method involves comparing cases to draw conclusions and generalizations applicable to other contexts. Inductive reasoning generates hypotheses from single or few cases, while deductive reasoning starts with a hypothesis and tests it against multiple cases.
Limitations in Comparative Politics [9:48]
Comparative politics faces several limitations. It's difficult to control variables due to the complexity of real-world social sciences, where individuals act on subjective preferences. Many variables are interconnected, leading to multi-causality, making it hard to isolate specific cause-and-effect relationships. Information is limited by the relatively small number of countries and restricted access due to cost, time, and governmental secrecy. The field's focus is often skewed towards Europe, with specialization potentially limiting broader comparisons. Selection bias, where only one side of a relationship is examined, and endogeneity, where it's hard to determine cause and effect between variables, further complicate research.
Evolution of Comparative Politics as a Science [17:05]
Comparative politics has evolved from descriptive to more scientific approaches. Aristotle conducted comparative research on political systems, developing the practice of statecraft. Machiavelli adopted a comparative approach to political systems, emphasizing pragmatism. Hobbes and Locke, social contract theorists, used empirical observation to shape their governmental ideals. Rousseau and Montesquieu influenced the development of constitutions with their studies on civil liberties and separation of powers. Marx and Weber analyzed political and economic organization and power. By the early 1900s, political science was distinct but descriptive, with limited methodology and a focus on Europe.
Mid-20th Century Developments [25:06]
The mid-20th century marked a turning point with the World Wars and the Cold War, prompting a movement towards more rigorous study of human behavior. Technological innovation, particularly computers, suggested social problems could be solved through technological expertise and statistical analysis. Modernization theory emerged, positing that societies develop into capitalist democracies, with the U.S. and the West seen as the most advanced. The behavioral revolution in the 1970s shifted focus to individual political behavior, aiming to predict political actions and institutional dynamics.
Conflicts Within Comparative Politics [30:38]
Two major conflicts exist within comparative politics. The first concerns methodology, dividing researchers between qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods involve deep investigations of few cases, generating data from interviews and observations, but may lack rigorously defined variables and have small sample sizes. Quantitative methods use statistical analysis and mathematical models on a wider array of cases, but may overemphasize numerically expressed variables and miss nuanced details. Mixed methods attempt to combine both approaches. The second conflict involves assumptions about human behavior, particularly whether humans are rational actors who weigh costs and benefits. Rational choice theory uses game theory to study political rules and human behavior, but critics argue it ignores historical complexity, unintended consequences, and cultural factors.
Key Ideas: Political Institutions and Freedom vs. Equality [35:13]
Two key ideas are crucial for understanding comparative politics: political institutions and the balance between freedom and equality. Institutions embody rules, norms, and values that give meaning to human activity, such as democracy, ethnic groups, or religions. Formal institutions are officially sanctioned rules, while informal institutions are unwritten and often more powerful. Institutional stickiness refers to how entrenched an institution is in society, often defended when threatened. The balance between freedom, defined as the ability to act independently, and equality, defined as the material standard of living, is a central ideological consideration. The relationship between these ideals is complex, with debates over whether they are mutually exclusive or can coexist.