Comparative

exam 1

Politics

who gets what, when, and how

Traditional comparative politics

Legal scholars mainly focused on Europe with single case studies (only looking at one country at a time) and gave detailed descriptions rather than explanations.

Critiques on traditional comparative politics

Ethnocentric

Too descriptive

Too formalistic

Not actually comparative

Ethnocentric

There was not a representative sample as scholars were only looking at Europe

Too descriptive

Traditional comparative politics only have detailed descriptions on how things were, not necessarily explanations for why things were that way.

Too formalistic

As legal scholars were the main ones doing comparative politics, so the main focuses were on written legal aspects of politics like constitutions. But they were missing how people behaved and lived, and how they actually experienced the political system. For example the Soviet unions constitution looks great, but the reality for people there was oppression, discrimination, and an authoritarian government.

Not actually comparative

If you're only looking at single case studies you're not actually comparing anything! It's good to get in depth knowledge on that case, but that doesn't help in comparing political systems

behavioral revolution

A movement within political science during the 1950s and 1960s to develop general theories about individual political behavior that could be applied across all countries.

Brought in the scientific method, empirical evidence, explanatory cases, and generalizations about human behavior. Led to shift towards modern comparative politics

Modern C.P

Explanation

At least 2 cases

Empirical

Less ethnocentric and less regionally focused.

Solved some problems from traditional comparative politics, but there is still a long way to go.

Methodology

Most similar systems (MSS)

Most different systems (MDS)

These methods try to narrow down as many variables as possible since we are observers and cannot actually manipulate any of the variables.

Most Similar Systems (MSS)

Independent variables are held constant

Dependent variable is allowed to vary

most different systems (MDS)

Independent variables are allowed to vary

Dependent variable is held constant

Goal/mission of methodology

To use the scientific approach to derive generalizable rules about government and politics from empirical comparison across national political systems

Challenges in methodology

We are observers and cannot manipulate any variables

There are too many variables and too few cases- it is hard to isolate variables as causes

Data sources are limited

This means that the experimental and statistical methods are unavailable for CP- we cannot for sure determine cause and effect

Theoretical frameworks

Rational choice

Culturalism

Structuralism

Rational choice

An economic basis

Hobbes, Smith, Pareto

People are motivated to maximize their advantage- rational drive

Clean, concise, individualistic

Mathematical logic, doesn't consider cultural ties

Culturalism

Anthropological Approach, culture is the driving organizing force in humans

Montesquieu, Weber, Masca

Detailed and nuanced case readings- lots of fieldwork

Structuralism

Marx, Weber

Assumes people are embedded in relation to each other and institution

Focus on social and political institutions (especially long standing ones)

Focus on class

Theoretical framework in comparative politics (Lichbach and Zuckerman)

A grand intellectual vision

Theoretical rigor

Grand intellectual vision

A mission statement for comparative politics and what it could be in the future.

This vision includes ease of access, standard data, more info, a concise scientific universal theory

Right now cases are too specific, too many variables, so they cannot be concise

Theoretical rigor

Want to go beyond the case, say what it says about a political phenomenon

The state

The organization that maintains a monopoly of violence over a territory.

Related concept is sovereignty, of having control over one's territory.

Treaty of Westphalia

Established mutual sovereignty

regime

The fundamental rules and norms of politics. A regime outlines long term goals that guide the state with respect to freedom and equality (most commonly distinguishing between democratic and non democratic regimes)

Government

the leadership that runs the state

Institutionalization

Self perpetuating, valued for its own sake. For example it does not matter who is the president at a certain time, the presidency still has legitimacy that outlasts the person in office.

Comparative Politics

the study and comparison of domestic politics across countries. Compares who gets what, when, and how across many countries.

Issues of cultural bias

Miss real threats, opportunities, commonalities.

Lack of self awareness, self reflection, and critical thinking

Empirical reality

What it is, not what it should be.

Helps us to get past cultural biases by giving us date and statistics basis with the scientific method.

Legitimacy

A value judgement about whether something is right and proper. It is what allows states to enforce their will without much threat of punishment

Three types of legitimacy

traditional, charismatic, rational-legal

Tilly's goals of state making

War making

Extraction of resources

Capital accumulation

Standard narrative of state making

People living as individuals, to gain protection from each other people come together to create the state.

They voluntarily gave up freedom and resources for security

Social contract theory, state is neutral, benign origins (generally peaceful)

Tilly's war making state

Standard narrative isn't really true at all, there was lots of force, power, and violence.

1400-1600 Europe

Tudors (royal family) in England and Louis XIII and Louis XIV in France

Racketeering- created threat, then made locals pay for protection from their threat and fighting

Centralization

Necessary for the modern state but to get it needed:

Disarmament of lords

Money (from war and Venetians)

This allowed for a monopoly of violence (what state is)

This is a very violent way to form state by force, not at all like the standard narrative

Objectives of the modern state

War making

State making

Protection

Extraction

Phase 1 of Colonialism

Latin America 1500-1800

Phase 2 of Colonialism

Asia 1600-1950

Phase 3 of Colonialism

Africa, Middle East 1800-1970

Long thought that nothing of value in Africa which is why it was colonized last

Berlin conference

1883, scramble for Africa, divided land without consideration for the ethnic groups and people actually living there

Latin America

Colonization by Spanish and Portuguese (treaty of tordesillas w/ pope)

1800-1830 movement for independence

Asia

China generally maintained independence in the sense that they weren't really colonized, but were influenced greatly by British through trade treaties.

British in India

French in china and India

Africa

British and French mainly, but large number of countries present = competition

Borders drawn for control of colony without any thought for locals

Middle East

British and French

Focused on water area (for trade and military power)

Straight like borders like Africa- not drawn for locals

Shift between British and French control- leads to lots of instability today

Motives of Colonialism

Economic - main motive, get raw materials, able to industrialize bc of colonization, then want to expand markets to sell their goods

Geopolitical - want advantages over rivals. Ex. South Africa strategic location