POLI214 Comparative Politics – Core Exam Notes

Comparative Politics: Definition & Focus

Comparative Politics (CP) critically assesses how power is acquired, used and maintained across political systems. It is empirical, value-neutral and studies interactions within states, unlike International Relations (between states) or Political Theory (normative questions).

Core Questions

Why are some regimes stable and others volatile? Who makes decisions, on whose authority, and with what societal impact? Why do wealth, democracy and policy outcomes vary?

What We Compare

• Internal institutions (parliament, executive, electoral rules).
• Actors (voters, parties, interest groups).
• Processes (policy-making, communication, culture).

Alternative Lenses – The $5$ “I”s

Institutions – Interests – Ideas – Individuals – International environment (plus Interactions).

Goals & Value of Comparison

Describe, explain, predict similarities/differences; build theory; transfer best practice. “Not to be comparative is to be naively parochial.”

Classical Typologies of Political Systems

• Aristotle: number ruling $\times$ public vs private interest ⇒ $6$ forms (e.g., polity vs tyranny).
• Montesquieu: republic, monarchy, despotism.
• Cold-War “Three Worlds”: First (capitalist-democratic), Second (communist), Third (developing).
• Today: Democracy Index, Freedom House scores.

Comparative Research Methods

• Case study (single): representative, deviant, critical, prototypical, exemplary.
• Small-N qualitative: in-depth, contextual.
• Large-N quantitative: statistical, generalisable.
• Historical process-tracing.

Designs:
Most-Similar-System (MSS) – hold context constant, vary outcome.
Most-Different-System (MDS) – diverse cases, same outcome.
Common hurdles: few cases vs many variables, selection bias, meaning equivalence, global interdependence.

Key terms: hypothesis, dependent/independent variables, unit & level of analysis.

The State

Definition: sovereign authority over population, territory, acknowledged legitimacy (Weber’s “monopoly of legitimate force”).
Evolution: gunpowder warfare ⇒ bureaucracy; Reformation ⇒ Peace of Westphalia $1648$ ⇒ sovereignty norm; $19^{th}$–$20^{th}$-century expansion (warfare→welfare).
Diversity: from China’s $1.4\,\text{bn}$ to microstates (<$100{\,}000$ people).
Non-standard entities: quasi-states (Somalia), de-facto states (Somaliland, Taiwan), $\approx$ $189$ widely recognised states.

Economic Classification (World Bank, $2022$ GNI/$\text{capita}$)

High > $12{,}695$; Upper-middle $4{,}096$–$12{,}695$; Lower-middle $1{,}046$–$4{,}095$; Low < $1{,}045$.

Democracy

Approaches:
Procedural (free, fair, frequent elections; pluralism; rule of law).
Substantive (equality, inclusion, social outcomes).
Liberal vs Illiberal (electoral but ill-protected liberties).

Forms: Direct (rare, small polities) vs Representative (modern norm).
Waves (Huntington):
$1.$ $1828$–$1926$; $2.$ $1943$–$62$; $3.$ $1974$–post-Cold-War.
Assessment tools: Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index – $4$ categories: Full (≥$8$), Flawed ($6$–$7.99$), Hybrid ($4$–$5.99$), Authoritarian (<$4$). $2021$: Full $21$ states, Authoritarian $59$.
Freedom House: Free, Partly Free, Not Free (aggregate $0$–$100$ scale). Trend: democratic backsliding, “democracy under siege”.

Authoritarianism

Definition: power concentrated, limited pluralism, leaders unaccountable. Key traits: vague laws, weak civil rights, deal-making with elites, controlled media.

Sustaining Rule:
$1$ Repression.
$2$ Legitimacy (ideology, religion, performance).
$3$ Controlled institutions (elections, parties, legislatures).
$4$ Co-optation (patronage networks).
$5$ Information control.

Regime Types (categorical)
• Personalist despotism (e.g., Saddam Hussein).
• Single-party (CPC-China, former PRI-Mexico).
• Military junta (Thailand $2014$–$19$).
• Monarchy (Saudi Arabia).
• Theocracy (Iran).
• Hybrids/Competitive Authoritarian (Nicaragua, Russia).

Autocratization & Democratic Backsliding: incremental erosion of elections, liberties, rule of law via executive aggrandizement and electoral manipulation.

Economic Record: authoritarian GDP per capita $\approx$ $6{,}500$ vs democratic >$25{,}000$ average; performance varies by subtype (single-party > military > personalist).

Quick Recall Checklist

• CP compares institutions, actors, processes across states to build explanations.
• Research designs: MSS vs MDS; small-N vs large-N.
• State = population + territory + sovereignty + legitimacy.
• Democracy measured procedurally; $4$ Democracy Index categories.
• Authoritarian subtypes differ in leadership source; survival tools include repression, legitimacy, institutions, co-optation.