Past and future of comparative politics
Overview: scope, revolutions, and the current state of comparative politics
Comparative politics emerged in the United States in the late and evolved largely through U.S. universities’ research. Its influence waned from the post–World War II peak of U.S. academia but remained strong globally, with the US setting many of the standards for research in the field.
This chapter organizes around three core issues that define the field: the definition of its subject matter, the role of theory, and the use of methods. These issues underlie a historical framing that identifies distinct periods in the field’s evolution and illuminate its connections to other political science subfields and to the social sciences more broadly.
The author argues that since political science’s institutionalization in the late century, two revolutions shaped comparative politics: the behavioral revolution (roughly ) and the second scientific revolution (roughly ). The behavioral revolution drew heavily on sociology, while the second revolution imported many ideas from economics and placed a heavier emphasis on methodology. Each revolution featured a tension between traditionalists and innovators, but the contemporary revolution operates in a more densely institutionalized field and is pluralistic.
Present-day comparative politics recognizes substantial knowledge produced, but also serious shortcomings: the lack of a general, unified theory of politics and a lack of robust, broad empirical generalizations about world politics.
The future of comparative politics depends on reconciling deep humanistic roots with scientific aspirations, overcoming divisions within the field, and re-emphasizing both normative concerns and rigorous methods.
Core themes for understanding the field: (i) the relationship to political science’s discipline-building process, (ii) the relationship to other social sciences, and (iii) the role of empirical and theoretical work in explaining political phenomena.
The Constitution of Political Science as a Discipline, 1880–1920
Political science emerged as a disciplined field through various institutional and intellectual changes in the US, with roots traceable to classical texts and modern European thought.
The birth of economics and sociology happened in parallel around this period: economics crystallized around the marginalist revolution and neoclassical synthesis (exemplified by Alfred Marshall’s , 1890); sociology proclaimed itself as the mother discipline and sought to extend classical theory to the whole of society.
Political science differentiated itself not by theory-driven reorientation (as economics did) but by carving out an empirically distinct turf: focusing on government and formal political institutions while distinguishing itself from history.
Early political science tended to lack a unifying theory (a metatheory) and often displayed an atheoretical formal-legal approach, with limited hypotheses and a narrow empirical scope (mostly case studies focusing on formal institutions and a small set of countries).
The US emphasized observable, empirical grounding over metaphysical European histories, shaping the field’s early empirical methods and country focus.
The American discipline’s autonomization involved:
Independent political science departments proliferating;
The first graduate program (Columbia University’s School of Political Science, 1880, founded by John W. Burgess) and the expansion of Ph.D. training in political science;
The founding of the American Political Science Association (APSA) in 1903;
Separation from history, despite shared antecedents and overlaps;
The influence of German Staatswissenschaft and Geisteswissenschafts traditions in defining the subject matter of politics, including a focus on the state while attempting to differentiate political science from history.
The birth of political science in the US had significant implications for early research: emphasis on formal institutions, limited theory, and a descriptive (descriptive-without-theory) approach that nonetheless laid groundwork for future theories and methods.
The relationship between political science and history during this period was shaped by two guiding mottos:
“History is past Politics and Politics present History” (political scientists separated past political history from contemporary politics).
A focus on the more delimited question of government and formal institutions, rather than a comprehensive historical synthesis.
Table 2.1 (Classical Social Theory, 1776–1923) situates major thinkers across countries and lists major works, illustrating the European intellectual foundation that later influence US political science. Examples include:
Britain: Adam Smith; David Ricardo; John Stuart Mill; The Wealth of Nations (1776); On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817); The Principles of Political Economy (1848); Considerations on Representative Government (1861).
France: Auguste Comte; Alexis de Tocqueville; Herbert Spencer; Émile Durkheim; Works include Course in Positive Philosophy (1830–42); Democracy in America (1835); The Old Regime and the French Revolution (1856); The Principles of Sociology (1876–96); The Division of Labor in Society (1893); Rules of the Sociological Method (1895).
Germany: Karl Marx; Max Weber; Works include The Communist Manifesto (1848); The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852); Capital (1867–94); The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905); Economy and Society (1914); General Economic History (1923).
Italy: Vilfredo Pareto; Gaetano Mosca; Robert Michels; Works include The Mind and Society (1915–19); The Ruling Class (1923); Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1915).
The US context: American political thought lacked a deep European tradition in political theory, and the early period emphasized political institutions and governance rather than broad grand theory.
The US institutional environment: Johns Hopkins (1876) and other innovations laid groundwork for political science as a discrete discipline, enabling later expansion into comparative politics.
The methodological implication: early writings were largely descriptive with limited generalizable theory, but they established crucial empirical practices and set the stage for later theoretical and methodological innovations.
The Behavioral Revolution, 1921–1966
A pivotal turning point is marked by the 1921 Merriam manifesto calling for a new science of politics, signaling a break with the historicist approach and paving the way for the behavioral revolution.
Key milestones in the early push toward behavioralism included National Conferences on the Science of Politics (1923–1925), the formation of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), and the emergence of the Chicago School (Merriam, Gosnell, Lasswell, White, Wright, Almond, etc.).
Although Merriam’s agenda began in American politics, behavioralism later spread to comparative politics through the SSRC’s Committee on Political Behavior (chaired by Gabriel Almond, 1954–63).
Behavioralism broadened the field’s scope beyond formal governmental institutions to include informal processes and behaviors: interest groups, political parties, mass media, political culture, and political socialization.
The methodological creed emphasized systematic theory, empiricism, and hypothesis testing, opposing vague and descriptive theorizing.
Strengths of behavioralism in comparative politics:
Expanded the field beyond formal institutions to encompass societal actors and processes;
Increased theoretical rigor and empirical testing;
Brought in cross-disciplinary influences, notably sociology (Weberian-Parsonian concepts) and, to a lesser extent, anthropology and social psychology;
Increased emphasis on mid-range and general conjectures that could be tested across cases;
Encouraged long-range historical and broad empirical comparisons;
Used cross-national data sets and the early generation of large-N data resources, including the Yale Political Data Program and Cross-Polity data efforts.
Key conceptual weaknesses of the behavioral program in comparative politics:
Tendency to treat the state as a black box and to emphasize societal actors and interests as autonomous causal determinants, potentially ignoring how state structures shape political outcomes;
Reductionist explanations that downplayed the state’s role as a causal factor in politics;
Metatheoretical limitations: the dominant metatheory (structural functionalism) often failed to provide testable hypotheses and to integrate across mid-range theories;
The state’s centrality and the growth of formal explanations were sometimes neglected in favor of analyzing processes outside the state;
The literature often lacked integration of mid-range theories into a unifying framework;
Methodological limitations: case studies and small-N thinking predominated, with limited systematic cross-national comparison in early stages;
Although introduced statistics and cross-national data, the quantitative program struggled with data limitations and limited cross-country comparability at times;
A tendency to under- or over-estimate generalizability across diverse political systems.
Methodological developments during this period:
Continued use of case studies and small-N comparisons, expanding to include more Third World and Latin American cases, as well as the United States;
Introduction and expansion of cross-national statistical analysis, including the Civic Culture study (Almond and Verba, 1963);
Development of large cross-national data sets (e.g., Yale Political Data Program, Cross-Polity, etc.);
Greater attention to empirical testing and systematic comparison across countries;
Emergence of cross-national data movement through data initiatives and journals in comparative politics and area studies.
Consequences for the field’s trajectory:
A period of rapid growth in comparative politics’ theoretical orientation and methodological sophistication;
Strong ties to European scholars and increased cross-national collaboration;
A shift in identity as comparative politics gained its own model of international collaboration and began exporting a US-derived model of comparative method;
The field’s stature grew, with a blossoming of area studies infrastructures, journals, and cross-national research programs.
The Post-Behavioral Period, 1967–1988
The ascendancy of behavioralism ended around 1966, though the approach persisted in some form after that date.
A turning point was Lipset and Rokkan’s seminal work, “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments” (1967), which helped pivot the field toward new concerns and frameworks.
The new generation of scholars contributed to a diversified agenda including:
Lijphart’s consociationalism (1968a);
Schmitter’s corporatism (1971);
Steppan’s and O’Donnell’s work on authoritarianism and political transitions (1971, 1973);
Linz’s and Moor’s contributions on regime change and democratic breakdowns (Linz, 1978; O’Donnell & Schmitter, 1986);
The rise of debates around revolution, democracy, and state-building (Scott 1976; Skocpol 1979).
The new literature featured a more diverse set of authors, including foreign-born scholars in the United States beyond Europe, introducing broader perspectives and non-Western cases (e.g., O’Donnell, Linz, Lijphart, Sartori, Schmitter). The authors often studied state formation, revolutions, varieties of democracy, and the role of institutions in political life.
Key shifts in perspective and theory:
A move away from a single grand metatheory toward more mid-range theories and diverse explanatory frameworks;
Reemphasis on politically autonomous actors and state-society relations, with an effort to reintroduce formal institutions into analysis;
A broader inclusion of the state as a causal factor and an emphasis on political change, democratization, and transitions;
A critique of the modernization and functionalist approaches that had dominated the prior period;
Recognition of a plurality of values (liberal, conservative, radical) shaping research agendas and the lack of a single, universal normative consensus;
A reassertion of the complexity of political change and a cautious stance toward grand theoretical synthesis.
Methods and empirical trends in this period:
Continued use of case studies and small-N work, but with a broader comparative scope including Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe;
Increased attention to quantitative methods, though not at the same centrality as in the earlier behavioral period; cross-national data remained important but data quality and comparability varied;
The reintroduction of formal institutional analysis and a focus on institutional variables as determinants of political outcomes;
A growing emphasis on the study of political culture and attitudes within a more nuanced state-centric framework;
The revival of formal theory and the continued use of empirical testing to examine hypotheses derived from mid-range theories.
Relationship to other disciplines and fields:
The post-behavioral period featured more intense cross-disciplinary borrowing, including from sociology, anthropology, and political theory, while maintaining a distinct emphasis on political institutions and state-society relations;
The field sought to reconcile area studies with cross-national comparative methods, integrating insights across regions and topics;
The emergence of a global comparative politics agenda and a broader international scholarly network beyond the United States.
Research context and events:
The era was shaped by major political changes worldwide: decolonization, the Cold War, shifts in authoritarian and democratizing regimes, and global political change, all shaping comparative politics’ questions and methods.
The Second Scientific Revolution, 1989–Present
This new phase of comparative politics began around the end of the Cold War and has continued to the present, marked by a deliberate push to make the field more scientific and theoretically robust.
Core characteristics of the second revolution:
A strong reliance on economics-inspired metatheories, particularly rational choice theory and its variants (rational choice theory, rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism);
A shift away from a wholesale redefinition of subject matter toward maintaining a general theory of action and decision-making under constraints, rather than a single domain-specific theory of politics;
A focus on formal theory (formal modeling and mathematical rigor) alongside quantitative methods, reflecting an insistence on logical rigor and testable implications;
An emphasis on both attributing and testing causal mechanisms using formal and empirical approaches;
The emergence of three methodological pillars: rational choice, formal theory, and quantitative methods;
A broad expansion of quantitative data (cross-national time series, World Values Survey, regional barometers) and advanced statistical methods, with increasingly sophisticated within-country and cross-national analyses;
The revival and expansion of qualitative methodology (e.g., Collier 1991, 1993; Brady & Collier 2004; George & Bennett 2005) to complement formal and quantitative methods, with a growing emphasis on triangulation and “analytical narratives.”
Distinctive features of rational choice and its role:
Rational choice offers a general theory of action that can be applied across domains, but it is not tied to a particular domain;
The metatheories of rational choice include institutions as constraints and the notion that endogeneity (institutions being shaped by political actors) is central;
The convergence of rational choice institutionalism and historical institutionalism around the idea that institutions are endogenous to politics highlights a shared challenge: explaining how institutions are both constraining and shaped by political actors;
This convergence raises questions about whether a single grand synthesis is possible, as the metatheory tends to blur distinctions among dynamics (statics vs. dynamics) and among issues of action and politics.
Methodological evolution in the second revolution:
Formal theory and rigorous mathematical modeling gained prominence, often in conjunction with empirical testing;
Quantitative methods expanded dramatically, spurred by data availability, cross-national time series, and large-scale surveys;
The rise of cross-national datasets (economic indicators, governance, democracy, political institutions) and within-country analyses enriched methodological options;
The field saw a strong push for method development, including training and institutional support (e.g., EITM initiatives, quantitative training, and methodological sections in professional associations).
Toward greater methodological pluralism and bridge-building:
There was a deliberate effort to bridge between statistics, formal modeling, and narrative approaches, including the exploration of analytical narratives and tripartite methodologies combining statistics, formalization, and narrative;
The field increasingly recognized the value of integrating economics-informed insights with political science, resulting in richer investigations of state, citizenship, development, and political change;
The literature increasingly questioned simplistic dichotomies between rational choice and other approaches, recognizing areas of overlap and mutual enrichment.
Debates and tensions in the second revolution:
The status of rational choice within comparative politics remained contested: some embraced it as a general theory, while others criticized its perceived hegemony;
Critics argued that early rational choice approaches sometimes overemphasized formalism at the expense of explanatory power across diverse political contexts;
The field grappled with how to balance normative concerns with scientific methods, ensuring that political analysis remains connected to real-world politics and values;
The Perestroika movement within political science signified a discipline-wide pushback against overemphasis on formal methods and a call for broader methodological and theoretical inclusivity (e.g., more emphasis on qualitative, historical, and contextual analysis).
Implications for theory, empirics, and normative concerns:
The integration of economics-informed theory has invigorated debates about the state, citizenship, democracy, and development;
There is continued concern about producing robust, broad empirical generalizations in world politics;
The field recognizes the necessity of aligning normative inquiry with rigorous scientific methods to address the values at stake in politics;
The future of comparative politics hinges on blending deep humanistic inquiry with rigorous scientific practice, while maintaining a shared sense of purpose across diverse theoretical and methodological traditions.
Key Concepts and Terms to Understand
Subject matter and scope: how comparative politics defines its domain relative to government, formal institutions, state-society relations, political culture, and democratization;
Metatheory: a theory about theories that connects and integrates partial theories to form a broader framework;
Mid-range theory: theories that explain specific political phenomena (e.g., interest groups, parties, democracy) without constituting a grand, all-encompassing theory;
Endogeneity: the concept that institutions can be endogenous to the political process, i.e., they are shaped by political actors and can in turn shape behavior and outcomes;
State-centric perspective: the shift within post-behavioral literature to directly analyze state-society relations and the state’s causal role;
Formalism vs. empiricism: the tension between mathematically rigorous, formal models and empirical testing across diverse contexts;
Rational choice theory and institutionalism: economistic approaches focusing on incentives and constraints; the interplay of rational choice with institutional structures;
Within-country vs. cross-national analysis: methods that analyze politics inside a single country versus across many political systems;
Qualitative methods revival: renewed emphasis on case studies, process tracing, and narrative explanations to complement quantitative work;
Analytical narratives: a method combining narrative detail with theoretical testing to illustrate causal mechanisms;
Perestroika movement (APSA context): a critique of dominance of certain methodological trends and a push for more pluralism and methodological inclusivity.
Table 2.2: The Origins and Evolution of Comparative Politics in the United States (periods and dimensions)
Period 1: The Constitution of Political Science as a Discipline, 1880–1920
I. Subject matter: Government and formal political institutions
II. Theory: None (no metatheory; limited theory development)
III. Methods: Case studies; descriptive, formal-legal analysis; limited cross-country comparison
IV. Assessment: Emergence of a distinct discipline; questioned integration with history; introduction of empirical grounding
V. Relationship to other disciplines: Strong ties to history; separation from broad grand theory; influence from economics and sociology in shaping disciplinary identities
VI. Research context: Formation of autonomous political science departments, first graduate program (Columbia, 1880), APSA founded (1903); growth of political science as independent field; limited cross-national or cross-disciplinary synthesis; focus on formal institutions and governance
Period 2: The Behavioral Revolution, 1921–1966
I. Subject matter: Broadening beyond formal government institutions to include political behavior, mass media, political culture, socialization, etc.; introduction of the behavioral approach to politics
II. Theory: Emergence of metatheory (structural functionalism) but with limited universal applicability; mid-range theories developed (interest groups, bureaucracy, democratization, etc.); attempts at general theory (e.g., The Politics of the Developing Areas, 1960)
III. Methods: Case studies; small-N comparisons; introduction of cross-national statistics; large-N data collection beginnings (e.g., Civic Culture, 1963); early use of cross-national data sets (World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators; Yale Data Program)
IV. Assessment: Growth in theoretical orientation and methodological sophistication; expansion of comparative scope; greater empirical grounding
V. Relationship to other disciplines: Strong influence from sociology (Weberian-Parsonian concepts); cross-disciplinary exchange broadened the field; area studies infrastructure grows
VI. Research context: Postwar expansion, SSRC involvement, growth of area studies, global decolonization; rising interest in political processes and social change
Period 3: The Post-Behavioral Period, 1967–1988
I. Subject matter: Reorientation to state-society relations, political institutions, and political processes; return of attention to formal institutions; renewed interest in state as causal factor
II. Theory: Move away from grand metatheory toward mid-range theories; debate over the role of the state, democratic development, and transitions; critique of evolutionism and functionalism
III. Methods: Continued case-study emphasis; quantitative methods grow but remain less central than in the Americanist tradition; introduction of large-n cross-national data and within-country analyses
IV. Assessment: A more pluralist field with diverse theoretical orientations; emphasis on political change, democratization, and state formation; stronger, but still contested, empirical generalizations
V. Relationship to other disciplines: Re-engagement with European scholars and theories; renewed cross-national collaboration; broader openness to different schools of thought
VI. Research context: Global political transformations; debates about democracy, development, and political legitimacy; increasing recognition of the importance of political institutions in explaining change
Period 4: The Second Scientific Revolution, 1989–present
I. Subject matter: Maintains a core focus on comparative politics but emphasizes a unified, theory-driven approach to action and institutions; explicit engagement with economic-informed theories (rational choice) and institutional dynamics
II. Theory: Rational choice theory as a dominant metatheory alongside historical and institutional approaches; ongoing debates about metatheory integration and the status of rational choice within the field
III. Methods: Three-pronged methodological emphasis: rational choice (formal modeling), formal theory, and quantitative methods; growth of data infrastructure; continued development of qualitative methods with an emphasis on triangulation and methodological synthesis
IV. Assessment: A balanced pluralism across theories and methods, with ongoing debates about the role and dominance of rational choice; attempts to synthesize statics and dynamics and to connect theory with empirics
V. Relationship to other disciplines: Increased cross-pollination with economics (economic-institutional analyses), sociology, and political theory; greater integration of quantitative and qualitative strands; continued area studies engagement
VI. Research context: Global democratization wave, data revolution (cross-national time-series, world values surveys, etc.), and new challenges to traditional assumptions; Perestroika-era critiques of American political science’s methodological hegemony; emphasis on global reach and policy relevance
Connections to Foundational Principles, Real-World Relevance, and Implications
Foundational ties: Comparative politics has deep roots in humanistic inquiry (normative concerns about democracy, justice, rights) and scientific ambitions (the demand for theory-driven, testable explanations and generalizable knowledge).
Real-world relevance: The field’s evolution tracks major political changes (democratization, revolutions, regime transitions, governance reforms) and attempts to explain why political systems differ and how political change occurs;
The state’s causal role in political outcomes has been re-emphasized in recent decades, influencing policy analysis and governance reform strategies;
The integration of economics into political science has sharpened explanations of political outcomes related to development, fiscal policy, and institutional design, often with policy implications for reform and stability.
Ethical and normative implications: The field asserts that politics cannot be studied in a value-neutral vacuum; values influence research questions and interpretations. A balanced approach requires combining normative reflection with rigorous empirical methods to produce insights that respect political and ethical dimensions.
Methodological synthesis: The current era emphasizes bridging qualitative and quantitative approaches and combining narrative explanations with systematic testing to overcome prior fragmentation and to produce robust, generalizable findings.
Future directions: Overcoming persistent challenges—developing a unified theory of politics that integrates statics and dynamics and generating robust, global empirical generalizations—will require leveraging both deep humanistic understanding and scientific rigor, while maintaining openness to diverse methodological and theoretical perspectives.
Key Takeaways for Exam Preparation
Comparative politics emerged in the US in the late , with three central organizing questions: subject matter, theory, and methods.
There have been four major eras in the US evolutionary story:
Period 1: — Constitution of political science as a discipline; emphasis on formal institutions and empirical grounding; limited theory; strong separation from history.
Period 2: — Behavioral Revolution; expansion beyond formal institutions; integration with sociology and other social sciences; emphasis on case studies, small-N work, and initial cross-national data; strengths and limitations rooted in reduced state focus and weak metatheory.
Period 3: — Post-behavioral period; reacquisition of state-focused questions; diversification of theory (consociationalism, corporatism, transitions); increasing but uneven use of quantitative methods; methodological pluralism begins to emerge.
Period 4: — Second Scientific Revolution; rational choice and formal theory gain prominence; quantitative advances; revival of qualitative methods and tripartite synthesis; ongoing debates about endogeneity and institutional dynamics; growing emphasis on global data and cross-national analysis.
Core concepts to know well: metatheory, mid-range theory, endogeneity, state-society relations, rational choice theory, historical institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and the revival of qualitative methodology.
Table entries to recall (Table 2.1 and Table 2.2) provide the concrete anchors for the evolution of thought and methodology:
Table 2.1 shows major classical social theorists across Britain, France, Germany, and Italy and their works, illustrating the European intellectual lineage that informed early US political science.
Table 2.2 outlines the four periods, with period-specific emphases on subject matter, theory, methods, assessment, relationships to other disciplines, and research context; remember the rough periodization as a scaffold for understanding the field’s transformation.
The field’s evolution reflects a tension between depth of normative understanding and breadth of empirical generalization; the future depends on unifying theory and robust empirical testing while preserving methodological pluralism and cross-disciplinary insights.
Quick Formulas and Notation (LaTeX)
Periods (as ranges):
Metatheory definition (conceptual):
Endogeneity of institutions:
State-centric focus (conceptual shift):
Qualitative methodology revival: tripartite approach combining
Please let me know if you’d like these notes reformatted into flashcards, a condensed study guide, or a printable PDF version.