Notes on The Past and Present of Comparative Politics

Overview

• Comparative politics emerged in the United States in the late $19^{th}$ century as a distinct field within political science, driven largely by U.S. universities and their research agendas. The field’s international expansion reduced U.S. dominance by the late $20^{th}$ century, but scholarship produced in the U.S. (whether by domestic or international scholars) remained influential. The US tradition set many research standards, and much of the field’s identity was written within U.S. academia.
• The chapter centers on three core issues that define the field: (1) the definition of the field’s subject matter, (2) the role of theory, and (3) the use of methods. These issues frame the historical periods and evaluations of the field's state and future.
• The argument connects the evolution of comparative politics to broader shifts in political science and neighboring social sciences, noting a perennial tension between traditionalism and innovation, and between empirical breadth and theoretical depth.
• The present assessment: comparativists have produced substantial knowledge but face gaps—chiefly the lack of a unifying theory of politics and robust, broad empirical generalizations about world politics.
• The suggested future emphasizes reconciling the humanistic roots of comparative politics with its scientific aspirations, reducing paralyzing divisions, and recognizing the dual importance of normative values and rigorous methods.

Three core issues guiding the field

• Definition of subject matter: how comparative politics is distinguished from other subfields (e.g., American politics) and from other social sciences.
• Role of theory: the balance between metatheory (general frameworks connecting partial theories) and mid-range theories (more narrow, testable propositions).
• Use of methods: the variety and rigor of empirical approaches (case studies, small-N comparisons, cross-national analyses, quantitative methods).
• These three issues help identify distinct historical periods and assess the field’s state and direction. The chapter also considers links to political science, other social sciences, and the broader political events and values that scholars hold.

The Four Periods in the United States Evolution of Comparative Politics

The field’s evolution is organized into four periods with distinct subject matter, theory, methods, and context:

• The Constitution of Political Science as a Discipline, 1880–1920
• The Behavioral Revolution, 1921–1966
• The Post-Behavioral Period, 1967–1988
• The Second Scientific Revolution, 1989–present

I. The Constitution of Political Science as a Discipline, 1880–1920

• Origins and birth of political science as a distinct discipline (autonomization) in the U.S.
• Foundational influences and contrasts:
  • Traces research roots to antiquity (Plato, Aristotle) and to modern classics (Machiavelli, Montesquieu).
  • In the modern era, European thinkers (e.g., Comte, Durkheim, Marx, Weber) shaped the development of social theory.
  • U.S. political thought and institutions lacked a broad European tradition; early American political writing (e.g., The Federalist Papers) coexisted with a relatively backward U.S. higher-education system but benefited from innovations in U.S. universities.
• Key institutional milestones in the U.S.:
  • Harvard and Johns Hopkins as early influential institutions; Johns Hopkins (1876) as the first research university in the U.S.
  • Formation of independent Political Science departments and graduate programs; Columbia University’s School of Political Science (founded in 1880 by John W. Burgess) marks the opening of the period’s institutional innovations.
  • Founding of the American Political Science Association (APSA) in $1903$; APSA later becomes a central professional home for the field, separating from the American Historical Association (AHA).
• Distinctive identity and subject matter in this era:
  • Political science defined through government and formal political institutions, with a strong emphasis on the state.
  • A deliberate break with the broader, historically oriented tradition: the motto that “History is past Politics and Politics present History” guided a focus on contemporary politics and on formal institutions rather than a broad, historical synthesis.
  • The early subject matter was shaped by German Staatswissenschaft and Geisteswissenschaft traditions; a partial break from European grand theory and philosophies of history.
• Methodological stance in this first phase:
  • Early work was largely atheoretical (or descriptively focused) with no broad, testable hypotheses.
  • Research emphasized formal institutions, constitutional reforms, and legal aspects of government; empirical work tended to be case studies and country-specific descriptions.
  • Limited cross-national comparison and a relatively narrow scope of countries studied.
• Theoretical landscape and limitations:
  • The field was essentially bereft of theory (metatheory or mid-range theories) at the outset.
  • The lack of a strong theoretical framework and broad empirical generalizations reflected early disciplinary priorities and the influence of history on political science.
• Relationship to economics and sociology:
  • Economics and sociology differentiated themselves by pursuing either reoriented classical theory (economics) or an extended classical theory (sociology).
  • Political science differentiated itself by carving out a delimited empirical subject matter rather than by reworking grand European theories; the state would remain central in defining political science’s scope.
• Consequences for research in this period:
  • The early technology of political science set a distinctive but limited foundation for subsequent work, with a reliance on descriptive case studies and a mainly formal-legal focus.
  • The autonomization of political science laid groundwork for later expansion into comparative politics, despite initial dependence on history.
• Table reference: Table 2.2 outlines the periodized evolution (I. 1880–1920) with subject matter, theory, methods, assessment, and cross-disciplinary links.

II. The Behavioral Revolution, 1921–1966

• A turning point in political science: Merriam’s call for a new science of politics (1921) and the push toward behavioralism.
• Institutionalization and spread:
  • National Conferences on the Science of Politics (early 1920s) and the establishment of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) to support research infrastructure.
  • The Chicago School of political science (Merriam era) as a core intellectual hub; later, Yale and other centers became influential in the behavioral shift.
• Expansion of subject matter in comparative politics:
  • Behavioralists argued for inclusion of informal procedures and behaviors (interest groups, political parties, mass media, political culture, socialization) beyond formal institutions.
  • Emphasis on theory and empirical testing over vague, metaphysical explanations.
• Core doctrine of behavioralism in comparative politics:
  • A broader, more systematic approach to political phenomena, integrating sociological concepts and other disciplines (Weberian-Parsonian ideas, structural functionalism).
  • A focus on actors, processes, and change, not just static structures; emphasis on empirical observables and testable propositions.
• Key deficiencies identified in this period:
  • Reductionist tendency: politics treated as a dependent variable, with civil society and the state treated as black boxes; limited attention to how state power shapes social actors and processes.
  • The state as a causal factor was downplayed; the literature often explained politics as outcomes of societal actors’ behavior or economic interests rather than as autonomous political dynamics.
  • Metatheory and formal integration: structural functionalism as the dominant metatheory, but with weak, testable propositions and a lack of integration with mid-range theories.
• Theoretical and methodological shifts:
  • Introduction of mid-range theories (e.g., on interest groups, parties, bureaucracy, democratization) but with limited ability to connect parts into a general theory of politics.
  • Emergence of cross-national statistical analyses and the beginning of large-N data collection (e.g., The Civic Culture by Almond and Verba, 1963).
  • Broadening empirical scope: more attention to small European countries, the Third World, and Latin America; also integrating study of the United States into comparative politics.
• Methodological innovations and data infrastructure:
  • Growth of cross-national data sets (e.g., Yale Political Data Program; World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators) and the development of coordinated statistical methods.
  • Introduction of cross-national surveys and the rise of area studies infrastructure supported by federal funding (Title VI under the National Defense Education Act, 1958) and the growth of area studies associations.
• Relationship to other disciplines and fields:
  • Strong interdisciplinary influence from sociology (Weberian-Parsonian ideas), anthropology, and psychology (political culture) during this period.
  • The period integrated insights from sociologists and political scientists with empirical and methodological innovations; later, this mix influenced how comparative politics positioned itself vis-à-vis economics.
• Outcomes for comparative politics:
  • Comparative politics in the U.S. gained stature due to methodological sophistication and broader empirical reach.
  • A strengthened international exchange: U.S. comparativists began reconnecting with classical social theory and European scholars, creating a model of comparative politics exportable to Europe and beyond.
• Notable references and markers in this period:
  • The Civic Culture (Almond and Verba, 1963)
  • The Yale Political Data Program and Cross-Polity Survey (Deutsch, Banks, Textor, etc.)
  • Area studies expansion through federal funding and the growth of related associations and journals.
• Summary assessment: The behavioral revolution broadened the field’s scope and sharpened its theoretical and empirical ambitions, but it also introduced reductionist tendencies and a narrow emphasis on societal actors and processes outside the state.

III. The Post-Behavioral Period, 1967–1988

• The end of the behavioral era and a move away from systemic grand theories:
  • The behavioral project began to wane around $1966$; key metatheoretical writings appeared in $1965-1966$ (Easton; Almond & Powell), signaling culmination and critique of the program.
  • Lipset and Rokkan’s 1967 work on cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments marked a new intellectual agenda.
• Emergence of a diverse, state-centered, and institution-focused literature:
  • New scholars (generations born in the 1910s–1920s) and a broader set of national origins contributed to the field, including non-European voices.
  • The literature shifted toward state formation, revolutions, varieties of democracy and authoritarianism, democratic breakdowns and transitions, democratic institutions, corporatism, social democracy, and economic development models.
  • The new generation included both U.S.-trained scholars and foreign-born scholars (e.g., Lijphart, Linz, Sartori, O’Donnell, Schmitter).
• Conceptual and normative shifts:
  • A broader, more plural set of democratic models and institutional configurations emerged, challenging the liberal consensus of the prior period.
  • The new literature rejected the sharp liberal consensus of the earlier era and embraced liberal, conservative, and radical perspectives; debates around values became more diverse and explicit.
  • A central critique of the prior period’s modernization theory and functionalism: politics as an autonomous practice gained prominence; the state and state-society relations re-entered causal analyses.
• Theoretical evolution and metatheory changes:
  • The new literature did not propose a single, all-encompassing metatheory like structural functionalism; instead, it emphasized mid-range theories and theories of the state.
  • There was a move away from grand theorizing toward more focused, testable propositions about state formation, conflict, and political change.
  • The state began to be treated as an autonomous actor, reintegrating formal political institutions into explanations of political outcomes.
• Methodological evolution:
  • Continued use of case studies and small-N approaches, but with a renewed emphasis on testable propositions and better theoretical linkages.
  • A growing engagement with quantitative methods persisted, though the qualitative tradition remained strong in many subfields.
  • The literature increasingly examined political change, democratization, and state-society relations, often at cross-national scales.
• The methodological tension and synergy:
  • Although cross-national quantitative work expanded, comparativists often maintained a qualitative emphasis, leading to a methodological divide with Americanists who embraced more rigorous quantitative work.
  • Efforts to bridge quantitative and qualitative methods grew, foreshadowing later analytic-narrative and mixed-methods approaches (e.g., Bates et al.; Rodrik; Laitin).
• Data, data sources, and institutions for this period:
  • Continued use and expansion of cross-national databases and survey data, though at times with uneven empirical applicability across regimes (democracies vs. non-democracies).
  • The period witnessed the growth of area studies infrastructure and data networks that supported broader comparative inquiries.
• Summary assessment: The post-behavioral period redirected attention to state-centric explanations, institutional dynamics, and political change, while maintaining an openness to multiple theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. It laid the groundwork for a more pluralistic and internationally engaged field.

IV. The Second Scientific Revolution, 1989–Present

• Core motivation: a renewed push to make comparative politics more scientific, echoing the earlier behavioral push but framed around economics-inspired metatheories rather than sociology-driven ones.
• Main metatheoretical currents:
  • Rational choice theory and its variants (including rational choice institutionalism and historical institutionalism) as the dominant new meta-analytical framework.
  • A shift away from a unifying metatheory toward a more plural set of approaches, though with an emphasis on formal, mathematical modeling and the use of institutions as constraining yet endogenous elements.
  • The central debate over rational choice: some scholars criticized its perceived dominance, while others argued it stimulated clearer theoretical competition and methodological rigor.
• Distinction from the prior revolutions:
  • The new metatheories draw heavily on economics rather than sociology; they offer a general theory of action rather than a politics-specific meta-framework.
  • Institutions are treated as endogenous and dynamic, both constraining and being shaped by political actors; this highlights endogeneity concerns in modeling political processes.
• Methodological triad and innovations:
  • Formal theory and mathematical modeling: a push toward rigorous formalization and logical consistency in theorizing.
  • Quantitative methods: a resurgence and expansion of cross-national time-series, large-N datasets, and within-country statistical analyses; new data sources proliferate.
  • Qualitative methodology revival: a robust return to qualitative approaches and the development of mixed-methods and analytical narratives to connect theory and evidence.
  • The emergence of analytical narratives and tripartite methodology combining statistics, formalization, and narrative (as proposed by Laitin and peers).
• Data and data ecosystems:
  • Growth of global data resources: Penn World Tables, World Handbook updates, cross-national time-series datasets, World Values Survey, Eurobarometer, Freedom House indices, Polity scores, etc.
  • Increased cross-national data availability supports broader generalizations and cross-national comparisons, though challenges remain in measurement and comparability.
• Interdisciplinary dynamics and economic imperialism:
  • The engagement with economics has both enriched comparative politics and prompted debates about political meaning and context.
  • Economists’ contributions have revitalized study of the state, citizenship, and development, while comparative politics has revisited classic works and integrated new economic insights (e.g., Przeworski, Moore, Cardoso & Faletto).
• Methodological convergence and tensions:
  • The rise of institutionalism and endogeneity concerns has generated debates about what constitutes a “distinctive” theory of politics.
  • The field faces challenges in distinguishing paradigms and linking statics (institutions, structures) with dynamics (change, evolution).
  • There is a recognized need for aligning theory and method to produce robust generalizations about world politics.
• The Perestroika movement and its impact:
  • A discipline-wide reaction (late 1990s–2000s) to the heavy emphasis on formal science and quantitative methods; stimulated debates about methodological pluralism and the proper scope of the field.
  • Perestroika highlighted concerns about inclusivity of different traditions and values within comparative politics.
• Bridges across methods and disciplines:
  • Calls for greater methodological synthesis: combining statistics, formalization, and narrative; linking quantitative and qualitative insights; integrating cross-national and within-country analyses.
  • The field increasingly recognizes that ethics, values, and normative considerations remain inseparable from political inquiry, even as methods become more scientific.
• Substantive impacts and ongoing themes:
  • The influence of economics in shaping new research programs (state formation, democratization, ethnic conflict, civil war, economic policy).
  • Continued exploration of democracy, governance, and development within diverse institutional contexts.
  • A broadening of the field’s geographic scope and empirical reach, including more voices from the Global South.
• Notable foci and examples in this period:
  • Democratization and political transitions (Przeworski 1991, 2005; Fearon & Laitin 1996).
  • Electoral behavior, democratic institutions, and policy outcomes (Cox 1997; Bates 1997a).
  • State formation, ethnic conflict, and civil war; governance and economic policy (Laver 1998; Persson & Tabellini 2000, 2003).
• Overall assessment of the second revolution:
  • It introduced three powerful methodological stances—rational choice, formal theory, and quantitative methods—that reshaped research agendas, but did not displace a diversity of approaches.
  • It did not generate a single dominant metatheory; rather, it fostered a pluralist landscape where theory and method pursue complementarity and cross-fertilization.
• Data and infrastructure highlights:
  • The expansion of data sets and improved data infrastructure enabled broader empirical testing and cross-national comparisons, while fostering collaborations across disciplines and national borders.

Key concepts, theories, and terms to know

• Metatheory: a framework that connects and integrates partial theories to form a general theory of politics.
• Mid-range theory: theories focusing on particular aspects of politics (e.g., political parties, interest groups, bureaucracies) that can be tested with empirical data but do not aim to unify all politics.
• Endogeneity: the problem that institutions may be endogenous to political processes, i.e., institutions and actors mutually influence each other, complicating causal inference.
• State-centric perspective: a shift in later periods toward treating the state as an autonomous actor and central causal factor, rather than viewing politics solely through societal actors.
• Analytical narratives: a methodological approach combining qualitative detail with explicit theoretical testing to illuminate causal mechanisms.
• Cross-national vs. within-country analysis: contrasts in data strategies; the former compares many different political systems, the latter analyzes political processes within a single country over time.
• Major data sources (examples):
  • Cross-Polity Survey; World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators; Penn World Tables; World Values Survey; Eurobarometer; Freedom House indices; Polity scores.
• Notable scholars and contributions (by period):
  • Constitution period: Burgess (1870s–1880s), early separation from history, state-centric focus.
  • Behavioral revolution: Merriam; Almond & Verba; Lipset; Rokkan; Lipset & Rokkan (1967); Almond, Verba, and colleagues; Lipset’s work on modernization and democracy was influential though contested.
  • Post-behavioral period: Lipset & Rokkan (1967); Huntington (1968); Sartori (1976); Lijphart (1968a); Schmitter (1971); O’Donnell (1973); Linz (1978); Skocpol (1979).
  • Second scientific revolution: Przeworski; Fearon & Laitin; Cox; Laver; Persson & Tabellini; Bates; Rodrik; Collier & Collier; King, Keohane, Verba; Laitin; Gellner and related discussions on methodological synthesis.

Connections to broader themes and real-world relevance

• The evolution of comparative politics mirrors broader shifts in political science and social science:
  • From a historically grounded, formal-institution focus to broader behavioral approaches, and then to state-centered, institutionally rich analyses, culminating in a pluralist, data-rich, and economically informed field.
• Real-world relevance includes:
  • Understanding democratization, political stability, and governance across diverse regimes.
  • Analyzing how electoral rules, parties, and institutions influence political outcomes.
  • Evaluating development paths, state capacity, and policy choices in different contexts.
• Ethical/philosophical implications:
  • The field grapples with balancing normative concerns about democracy, justice, and rights with empirical testing and theoretical rigor.
  • The push to unify theory and method should not eclipse the normative stakes of political research, including how research may inform policy choices and public debates.
• Practical implications for research design:
  • Researchers should be mindful of endogeneity and the limits of single-theory explanations.
  • Mixed-methods and analytical narratives offer promising ways to integrate qualitative depth with quantitative generalization.
  • Greater cross-national collaboration and data sharing can advance robust, global generalizations about world politics.

Summary of core takeaways

• Comparative politics in the US has evolved through four major periods, each characterized by shifts in subject matter, theory, and methods, and each influenced by broader trends in political science and the social sciences.
• The Behavioral Revolution expanded the field beyond formal institutions and emphasized theory and empirical testing, yet faced criticisms about reductionism and lack of integrative theory.
• The Post-Behavioral Period reintroduced state-society relations and formal institutions, while embracing mid-range theories and a broader array of voices and values.
• The Second Scientific Revolution brought rational choice and formal modeling into the fold, along with renewed quantitative methods and data availability, while sustaining methodological pluralism and new attempts to bridge different research approaches.
• Across periods, a persistent challenge remains: to develop a general or unified theory of politics that links statics (institutions, structures) and dynamics (change, development) while maintaining rigorous empirical testing and normative sensitivity.
• The future of comparative politics depends on overcoming divisions between traditions, blending substance and method, and recognizing the field’s deep humanistic roots alongside its scientific aspirations.

References to key figures and sources to review for exam prep

• Merriam (1921) and the early push for a science of politics; Chicago School figures (Gosnell, Lasswell, White); Almond, Verba, and the CivIC Culture (1963).
• Lipset, Rokkan (1967) on cleavage structures and party systems; Huntington (1968); Sartori (1976); Linz (1978); O’Donnell (1973); Skocpol (1979).
• Lijphart (1968a); Schmitter (1971); Moors (Linz, Sartori, etc. in the late 1960s–1970s); Moore (1966); Cardoso & Faletto (1979).
• The Second Scientific Revolution and rational choice: Przeworski (1991, 2005); Fearon & Laitin (1996); Cox (1997); Laver (1998); Persson & Tabellini (2000, 2003); Bates (1997a).
• Methodological landmarks: Collier (1991, 1993); King, Keohane, Verba (1994); Brady & Collier (2004); George & Bennett (2005); Laitin (2002, 2003).
• Data and measurement: Penn World Tables (Summers & Heston, 1991); World Values Survey (1990–); Eurobarometer; Polity; Freedom House indices.
• General overviews and companion works: chapters and tables that frame the four periods and the field’s evolution (e.g., Table 2.2 in the text).