LESSON 3

Comparative Method in the Study of Comparative Politics

At the end of this lesson, the students are able to:

1. Determine the method of comparative politics
2. Determine the proponents of the methods of the comparative
politics

In general the comparative method is the oldest and most popular

method of acquiring knowledge. Ph. Schmitter observed that comparison is
an analytical method – perhaps, the best available one for advancing valid
and cumulative knowledge about politics (Schmitter 2006: 1). The
foundations of the comparative method were laid down in the mid-19th
century by John Stuart Mill, who described a number of methods for finding
causal factors. In the case of Mill’s method of agreement one needs to look
for events that occur whenever the phenomenon being studied occurs. The
single event that is found to be common to all occurrences of the
phenomenon is said to be the cause. Mill’s method of difference asks to see
if changes in a phenomenon occur whenever a particular event changes. The
single event that is found to change when differences occur in the
phenomenon is said to be the cause.
Arend Lijphart was among the first scholars who started a discussion
on the comparative method within political science. In his famous article
Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method he described the
comparative method ‘as one of the basic methods, the others being: the
experimental, statistical, and case study methods of establishing general
empirical propositions.’
It is, in the first place, definitely a method, not just ‘a convenient term
vaguely symbolizing the focus of one’s research interests.’ Nor is it a special
set of substantive concerns in the sense of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt’s definition
of the comparative approach in social research; he states that the term does
not ‘properly designate a specific method..., but rather a special focus on
cross-societal, institutional, or macro-societal aspects of societies and social
analysis’ (quoted from Lijphart 1971: 682).
As Charles Ragin points out, comparative researchers examine
patterns of similarities and differences across a moderate number of cases.
The typical comparative study has anywhere from a handful to fifty or more
cases. The number of cases is limited because one of the concerns of
comparative research is to establish familiarity with each case included in a
study.
According to Ragin there are three main goals of comparative
research: 1) exploring diversity, 2) interpreting cultural or historical
significance, and 3) advancing theory.
Todd Landman noted that there are four main reasons for comparison,
including contextual description, classification and ‘topological, hypothesis-
testing and theory-building and prediction. Description and classification are
the building blocks of comparative politics. Classification simplifies
descriptions of the important objects of comparative inquiry. Good
classification should have well-defined categories into which empirical
evidence can be organized.
Categories that make up a classification scheme can be derived
inductively from careful consideration of available evidence or through a
process of deduction in which ‘ideal’ types are generated (Landman 2008:
7).
The most famous effort at classification is found in Aristotle’s Politics,
in which he establishes six types of rule. Based on the combination of their
form of rule (good or corrupt) and the number of those who rule (one, few, or
many), Aristotle derived the following six forms: monarchy, aristocracy,
polity, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (Landman 2008: 7).
Aristotle’s classification forms of governance Those Who Rule One Few
Many Form of Rule Good Monarchy (kingship) Aristocracy Polity Corrupt
Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy.
 Hypothesis-testing is the second step in a comparative analysis. Once
things have been described and classified, the comparative scholar can
move on to search for those factors that may help explain what has been
described and classified. Since the 1950s, political scientists have
increasingly sought to use comparative methods to help build more complete
theories of politics.
Comparison of countries allows rival explanations to be ruled out and
hypotheses derived from certain theoretical perspectives to be tested
through examining crossnational similarities and differences (Landman 2008:
6).
Prediction is the final and most difficult objective of comparative study
as it is a logical extension of hypothesis-testing to make predictions about
outcomes in other countries based on the generalizations from the initial
comparison, or to make claims about future political outcomes.
Prediction in comparative politics tends to be made in probabilistic
terms, such as ‘countries with systems of proportional representation are
more likely to have multiple political parties’ (Landman 2008: 10).
There are five options of comparative study.
1. ) The single case study (either a country, an event or systemic
feature);
2. 2) The single case study over time (i. e. a historical study or time
series analysis);
3. 3) Two or more cases at a few time intervals (i. e. closed
universe of discourse);
4. 4.) All cases that are relevant regarding the Research Question
under review;
5. 5) All relevant cases across time and space (pooled time series
analysis).
Contemporary comparative politics has tended to focus on variables.
The antiquated version tried to explain the behaviour of whole cases – often
one of them at a time. The usual approach has been to choose a problem,
select some variable(s) from an opposite theory to explain it, decide upon a
universe of relevant cases, fasten upon some subset of them to control for
other potentially relevant variables, and go searching for ‘significant’
associations (Schmitter 2006: 30).
With the comparative method political scientists should be equipping
themselves to conceptualize, measure and understand the great increase in
the complexity of relations of power, influence and authority in the world
that surrounds them (Schmitter 2006: 39). Questions 1. What is
comparative politics?
2. Who are the main contributors to contemporary
comparative politics? 3. Explain the difference between
hypothesis-testing and prediction.