Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)

Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD

Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

PRELIM PERIOD

Introduction to Comparative Politics and Government

Unit 1: Social Science and Comparative Politics

Effective comparative study of political systems is rooted in the scientific method. In this unit, we offer
an overview and brief history of scientific inquiry and research methods. We build on these themes as
we focus on the comparative method and outline several positivist models of comparison employed by
political scientists.

As you review the material, think about how the comparative scientific study of politics differs from
scientific inquiry in the natural world.
Should we use the same research methods to study politics, as a scientist studying microbes or global
climate change?
Can we study the world of comparative politics objectively, as it exists, or try to derive better political
models and outcomes?

 Describe the scientific method;

 Differentiate between scientific laws and theories;
 Differentiate between inductive and deductive thinking;
 Define explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive research;
 Differentiate between positivist, anti-positivist, and post-positivist methods;
 Differentiate between Mill's "Method of Agreement” and "Direct Method of Difference";
 Define comparative politics; and
 Identify and explain various comparative methodologies used to compare various
political systems.

1|P ag e
Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)
Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD
Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

1.2 Comparative Methodology

Read this article. What arguments does the author make in favor of comparative analysis as a
valuable component of political research?

Comparative Analysis Within Political Science

by Alexander Stafford, Nov 14, 2013

What are the Advantages of Comparing Institutions and Political Processes in Two or
More Countries Compared to the Study of the Same Institutions or Processes in a Single
Country?

This essay will serve as a brief introduction to the practical, conceptual, and theoretical values
of comparative analysis within political science. Following a brief explanation of the
methodology, this essay will explain the importance of its role and the benefits it brings to the
political field of research. The essay will also focus on the benefits of comparatively analyzing
the collating institutions and processes of two or more countries as opposed to one.

Comparative analysis (CA) is a methodology within political science that is often used in the
study of political systems, institutions, or processes. This can be done across a local, regional,
national, and international scale. Further, CA is grounded upon empirical evidence gathered from
the recording and classification of real-life political phenomena. Where other political studies
develop policy via ideological and/or theoretical discourse, comparative research aims to develop
greater political understanding through a scientifically constrained methodology. Often referred
to as one of the three largest subfields of political science, It is a field of study that was referred
to as “the greatest intellectual achievement” by Edward A. Freeman (Lijphart, ND).

Using the comparative methodology, the scholar may ask questions of various political concerns,
such as the connection, if any, between capitalism and democratization or the collation between
federal and unitary states and electoral participation. CA can be employed in either a single
country (case) or a group of countries. For the study of one country to be considered
comparative, the findings of the research must be referenced into a larger framework that
engages in a systematic comparison of analogous phenomena. After applying a comparative
methodology in the collation or collection of data, established hypotheses can then be tested in
an analytical study involving multiple cases (Caramani, 2011).

Patterns, similarities, and differences are examined to assess the relationships of variants
between two or more separate systems. It is this nature of the analysis that renders it
comparative. Henceforth the researcher is subsequently able to isolate the independent variables
of each study case. If the independent variables of “X” and “Y” exist, their relationship to the
dependant variable “Z” can be hypothesised, tested, and established (Landman, 2008).

2|P ag e
Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)
Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD
Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

This isolation is essential for the most defining and significant strength of CA, which is to
establish the hypothetical relationships among variables (Guy, 2011). This empirical analysis can
be used to explain a system, present theoretical ideas for modification, and even reasonably
predict the future consequence of the case study in question.

While some researchers may favor a large amount of countries for their study (large-N) others
will use a smaller amount of units (small-N) (Guy, 1988). The size of the case study is directly
collated with the subject and it must lend the study sufficient statistical power. The researcher
decides whether it is most appropriate to study one or more units for comparison and whether to
use quantitative or qualitative research methods (Guy, 1988).

The methodology of utilizing multiple countries when analyzing is the closest replication of
the experimental method used in natural science (Lim, 2010). A clear strength of this method is
the inclusion of the ability to implement statistical controls to deduct rival explanations, its
ability to make strong inferences that hold for more cases, and its ability to classify ‘deviant’
countries that contradict the outcomes expected from the theory being tested (Guy, 2011).

Deviant countries or cases are units that appear to be exceptions to the norm of the theory being
analyzed. They are most prevalent in studies of processes and institutions involving only one
country. This is because there is often a severely limited amount of variability being tested (Lim,
2010).

In testing for the relationship between income inequality and political violence in sixty countries,
Muller and Seligson identified which countries collated with their theory and which did not.
Brazil, Panama, and Gabon were found to have a lower level of political violence than was
expected for their national level of income inequality. Alternatively, with a low national level of
income inequality, the UK was shown to have a higher-than-expected amount of political
violence (Harro and Hauge, 2003).

This identification of these ‘deviant’, cases allowed researchers to look for the explanations.
They were able to deduct them from their analysis and increase the accuracy of their predictions
for the other cases. This could not have been achieved in a single-country study and would have
inevitably left the findings unbalanced and inaccurate.

Selection bias is a reductive practice that is most common in single-country studies. It arises
through the deliberate prejudice of countries chosen for examination. The most damaging form
of selection bias to the validity of the research is when only case(s) that support the theory being
hypothesized are analyzed. The serious problem of selection bias occurs much less frequently in
studies that contain multiple countries (Lim, 2010). This is because Studies that compare
institutions and processes in multiple countries often rely on a sufficient number of observations
that reduce the problem or at least its effects of selection bias. Using multiple countries reduces
the risk of this invalidity-causing phenomenon.

3|P ag e
Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)
Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD
Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

However, the research of a single country is valuable; it can produce an insightful exploration of
many domestic institutions such as social healthcare, and also processes such as immigration.
The findings however are mostly applicable to the country of analysis. Whereas the findings of
multi-national CA are also domestically valuable, they also tend to be more inherently valuable
to the wider international field. This is because the comparisons of multi-national institutions and
processes that are functionally collated have an increased global validity and transferability than
the findings of a comparison of a single nation (Keman, 2011).

The comparative results of a single nation must be hypothesized with other understandings and
predications relying substantially on theoretical observations, assumptions, and past studies.
Inevitably, studying more than one country lends the study a greater field of which to analyze. It
is by the CA of subjects from multiple countries that thematic maps can be developed, national,
regional, and global trends can be identified, and transnational organizations can make acutely
informed decisions.

These practical benefits are not possible when analyzing a phenomenon from one country
without a cross-case comparison. Analyzing multiple cross-national units also furthers our
understanding of the similarities, differences, and relationships between the case study itself, and
the geopolitical, economic, and socio-cultural factors that would otherwise escape unaccounted.

The popularity of the comparative method of analyzing two or more countries has steadily
increased (Landman, 2008). Indeed it can be regarded as essential to the understanding and
development of modern-day political, and international relations theory. With the constant
dissolvent of countries around the world such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia combined with
the potential for the creation of new states such as Palestine; the CA which involves different
countries offers a wealth of information and most importantly, predictions for their futures. This
theoretical framework for prediction is invaluable to society.

Alternatively, analysis applied to a single-nation case is less applicable on a global scale (Lim,
2010). For example; studying the process of democratization in one Latin American country,
although it offers important inferences that can be examined in other countries with a similar set
of circumstances, is arguably insufficient to develop a theory of democratization itself that would
be globally applicable. Quite simply, the singular analysis of an institution or process involving
only one country often fails to provide a global set of inferences to accurately theorize a process
(Harro and Hauge, 2003).

Comparing and contrasting processes and institutions of two or more countries allows the
isolation of specific national variants (Hopkin, 2010). It also encourages the clear revealing of
common similarities, trends, and causation and the deduction of false causation. This means that
established hypotheses are continually ripe for revaluation and modification. It enables the
researcher to minimize the reductive phenomenon of having ‘too many variables not enough
countries’, this occurs when the researcher is unable to isolate the dependent variable of the

4|P ag e
Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)
Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD
Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

study because there are too many potential variables (Harro and Hauge, 2003). This problem is
far more associated with single-country studies because it results from a surplus of potential
explanatory factors combined with an insufficient amount of countries or cases in the study
(Harro and Hauge, 2003).

Studies involving multiple countries assist in the defining of results as being idiographic in
nature or nomothetic (Franzese, 2007). It also assists in making the important distinction
between causation, positive correlation, negative correlation, and non-correlation. When
analysing only one case or country it is harder to correctly make a distinction between these
relationships especially one that is not only subject to the one country.

It is by studying institutions and processes of different countries by use of an empirical

methodological framework, that the researcher can realise inferences without the ambiguity of
generalizations. The separation of the cases being compared offers the researcher a richer study
ground of variables that assist in acutely testing hypothesises and in the creation of others. It is
through CA that correlating, dependent, and independent relationships can be identified (Lim,
2010).

The inclusion of multiple countries in a study lends the findings wider validity (Keman, 2011).
For example, Gurr demonstrated that the amount of civil unrest in 114 countries is directly
related to the existence of economic and political deprivation. This theory holds for a majority of
countries that it is tested with (Keman, 2011).

It should also be noted that all countries, to differing degrees, are functioning in an
interdependent globalized environment. Because of immigration, economic, and political
interdependence, the study of institutions and/or processes within a single country inevitably
gives a reduction in the transferability of the findings. This is because the findings at least are
only as applicably transferable as their counterparts are functionally equivalent. It also somewhat
fails to account for transnational trends (Franzese, 2007).

Alternatively, a comparison involving multiple nations, especially using quantitative techniques,

can offer valuable empirically based geopolitical and domestic generalizations. These assist in
the evolution of our understanding of political phenomena and produce great recommendations
for how to continue particular research using the same form of analysis or a different method
altogether.

The study of processes and institutions within two or more countries has been criticized for
producing less in-depth information compared to studies involving one country (Franzese,
2007). While this appears to be a substantial criticism; there is not always agreement between
scholars that this trade-off between quantity and quality is substantial, or indeed extremely
relevant. Robert Franzese claims that the relative loss of detail that results from analyzing large
amounts of cross-national cases does not justify retreating to a qualitative study of a few cases

5|P ag e
Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)
Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD
Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

(Franzese, 2007). This is because most generalizations from single-country studies will
inevitably be limited since the country as a unit is bound by unique internal characteristics.

Both single-nation and multinational studies play an important role in CA. Yet as evidenced
above, the strengths of encompassing multiple countries into comparative research far outweigh
any reduction in the quality of the findings. Indeed, multinational studies work to reduce
selection bias, encourage global transferability, assist in variable deduction, and receive
recognition as being empirically scientific.

Bibliography

Caramani, D. (2011) Introduction to Comparative Politics. In: Daniele Caramani (ed)’

Comparative Politics’. 2nd edition. London, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19

Culpepper, P. (2002 ) ’Single Country Studies and Comparative Politics’ Cambridge

Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

Franzese, R. (2007) ‘Multicausality, Context-Conditionally, and Endogeneity’ In Carels Boix

and Susan Stokes. ed(s) ‘The Oxford Handbook of Political Science’. Oxford University Press:
New York. pp29-72

Guy, P. (1988) ‘The Importance of Comparison’. In: ‘Comparative Politics Theory and
Methods.’ Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 2-27

Guy, P. (2011) ‘Approaches in Comparative Politics’. In: Daniele Caramani (ed) ‘Comparative
Politics’.2nd edition. London, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp37-49

Harrop, M. and Hauge, R. (2003) ‘The Comparative Approach’. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan

Hopkin, J. (2010) ‘The Comparative Method’. In: David Marsh & Gerry Stoker .ed(s)‘Theory
and Methods in Political Science’. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 285-307

Keman, H. (2011) ‘Comparative Research Methods’. In Daniele Caramani (ed) ‘Comparative

Politics’. 2nd edition. London, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.50-63

Landman, T. (2008) ‘Why Compare Countries?’.In: ‘Issues and Methods in Comparative

Politics: An Introduction.’ 3rd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 3-22

Lijhart, A. (ND) ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Model’. In: ‘The American Political
Science Review’. Vol 65, No 3. New York: American Political Science Association, pp. 682-693

6|P ag e
Comparative Politics An Introduction (Notes)
Prepared by Christine Jay Zamoranos-Abordo, PhD
Department of Political and Social Sciences
Saint Louis University

First Semester 2023-2024

For Classroom Use only

Lim, T. (2010) ’ Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Approaches and

Issues’. 2nd edition. London: Lynne Rienner

—
Written by: Alexander Stafford
Written at: Queen’s University of Belfast
Written for: Dr. Elodie Fabre
Date Written: February 2013

Source: Alexander Stafford, http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/14/the-value-of-comparative-analysis-

within-political-science/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 3.0 License.

Last modified: Thursday, May 13, 2021, 2:31 PM

7|P ag e