Unit 1 Comparative methods and Approaches

UNIT 1 NATURE, SCOPE AND UTILITY OF
COMPARATIVESTUDY OF POLITICS
Structure
Objectives
Introduction
Comparative Study of Politics: Nature and Scope
1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification of Relationships
1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
ComparativePolitics: A Historical Overview
1.3.1 The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics
1.3 2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
1.3.3 The Second World War and After
1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism
1.3.5 The 1980s: The Return of State
1.3.6 The Late Twentieth Century: Globalisation and Emerging ~rends/~oss'ibilitics
Comparative Study of Politics: Utility
1.4.1 Comparing for Theoretical Formulation
1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour
1.4.3 Comparisions Leading to Explanations in Relationships
SummingUp
Key Words
Some Useful Books
Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
OBJECTIVES
In this unit we shall focus on the nature, scope and utility of a comparative
study of politics. Through these you will be able to rook for answers to questions
like, (a) what is the nature of comparative politics i.e., what is it that gives
comparative political analysis its specificity: its characteristics,elements,
constituents, perspective, purposelaims, and the ideologicallstructural/contextual
framework within which these are realised, (b) what constitutes its scope i.e.,
the range, field, or area of activity that it encompasses and, (c) its utility i.e., its
usefulness and relevance for enhancing our understanding of political reality, or
how does comparative study help us understand this reality better. It should be
pointed out, however, that these aspects cannot be studied in' isolation of each
other in a compartementalised form. For a proper understanding of the nature,
scope and utility of a comparative study of politics, one has to look at the latter's
development historically and see how its attributes evolved with changing contextsi
and concerns.
I
The unit is divided into different sectiorls dhich take up in some detail the above
I outlined themes. Each section is followed by questions based on the section.
Towards the end of the unit is provided a list of readings which can be used to
supplement this unit. A set of questions follok the readings which will help you
assess your understanding. All terms which have specific meanings in comparative
political analysis have been explained in the section on keywords.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
As the term itself points out, comparative politics is about comparing political
phenomena. The emphasis is on both the method of inquiry i.e., comparative, and
the substance into which inquiry is directed i.e., political phenomena. As will be
pointed out in Unit 2 Comparative Method and Methods of Conlparison, the
1 comparative method is not the sole prerogative sf comparative politics, and is
I
Content Digitized by eGyanKosh, IGNOU

Comparative Methods and used with equal ease in other disciplines as well e.g., Psy.chology and Sociology.
Approaches
It is the substance of comparative politics i.e., its subject matter, vocabulary and
perspectiqe, which gives comparative politics its distinctiveness both as a method
and as a Gpecific field of study.
The i~atureand scope of comparative politics has been determined historically by
changes in the above mentioned features i.e., (a) subject matter (b) vocabulary
and (c) political perspective. To understand where, why and how these changes
took place we have to look at what is the focus of study at a particular historical
period, what are the tools, languages or concepts being used for the study and
what is the vantage point, perspective and purpose of enquiry. Thus in the
sections which follow, we shall look at the manner in which comparative politics
has evolved, the continuities and discontinuities which have informed this evolution,
the w a p in which this evolution has been determined in and by the specific
historical contexts and socio-economic and political forces, and how in the context
of late twentieth century viz, globalisation, radical changes have been brought
about in the manner in which the field of comparative politics has so far been
envisaged.
1.2 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: NATURE
- :
AND SCOPE
We mentioned in the previous section that the comparative method is commonly
used in other disciplines as well. We also know from the earlier section, that
comparative politics is distinguished from other disciplines which also use the
comparative method, by its specific subject matter, language and perspective. In
that case, we might well ask the question, is there at all a distinct field of
comparqtive political analysis or is it a sub-discipline subsumed within the
larger discipline of Political Science. The three aspects of subject matter,
languagq, vocabulary, and perspective, we must remember, are inadequate in
establishingthe disti~~ctivenessof comparative politics within the broad discipline of
Political Science, largely because comparative politics shares the subject matter
and concerns of Political Science, i.e. democracy, constitutions, political parties,
social movements etc. Within the discipline of Political Science thus the specificity
of comparative political analysis is marked out by its conscious use of the
comparqtive method to answer questions which might be of general interest
to political scientists.
1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification of Relationships
This stress on the con~parativemethod as defining the character and scope of
comparative political analysis has been maintained by some scholars in order to
dispel frequent misconceptionsabout co~nparativepolitics as involving the study of
'foreign countries' i.e., countries other than your own. Under such an
understanding, if you were studying a country other than your own, (e.g., an
Americgn studying the politics of Brazil or an Indian studying that of Sri Lanka)
you would be called a comparativist. More often than not, this misconception
implies merely the gatheringof information about individual countries with little or
at the most implicit comparison involved. The distinctiveness of comparative
politics, most comparativists would argue, lies in a conscious and systematic use
of comparisons to study two or more countries with the purpose of identl>ing,
and eventually explaining dzrerences or similarities between them with respect
to the particular phenomeita being analqsod. For a long time co~nparativepolitics
appeared merely to look for similarities and differences, and directed this towards
classifying, dichotomising or polarising political phenomena. Comparativepolitical
analysiii is however, not simply about identifying similarities and differences. The. ..

purpose of using comparisons, it is felt by several scholars, is going beyond
'identifying similarities and differences' or the 'compare and contrast approach',
to ultin~atelystudy political phenomena in a larger framework of relationships.
This, it is felt, would help deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of
answering and explaining political phenomena. (See Manoranjan'Mohanty,
'Comparative Political Theory and Third World Sensitivity', TeachingPolitics,
Nos. 1 & 2, 1975).
1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
'rhe often encountered notion that comparative politics involves a study of
governments arises, asserts Ronald Chilcote, from 'conceptual confusion'. Unlike
comparative government whose field is limited to comparative study of
governments, comparative politics is concerned with the study of all forms of
political activity, gover~llnentalas well as nongovernmental. he field of
comparative politics has an 'all encompassing' nature and comparative politics
specialists tend to view it as the study of everything political. Any lesser
corlception of comparative politics would obscure the criteria for the selection and
exclusion of what may be studied under this field. (Ronald Chilcote, Introduction,
Theories of Comparative Politics, p.4)
It may, however, be pointed out that for long comparative politics concerned itself
with the study of governments and regime types, and confined itself to studying
western countries. The process of decolonisation especially in the wake of the
second World War, generated interest in the study of 'new nations'. The increase
in llunlbers and diversity of unitdcases that could be brought into thc gamut of
co~nparison,was accompanied also by the urge to formulate abstract universal
models, which could explain political phenomena and processes in all the units.
Simultaneous to the increase and diversification of cases to be studied was also
a0 expansion in the sphere of politics so as to allow the examination of politics as
a total system, including not merely the state and its institutions but also
individuals. social groupings, political parties, interest groups, social movements etc.
Certain aspects of institutions and political process were especially in focus forI
what was seen as their usefulness in explaining political processes, e.g., political
socialisation, patterns of political culture, techniques of interest articulation and
interest aggregation, styles of political recruitment, extent of political efficacy and
political apathy, ruling elites etc. These systemic studies were often built around
the concern with nation-building i.e., providing a politico-cultural identity to a
population, state-building i.e., providing institutional structure and processes for
politics and modernisation i.e., to initiate a process of change along the western
path of development. The presence of divergent ideological poles in world politics
(Western capitalism and Soviet socialism), the rejection of western imperialism by
most newly liberated countries, the concern with maintaining their distinct identity
in the form of the non-aligned movement and the sympathy among most countries
with a socialist path of development, gradually led to the irrelevance of most
modernisation models for purposes of globalllarge level comparisons. Whereas the
fifties and sixties were the period where attempts to explain political reality were
made through the construction of large scale models, the seventies saw the
assertion of Third World-ism and the rolling back of these models. The Eighties
saw the constriction of the levels of compariso;l with studies based on regions or
smaller numbers of units became prevalent. With globalisation, however, the
I imperatives for large level comparisons increased and the field of comparisons has
I
diversified with the proliferation of nen-state, 'non-governmental actors and the
I
increased interconnectionsbetween nations with economic linkages and
I information technology revolution.
5 +.
i
Nmtorc, Rape rod Utility of
Cemprrrtlvr Study of
Politern

Com~arntivrMethods and In the section which follows we shall take up these developments in comparative
Approaches
political analysis, emphasising in each case, the changes in the character and field
of enquiry,
1.3. COMPARATIVE POLITICS: A HISTORICAL
OVERVIEW
The nature and scope of comparative politics has varied according to the changes
which have occurred historically in its subject matter. The subject matter of
comparative politics has been determined both by the geographical space (i.e.
countries, regions) which has constituted its field as well as the dominap ideas
concerning social reality and change which shaped the approaches to &nparative
studies (capitalist, socialist, mixed and indigenous). ~ikewisd,at different historical
junctures the thrust or the primary concern of the studies kept changing.
1.3.1 The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics
In its earliest incarnation, the comparative study of politics comes to us in the
form of studies done by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle studied the
constitutions of 150 states and classified them into a lypology of regimes. His
classification was presented in terms of both descriptive and normative categories
i.e., he not only described and classified regimes and political systems in terms
'of their types e.g., democracy, aristocracy, monarchy etc., he also distinguished
them on the basis of certain norms of good governance. On the basis of this
comparisofi he divided regimes into good and bad - ideal and perverted. These
Aristotelian categories were acknowledged and taken up by Romans such as
Polybius (201-120 B.C.) and Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who considered them in formal

and legalistic terms. Concern with comparative study of regime types reappeared
'
in the 15th century with Macqiavelli (1469-1527).
1.3.2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
The preoccupation with philosophical and speculative questions concerning the
'good order' or the 'ideal state' and the use, in the process, of abstract and
normative vocabulary, persisted in comparative studies of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
signified the period when liberalism was the reigning ideology and European
countries ehjoyed dominance in world politics. The 'rest of the world' of Agi~,
Africa and Latin America were either European colonies or under their sphere of
1-
influence as ex-colonies. Comparative studies during this period (James Bryces's
Modern Democracies (1921), Herman Finer's Theory and Practice of Modern
Governments (1932) and Carl J. Friedrich's Constitutional Government and
Democracy (1937), Roberto Michels, Political Parties (1 915) and M.Duverger,
Political Parties (1950)) were largely concerned with a comparative study of
institutions, the distribution of power, and the relationship between the different
layers of gwernment. These studies were eurocentric i.e, confined to the study of
institutions, governmentsand regime types in European countries like Britain,
France and Germany. It may thus be said that these studies were in fact not
genuinely aomparative in the sense that they excluded from their analysis a large
number of countries. Any generalisation derived from a study confined to a few
countries could not legitimately claim having validity for the rest of the world. It
may be emphasised here that exclusion of the rest of the world was symptomatic
of the dominance of Europe in world politics - a dominance - which however,
was on the wane, and shifting gradually to North America. All contemporary
l~istoryhad Europe at its centre, obliterating the rest of the world (colonised or
liberated from colonisation) (a) as 'people without histories' or (b) whose histories
. .

were bound with and destined to follow the trajectories already followed by the Nature. SC# and Utility or
advanced countries of the West. Thus the above mentioned works manifest their
Cohpnrntive Study of
Politcs
rootedness in the normative values of western liberal democracies which carried
with it the baggage of racial and civilisational superiority, and assumed a
prescriptive character for the colonies/former colonies.
1.3.3 The Second World W a r and After
In the nineteen thirties the political and economic situation of the world changed.
The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, brought into world politics,
Socialism, as an ideology of the oppressed and, as a critical alternative to western
liberalism and capitalism. With the end of the second World War a number of
significant developments had taken place, including the waning of European
(British) hegemony, the emergence and entrenchment of United States of America
as the new hegemon in world politics and economy, and the bifurcation of the
world into two ideological camps viz. (western) capitalism and (eastern) socialism.
The majority of the 'rest of the world' had, by the time the second World War
ended, liberated itself from European imperialism. For a period after decolonisation
the notions of development, modernisation, nation-building, state-building etc.,
evinced a degree of legitimacy and even popularity as 'national slogans' among
the political elite of the 'new nations'. Ideologically, however, these 'new nations',
were no longer compelled to tow the western capitalist path of development.
While socialism had its share of sympathisers among the new ruling elite of the
Asia, America and Latin America, quite a number of newly independent countries
made a conscious decision to distance themselves from both the power blocs,
re~nainingnon-aligned to either. A number of them evolved their own specific
path of development akin to the socialist, as in the case of Ujama in Tanzania,
and the mixed-economy model in India which was a blend of both capitalism and
socialism.
It may be worth remembering that the comparative study of governments till the
1940s was predominantly the strrdy of institutions, the legal-constitutional
principles regulating them, and the manner in which they functioned in western
(European) liberal-democracies.In the context of the above stated developments,
a powerful critique of the institutional approach emerged in the middle of 1950s.
The critique had its roots in behavio';lralism which had emerged as a new
movement in the discipline of politics aiming to provide scientific rigour to the
discipline and develop a science of politics. Known as the behavioural
movement, it was concerned with developing an enquiry which was quantitative,
based on survey techniques involving the examination of empirical facts separated
from values, to provide value-neutral, non-prescriptive, objective observationsand
explanations. The behaviouralists attempted to study social reality by seeking
answers to questions like 'why people behave politically as they do, and why as a
result, political processes and systems function as they do'. It is these 'why
questions' regarding d~flerencesin people's behaviours and their implications for
polirical processes and political systems, which changed the focus of
comparative study from the legal-formal aspects of institutions. Thus in 1955 Roy
Macridis criticised the existing comparative studies for privileging formal
institutions over non-formal political processes, for being descriptive rather than#
analytical, and case-study oriented rather than genuinely comparative. (Roy
Macridis, The S~udyof Comparative Government, New York, Random House,
1955). Harry Eckstein points out that the changes in the nature and scope of
comparative politics in this period show a sensitivity to the changing world politics
urging the need to reconceptualise the notion of politics and develop paradigms for
large-scale comparisons. (Harry Eckstein, 'A Perspective on Comparative Politics,
Past and Present' in Harry Eckstein and David Apter eds., Comparative
Politics: A Reader, New York, Free Press, 1963.) Rejecting the then traditional8

Colnparative Methods and and almost exclusive emphasis on the western world and the conceptual language
Approaches
which had been developed with such limited comparisons in mind, Gabriel
Almond and his colleagues of the American Social Science Research Council's
Committee on Comparative Politics (founded in 1954) sought to develop a theory
and a methodology which could encompass and compare political systems of all
kinds - primitive or advanced, democratic or non-democratic, western or non
western.
The broadening of concerns in a geographic or territorial sense was also
accompanied by a broadening of the sense of politics itself, and in particular, by a
rejection of what was then perceived as the traditional and narrowly defined
emphasis om the study of formal political institutions. The notion of politics was
broadened by the emphasis on 'realism' or politics 'in practice' as distinguished
from mere 'legalism'. This included in its scope the functioning of less formally
structured agencies, behaviours and processes e.g. political parties, interest groups,
elections, voting behaviour, attitudes etc. (Gabriel Almond, Political Development,
Boston, 1970).With the deflection of attention from studies of formal institutions,
there was simultaneously a decline in the centrality of the notion of the state
itself. We had mentioned earlier that the emergence of a large number of
countries on the world scener necessitated the development of frameworks which
would facilitate comparisons on a large scale. This led to the emergence of
inclusive and abstract notions like the political systenl. This notion of the
'system' replaced the notion of the state and enabled scholars to take into
account the 'extra-legal', 'social' and 'cultural' institutions which were cri~cialto
the understanding of non-western politics and had the added advantage of
including in its scope 'pre-state'l'non-state' societies as well as roles and offices
which were not seen as overtly connected with the state. Also, with tlie cliange
of emphasis to actual practices and functions of institutions, the problems of
research Game to be defined not in terms of what legal powers these institutions
had, but what they actually did, how they were related to one another, and what
roles they played in the making and execution of public policy. This led to tlie
emergence of structural-functionalism, in' which certain functions were described
as being necessary to all societies, and the execution and performance of these
functions were then compared across a variety of different formal and illformal
structures (Peter Mair, 'Comparative Politics: An Overview', p.315)
.
While the universal frameworks of systems and structures-jiunctions enabled
western scholars to study a wide range of political systems, structures, and
behaviours, within a single paradigm, the appearance of 'new nations' provided to
western comparativists an opportunity to study what they perceived as econon~ic
and political change. Wiarda points out that it was in this period of tlie sixties
that most contemporary scholars of comparative politics came of age. The 'new
nations7became for most of these scholars [ironically] 'living laboratories' for the
study of social and political change. Wiarda describes those 'exciting times' which
offered unique opportunities to study political change, and saw the develop~nentof
liew methodologies and approaches to study them. It was during this period that
some of the most innovative and exciting theoretical and conceptual approaches
were advanced in the field of comparative politics: study of political culture,
politicd socialisation, developmentalism, dependency and interdependency,
corporatism, bureaucratic-authoritarianism and later transitions to democracy etc.
(Howard J.Wiarda, 'Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the Field in the
Post-ColldWar Era', Third World Quarterly, Vol.19, no.5.)
This period saw the mushrooming of universalistic models like Easton's political
system, Deutsch's social mobilisation and Shil's centre and periphery. Tlie
theories of modernisation by Apter, Rokkan, Eisenstadt and Ward and the theory
of political development by Almond, Coleman, Pye and Verba also claimed

universal relevance. These theories were claimed to be applicable across cultural Nature, scope and Utility of
and ideological boundaries and to explain political process everywhere. The Comparative study or
Politcs
developnient of comparative political analysis in this phase coincided with the
inter~lationalinvolvement of the United States through military alliances and
foreign aid. Most research in this period was not only funded by research
foundations, it was also geared to the goals of US foreign policy. The most
symbolic of these were the Project Camelot in Latin America and the Himalayan
Project in India. This period was heralded by the appearance of works like
Apter's study on Ghana. Published in 1960, Politics of Developing Areas by
Almond and Coleman, sharply defined the character of the new 'Comparative
Politics Movement'. The publication of a new journal in the US entitled
Comparative Politics in 1969 reflected the height of this trend. (Manoranjan
Mohanty, 'Comparative Politics and Third World Sensitivity', Teaching Politics,
Nos., I & 2, 1975). 'Developmentalism' was perhaps the dominant conceptual
paradigm of this time. To a considerable extent, the interest in developmentalism
enlanated from US foreign policy interests in 'developing' countries, to counter
the appeals of Marxism-Leninism and steer them towards a non-communist way
to development. (Howard J.Wiarda, 'Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the
Field in the Post-Cold War Era', Third World Quarterly, Vol.19, no.5, p.937)
1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism
Towards the 1970s, developmentalism came to be criticised for favouring abstract
models, which flattened out differences among specific politicallsociallcultural
systems, in order to study them within a single universalistic framework. These
criticisms emphasised the ethnocentricism of these models and focussed on the
Third World in order to work out a theory of underdevelopment. They stressed
the need to concentrate on solutions to the backwardness of developing countries.
Two main challenges to developmentalism which arose in the early 1970sand
gained widespread attention were (a) dependency and (b) corporatism.
Dependency theory criticised the dominant model of developmentalism for ignoring
(a) domestic class factors and (b) international market and power factors in
development. It was particularly critical of US foreign policy and multinational
corporations and suggested, contrary to what was held true in developmentalism,
that the development of the already-industrialised nations and that of the
developing ones could not go together. Instead, dependency theory argued, that
the development of the West had come on the shoulders and at the cost of the
non-West. The idea that the diffusion of capitalism pro~notesunderdevelopment
and not development in many parts of the world was embodied in Andre Gundre
Frank's Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (1967), Walter
Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped A@ica (1972) and Malcolm Caldwell's
The Wealth of Some Nations (1979). Marxist critics of the dependency theory,
however, pointed out that the nature of exploitation through surplus extraction
should not be seen simply on national lines but, as part of a more complex pattern
of alliances between the metropolitan bourgeoisie of the corelcentre and the
indigenous bourgeoisie of the peripherylsatellite as they operated in a worldwide
capitalist system. The corporatist approach criticised developmetalism for its Euro-
A~llericanethnocentricism and indicated that there were alternative organic,
= corporatist, often authoritarian ways to organise the state and state-society
relations. (Ronald Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics, p.16)
1.3.5 The 1980s: The Return of the State
During tlie later 1970s and into the 1980s, still reflecting tlie backlash against
tirvelopn~entalism,a number of theories and subject matters emerged into the field
of comparativepolitics. These included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, indigenous
concepts of change, transitions to democracy, the politics of structural

Comparative Methods adjustment,'neoliberalism and privatisation. While some scholars saw these
Approaches
developments as undermining and breaking the unity of the field which was being
dominated by developmentalism, others saw them as adding healthy diversity,
providing alternative approaches and covering new subject areas. Almond, who
had argued in the late 1950s that the notioo of the state should .be replaced by
the political system, which was adaptable to scientific inquiry, and Easton, who
undertook to construct the parametres and concepts of a political system,
continued to argue well into the 1980s on the importance of political system as
the core of political study. The state, however, received its share of attention in
the 60s and 70s in the works of bureaucratic-authoritarianism in Latin America,
especially in Argentina in the works of Guillermo O'Donnell e.g., Economic
Modernisation and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (1973). Ralph Miliband's
The State 'in Capitalist Sociery (1969) had also kept the interest alive. With
Nicos Pou{antzas's State, Power, Socialism (1978), and political sociologists
Peter Evans, Theda Skocpol, and others Bringing the State Back In (1985),
focus was sought to be restored onto the state.
1.3.6 The Late G e n t i e t h cen7ury: Globalisation and Emerging Trends/
Possibilities
a) Scalihg down of systems: Much of the development of comparative political
analysis in the period 1960s to 1980s can be seen as an ever widening range
of countries being included as cases, with more variables being added to the
mode~ls,such as policy, ideology, governing experience, and so on. With the
1980$, however, there has been a move away from general theory to
empljasis on the relevance of context. In part, this tendency reflects the
renewed influence of l~istoricalinquiry in the social sciences, and especially
the emergence of a 'historical sociology' which tries to understand
phenomena in the very broad or 'holistic' context within which they occur.
(Theda Skocpol and M.Somers, 'The Use of Comparative History in Macro-
social Inquiry', Comparative Studies in Sociery and History, No.22, 1980
and P.Abrams, Historical Sociology, lthaca, 1982). There has been a shying
away from models to a more indepth understanding of particular countries
and cases where more qualitative and contextualised data can be assessed
and where account can be taken of specific institutional circumstances or
particular political cultures. Hence we see a new emphasis on Inore culturally
specific studies (e.g., English speaking countries, Islamic countries), and
n a t i b n a ~ ~ ~specific countries (e.g., England, India), and even institutionally
specific countries (e.g., India under a specific regime). While emphasis on
'grand systems' and model building diminished, the stress on specific contexts
and cultures has meant that tlie scale of comparisons was brought down.
Comparisons at the level of 'smaller systems' or regions, however, remained
e.g., the Islamic world, Latin American countries, Sub-Saharan Africa, South
Asia etc.
b) Civil Society and Democratisation Approach(es): The disintegration of
Soviet Union brought into currency the notion of the 'end of history'. In his
article 'The End of History?' (1989), which was developed later into the
book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Francis Fukuynma
argued that the history of ideas had ended with the recognition and triumph -
of liberal democracy as the 'final form of human government'. The 'end of
history', invoked to stress the predominance of western liberal democracy, is
in a way reminiscent of the 'end of ideology' debate of the 1950s which
emerged at the height of the cold war and in tlie context of the decline of
conhmunism in the West. Western liberal scholars proposed that the economic
adv,ancementmade in the irldustrialised societies of the west had resolved
political problems, e.g., issuesbf freedom and state power, workers rights

etc., which are assumed to accompany industrialisation. The U.S. sociologist,
Daniel Bell in particular, pointed in his work (The End of Ideology?: On the
' Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s, 1960), that in the light of this
development there was an ideological consensus, or the suspension of a need
for ideological differences over issues of political practice. In the nineteen
eighties, the idea of the 'end of history' was coupled with another late
nineteen eighties phenomenon - globalisation. Globalisation refers to a set of
conditions, scientific, technological, economic and political, which have linked
together the world in a manner so that occurrences in one part of the world
are bound to affect or be affected by what is happening in another part. It
may be pointed out that in this global world the focal point or the centre
around which events move worldwide is still western capitalism. In the
context of the so called triumph of capitalism, the approaches to the study of
civil sociey and democratisation that have gained currency give importance
to civil society defined in terms of protection of individual rights to enter the
modern capitalist world.
There is, however, another significant trend in the approach which seeks to
place questions of civil society and democratisation as its primary focus. If
there are on one hand studies conforming to the contemporary interest of
western capitalism seeking to develop market democracy, there are also a
number of studies which take into account the resurgence of people's
movements seeking autonomy, right to indigenousculture, movements of
tribals, dalits, lower castes, and the women's movement and the environment
movement. These ~novementsreveal a terrain of contestation where the
interests of capital are in conflict with peoples rights and represent the
language of change and liberation in an era of global capital. Thus concerns
with issues of identity, environment, ethnicity, gender, race, etc. have provided
a new dimension to comparative political analysis. (See Manoranjan Mohanty,
Contemporary Indian Political Theory, 2000).
c) Information collection and diffusion: A significant aspect and determinant
of globalisation has been the unprecedented developments in the field of
information and com~nunicationtechnology viz., the Internet and World Wide
Web. This has made the production, collection and analysis of data easier and
also assured their faster and wider diffusion, worldwide. These developments
have not only enhanced the availability of data, but also made possible the
emergence of new issues and themes which extend beyond the confines of
the nation-state. These new themes in turn form an importantlinfluential
aspect of the political environment of the contemporary globalised world. The
global network of social movements organisations, the global network of
activists is one such significant aspect. The diffusion of ideas of
denlocratisation is an important outcorlle of such networking. The Zapastista
rebellion in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas used the Internet and the
global media to communicate their struggle for rights, socialjustice and
democracy. The cohcern with issues regarding the promotion and protection
of human rights which is dependent on the collection and dissemination of
infor~nationhas similarly become pertinent in the contemporary porld.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for ybur answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end
of the unit.
1) Is it possible to say that comparative politics refers only to a method of
studying governments?
Nature, Scope and Utiljty of
Comparative Study of
Politcs

Comparative Methods and
Approaches

'1
2) The nature, field and scope of comparative politics has evolved in response
to the changing socio-political concerns over different historical periods.
Comment.
1.4 'COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: UTILITY
The question of utility of comparative politics is concerned with its usefulness and
relevance for enhancing our understanding of political reality. It seeks to know
how a cotnparative study helps us understand this reality better.
First and foremost, we must bear in mind that political behaviour is common to all
human beings and manifests itself in diverse ways and under diverse social and
institutional set ups all over the world. It may be said that an understanding of
these related and at the same time different political behaviours and patterns is an
integral part of our understanding of politics itself. A sound and comprehensive
understanding would commonly take the form of comparisons.
1.4.1 Comparingfor TheoreticalFormulation
While comparisons form an implicit part of all our reasoning and thinking, most
compfirativistswould argue that a comparative study of politics seeks to make
comparisdns consciously to arrive at conclusions which can be generalised i.e.'
held true for a number of cases. To be able to make such generalisations with a
degree of confidence, it is not sufficient to just collect information about countries.
The stred in comparative political analysis, is on theory-building and theory-
testing with the countries acting ?s units or cases. A lot of emphasis is therefore
laid, and energies spent, on developing rules and standards about how comparative
research should be carried out. A comparative study ensures that all
generalisations are based on the observation of more than one or
observation of relationship between several phenomena. The broader the observed
universe, the greater is the confidence in statements about relationship and
sounder the theories.
1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour
A9 will be explained in the next unit, the comparative method gives these theories
scientific basis and rigour. Social scientistswho emphasise scientific precision,
validity and reliability, see comparisons as indispensable in the social sciences
because they offer the unique opportunity of 'control' in the study of social
phenomena. (Giovanni Sartori, 'compare, Why and How' in Mattei Dogan and
, Ali Kazancigil eds., Cqmparing Nations, Concepts, Strategies, Substance,
-1Blackwell, Oxford, 1994.).

1.4.3 Comparisons Leading to Explanationsin Relationships
1
Nature, Scope and Utility of
Comoarative Study of,
~oiitcs
For a long time comparative politics appeared merely to look for similarities and
differences, and directed this towards classifying, dichotomising or polarising
political phenomena. Comparative political analysis is however, not simply about
identifying similaritiesand differences. The purpose of using comparisons, it is felt
by several scholars, is going beyond 'identifying similaritiesand differences' or the
'compare and contrast approach' as it is called, to ultimately study political
phenomena in a larger framework of relationships. This, it is felt, would help
'deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of answering and explaining
political phenomena. (See Manoranjan Mohanty, 'Comparative Political Theory and ' s
Third World Sensitivity', Teaching Politics, Nos.1 & 2, 1975)
I' Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the
unit.
1) What according to you is the usefulness of a comparative study of politics?
.......................................................................................................................
1.5. SUMMING UP
The nature and scope of comparative study of politics related to its subject
matter, its field of study, the vantage point from which the study is carried out
and the purposes towards which the study is directed. These have, however, not
been static and have changed over time. While the earliest studies concerned
themselves with observing and classifying governments and regimes, comparative
politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was concerned with
studying the formal legal structures of institutions in western countries. Towards
the end of the second World War, a number of 'new nations' emerged on the .
world scene having liberated themselves from colonial domination. The dominance
of liberalism was challenged by the emergence of communism and the powerful
presence of Soviet Union on the world scene. The concern among comparativists
changed at this juncture to studying the diversity of political,behavioursand
processes which were thrown up, however, within a single overarching
framework. The concept of 'systems' and 'structures-functions' came in vogue.
These frameworks were used by western scholars particularly those in the United'
States to study phenomena like developmentalism, modernisation etc. While the
political elite of the newly independent countries found concepts like development,
natidn-building and state building attractive, in many cases they evolved their own
ideological stances and chose to remain non-aligned to either ideological blocs. In
the late 1980sfocus on studying politics comparatively within an overarching
framework of 'system' declined and regional systemic studies assumed
significance. The focus on state in these studies marked a resurgence of the
study of power structures within civil society and its political forms,'which had
suffered a setback with;the arrival of systems and structures-functions into
comparative politics. The petering out df Soviet Union in the same period,
provoked western scholars to proclaim the 'end of history' marking the triumph of
liberalism and capitalism. Globalisation of capital, a sigoificant feature of the late
-

Comparative Methods nnd nineteen eighties, which continues and makes itself manifest in technological,
Appronches
economic and information linkages among the countries of the world, has also
tended to ipfluencecomparativists into adopting universalistic, homogenising
expressions like 'transitions to democracy', the 'global market' and 'civil society'.
Such expressions would have us believe that there do not in fact remain
difference$, uncertainties and contests which need to be explained in a
comparative perspective. There is, however, another way to look at the
phenomena and a number of scholars see the resurgence of civil society in terms
of challenges to global capitalism which comes from popular movements and trade
union activism throughout the world.
Check Ydur Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the
hlnit.
1) What are the features that determine the nature and scope of comparative
politics?
2) ~race'thedevelopment of Comparative Politics in the twentieth century
bringing out (a) the specificities of the period before and after the second
World War; (b) developmentalism and its critique; (c) late twentieth century
developments.
3) A comparative study of politics looks for explanations of political phenomenon
in a framework of relationships. In the light of this statement comment on the
developments in the field of comparative politics after the demise of colonial
empires, through the cold war, upto the age of globalisation.
.......................................................................................................................
- - - - -
1.6 K ~ YWORDS
Behaviouralism: The belief that social theories should be constructed only on the
basis of observable behaviour, providing quantifiable data for research.
Civil society: The term has contested meanings. By and large it is understood as
the realm of autonomous groups and associatians,-a private sphere- .--- independent--
- - - --
from public authority. '

,
I Configurative:kefers to a combination of favourable conditions or aspects of Nature, Scope and Utility of
any observed political phenomenon, e.g., the necessary and sufficient conditions Comparative Study of
Polites
for revolution, democratic paiScipation etc..
Control: A regulation or check -an important part of experiments where a
parallel experiment or group of subjects is set up (control group) - to provide a
standard of comparison for other experiment. In an experiment set up to study
the effect of visual aids in learning, the control group will not be introduced with
the condition (visual aid) whose influence is to be studied.
Democratisation: Refers to processes indicating the promotioa of democracy,
implying in particular, the granting of basic freedoms, increase in popular .participation and electoral choices.
Descriptive: Statements giving empirical facts, delineating characteristicsand
I attributes.
Dichotomy: Division into two strongly contrasted groups or classes.
Eurocentric: Refers to the bias and distortions which emerge from the
application of European values, beliefs and theories, to other cultures and groups.
Globaljsation: Globalisation refers to a set of conditions, scientific,technological,
economic and political, which have linked together the world in a manner so that
occurrences in one part of the world are bound to affect or be affected by what
: is happening in another part.
Method: Methods are ways of organising theories for application to data, also
called 'conceptual schemes'. Types of method comparative (using more than one
case), configurative (using a single case study) and historical (using time and
sequence). Method is more about 'thinking about thinking'.
Methodology: The study of different methods of research, including the
identification of research questions, the formulation of theories to explain certain
events and political outcomes, and the development of research design.
Model: In simple terms an intellectual construct which simplifies reality in order
, to emphasise the recurrent, the constant and the typical, which it presents in the
I
form of clusters of tracts or attributes. In other words, 'models' and 'types' are
treated as synonyms.
Neoliberalism: An updated version of classical political economy, dedicated to
, market individualism and minimal statism.
Normative: The prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with
questions pertaining to 'what should be' rather than 'what is'.
Postbehaviouralism: Refers to a period after 1970 and a methodology that
accepts that observations and analysis of the political world are not free from
certaii~theoretical and value biases, yet strives to make strong inferences through
empirical analysis.
Privatisation: The transfer of state assets from the public to the private sector,
reflecting a contraction of state responsibilities.
Systems theory: The theory that treats the political system as a self-regulating
mechanism, respondingto 'inputs' (demands and support) by issuing authoritative
decisionsor 'outputs' (policies),

Culnpnrntive Methods and Theory: a definitive and logical statement (or groups of statements) about how,Approaches
the world (or some key aspect of the world) 'works'. Known collectively as
empirical theory (as opposed to normative theory), these statements make claims
about relati~onshipsbetween variables that can be tested using systematic
comparative analysis.
-
1.7 SOlME USEFUL BOOKS
Chilcote, Ronald H., Part I: Introduction, in Ronald H.Chilcote, Theories of
Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered, Westview
Press, Boulder, 1994 (Second Edition).
Landman, Todd, Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction,
Routledge, London, 2000.
Mair, Peter, 'Comparative Politics: An Overview', in R.E.Goodin and
H.Klingemann eds., The New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford University
Press, Oxford; 1996.
Mohanty, Manoranjan, 'Moving the Centre in the Study of Political Thought and
Political theory', in Manoranjan Mohanty, Contemporary Indian Political Theory.
Samskriti, New ~eThi,2000.
Mohanty, Manoranjan, 'Comparative Political Theory and Third world Sensitivity',
Teaching Politics, Nos.] & 2, 1975.
Sartori, Giovanni, 'Compare, Why and How', in Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil
eds., Coyparing Nations, Concepts, Strategies, Substance, BlackwelI, Oxford,
1994.
Wiarda, Roward J. 'Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the Field in the
Post-Cold War Era', Third World Quarterly, Vol.19, no.5.
1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
1) No it is not merely a method of studying governments. It is also concerned
with analysing issues concerning governance and formulation of abstract
universal models which could explain political phenomena and processes in all
Units. See sub-section 1.2.2 to elaborate.
2) The subject matter of comparative politics has been evolving and developing
both in terms of geographical space as well as ideas and theories. It has
therkfore passed through significant developments and undergone important
changes. For elaboration see sub-section 1.3.
Check fiour Progress 2
1) ~ o h ~ a r a t i v ePolitics is useful for the building of theories, scientific alialysis of
issues and problems, explanation of phenomena etc.
1) See Section 1.5
2) Seq Section 1.3.6
3) Write your answer OR the basis of overall assessment of Section 1.3.

Unit 1 Comparative methods and Approaches

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Unit 1 Comparative methods and Approaches (20)

More from Yash Agarwal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit 1 Comparative methods and Approaches