• Middle East has undergone dramatic changes over a short period of time, surprising many scholars and politicians.
• In the 1980s, few expected the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, but modest reforms in the Soviet Union were expected instead.
• After communism’s fall, many predicted that Middle Eastern regimes would democratize next, but by the turn of the century, authoritarianism seemed immune to change.
• Scholars cited factors like oil, Western economic and military aid, lack of civic institutions, or the supposedly undemocratic nature of Islam as reasons for the region’s stability.
• The Arab Spring of 2010–2011 began unexpectedly with Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia, which sparked protests and the fall of the government.
• Protests spread across the region: Hosni Mubarak resigned in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi was killed in Libya, and Syria descended into civil war.
• The political future of these countries remains uncertain, with Tunisia transitioning to democracy, Egypt returning to dictatorship, Libya facing tribal conflict, and Syria in prolonged civil war.
• Some countries, especially the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, avoided large-scale protests, despite their seemingly vulnerable political structures.
• Questions remain about the causes of the Arab Spring, the variations in protest forms, violence levels, and why some countries didn’t see protests.
• The initial hope for democratic reform in the Middle East has been overshadowed by violence, civil war, and a refugee crisis.
• The past 25 years have seen dramatic global changes, including the rise of new economic powers, the collapse of communism, religion in politics, technological advancements, and the spread of globalization.
• Ethnic and religious conflicts in places like Syria and Iraq raise questions about their origins, whether rooted in inequality, political disenfranchisement, or cultural differences.
• Evaluating competing explanations for political events is challenging, often lacking reliable evidence or clear cause-and-effect relationships.
• Political science and comparative politics can provide tools to better understand and shape policies in the face of complex political changes.
• Comparative politics compares domestic politics across countries, contrasting with international relations that focuses on relations between countries.
• Ethnic and religious conflict often spills across borders, and political change can be influenced by international forces.
• This chapter introduces analytical concepts, methods, and ideals in political science, focusing on questions like “What is politics?” and how to compare different political systems.
• Analytical concepts guide research by asking about cause and effect; methods provide tools for testing theories; and ideals compare current politics with preferred outcomes.
• Political scientists debate whether political analysis can truly be considered a science, highlighting the limitations and possibilities of comparative politics.
• Institutions play a crucial role in shaping politics by defining rules, norms, and structures.
• The chapter will also explore the ideals of freedom and equality, considering which should be prioritized or balanced in political systems.

What Is Comparative Politics?

• Politics is the struggle for power within a group, allowing individuals to make decisions for the larger group.
• Comparative politics is a subfield of political science that compares the pursuit of power across countries.
• Political scientists focus on the struggle for leadership and power in political communities such as political parties, elected offices, cities, regions, or countries.
• Politics and power are closely related, as power is the ability to influence others or impose one’s will.
• Comparative politics helps us analyze cause and effect by drawing evidence from multiple countries across different times and spaces.
• Key questions include why some countries are democratic while others are not, and why power is dispersed in some countries and concentrated in others.
• South Korea and North Korea provide a case study: comparing these two countries helps understand the different paths they took in terms of democracy and power structures.
• These questions are not just academic but have real-world implications, especially for democratic countries and pro-democracy organizations promoting like-minded regimes globally.
• Understanding how and why countries transition to democracy is crucial for promoting democracy effectively and safely.
• It’s important to separate ideals from methods in political science to ensure that our ideals don’t cloud the use of research and comparison.
• Comparative politics can challenge our assumptions about the best way to organize political life and offer alternative perspectives.

The Comparative Method

• Comparison is crucial for testing assumptions and shaping ideals in political science, and the method of comparison is key to drawing valid conclusions.
• Researchers often focus on puzzles, or questions about politics with no obvious answer, to guide their research.
• A comparative method helps scholars make generalizations and conclusions that may apply to other cases.
• Inductive reasoning starts with a case study and generates a hypothesis, while deductive reasoning begins with a hypothesis and tests it across multiple cases.
• In comparative politics, scholars seek to find correlation or causality between variables, but this process is challenging.
• One major challenge is the difficulty in controlling variables, as real-world politics are influenced by diverse factors such as economies, cultures, and geographies.
• Multicausality is another challenge, as many variables interact to produce political outcomes, making it difficult to isolate one single cause.
• Limited information and a small number of cases to study further complicate comparisons in political science.
• Accessing data for studies can be hindered by language barriers, travel expenses, and restricted government information, making research across multiple countries difficult.
• Single-case studies provide deep insights but can make it hard to draw comparisons with other cases and may lead to viewing a country as unique.
• Regional focus or area studies often limit the scope of comparative research, with more studies conducted on Western Europe compared to other regions.
• Bias is a significant concern in comparative politics, particularly selection bias, where researchers may choose cases that support their hypotheses.
• Researchers must avoid focusing only on cases where the desired outcome occurs, such as revolutions, and instead consider a broader range of cases to test hypotheses more effectively.
• The challenge of cause and effect is central to comparative politics, especially in determining which variable is the cause and which is the effect, known as endogeneity.
• Even with rigorous case selection and data gathering, distinguishing between cause and effect remains a major obstacle in comparative research.
• Endogeneity highlights the interconnectedness of variables, where causes and effects evolve together over time, complicating causal claims.

Can We Make a Science of Comparative Politics?

• Comparative politics and political science face challenges in generating theories due to difficulties in controlling variables, interconnectedness of factors, and limited cases for comparison.
• Selection bias and endogeneity affect the questions asked, making it harder to produce valid conclusions.
• Political science and comparative politics aim to address these concerns with a more scientific approach to study politics.
• Aristotle (384–322 BCE) conducted comparative research on political systems (regimes), analyzing the constitutions of 158 Greek city-states, and sought to explain why some regimes were despotic while others were not.
• Aristotle conceived of an empirical science of politics for statecraft, separating the study of politics from philosophy.
• For 1,800 years after Aristotle, political studies remained philosophical, focused more on ideals rather than empirical analysis.
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) was the first to develop a true comparative approach to politics, analyzing existing political systems and drawing generalizations for statesmen to avoid past mistakes.
• Machiavelli’s work was empirical and focused on statecraft, diplomacy, and military strategy, making him the first modern political scientist.
• His work, alongside the broader intellectual movement of the Renaissance, contributed to political science as a rigorous, logical, and predictable science.
• Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Baron de Montesquieu further developed political science by analyzing empirical data and promoting political systems based on observation, shaping modern democratic structures.
• Karl Marx and Max Weber contributed to the study of political and economic organization, adding depth to political science in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
• By the turn of the 20th century, political science became a formal field of study, though it was still largely descriptive, atheoretical, and focused on Europe due to its dominance in world politics.
• World wars and the Cold War marked a pivotal shift in political science, especially in the United States, as the field moved toward applying more rigorous methods to study human behavior.
• The creation of new countries, the rise of fascism, and the failure of democracy during the interwar periodhighlighted the need for a more scientific understanding of political outcomes.
• The Cold War and the threat of nuclear conflict made the study of comparative politics a matter of survival, pushing for more scientific and predictive methods.
• Technological innovation, such as early computers, led to the belief that social problems could be resolved through science.
• Modernization theory emerged, positing that societies would inevitably become capitalist democracies, with countries like the United States as models, and others would eventually follow.
• During the 1950s and 1960s, comparativists expanded their research scope, incorporating more cases and utilizing field research, computers, and statistical methods.
• The shift in focus from political institutions to individual political behavior is known as the behavioral revolution, which aimed to generate theories to predict political activity.
• Behavioralism promoted deductive methods and large-scale research, seeking to establish general theories of political behavior and modernization.
• By the late 1970s, resistance grew to the behavioral approach, as modernization theory failed to explain political realities, especially as many newly independent countries experienced violence and authoritarianism instead of moving toward democracy.
• Critics of behavioralism argued it focused too much on methodology and technical jargon, while others criticized its ideological bias, believing it pushed a Western model of development.
• Some believed comparative politics served U.S. foreign policy interests, reinforcing a bias toward capitalism and democracy.
• Since then, comparative politics has become increasingly fragmented, with no clear consensus on the future direction or best methods for research.

Major Thinkers in Comparative Politics

Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e.) :  First separated the study of politics from that of philosophy; used the comparative method to study Greek ­ city-​­ states; in The Politics, conceived of an empirical study of politics with a practical purpose.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527):  Often cited as the first modern political scientist due to his emphasis on statecraft and empirical knowledge; analyzed different political systems, believing the findings could be applied by statesmen; discussed his theories in The Prince.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679):  Developed the notion of a “social contract,” whereby people surrender certain liberties in favor of order; advocated a powerful state in Leviathan.
John Locke (1632–1704):  Argued that private property is essential to individual freedom and prosperity; advocated a weak state in Two Treatises of Government.
Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755):  Studied government systems; advocated the separation of powers within government in The Spirit of Laws.
­ Jean-​­ Jacques Rousseau (1712–78): Argued that citizens’ rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away by the state; influenced the development of civil rights; discussed these ideas in The Social Contract.
Karl Marx (1818–83) : Elaborated a theory of economic development and inequality in Das Kapital; predicted the eventual collapse of capitalism and democracy.
Max Weber (1864–1920) :Wrote widely on such topics as bureaucracy, forms of authority, and the impact of culture on economic and political development; developed many of these themes in Economy and Society.

RESEARCH METHODS

• Methodology is a key area of conflict in comparative politics, particularly regarding how to gather and analyze data.
• Challenges include selecting cases, controlling variables, and how to gather and interpret data for comparisons.
• Some scholars rely on qualitative methods, such as interviews, observations, and documentary research (archival evidence).
• Qualitative approaches are often narrow, focusing on a few cases in-depth, but can also involve global case studies spanning centuries, such as in studies on modernization or revolution.
• Inductive reasoning is common in qualitative research, starting with case studies to generate theory.
• Critics of qualitative approaches argue that variables are not rigorously defined or measured, and hypotheses are not tested with large sample sizes.
• These critics advocate for quantitative methods, which they believe provide more rigorous analysis, including statistical analysis and mathematical models drawn from economics.
• Quantitative methods typically use deductive reasoning, starting with a theory that is tested through data from multiple cases.
• Advocates of qualitative research question the value of quantitative methods, arguing they focus on mundane, measurable variables that may not address meaningful or significant questions.
• Overdependence on quantitative methods may lead to neglecting important questions that cannot be measured numerically.

THEORY

• A second debate in comparative politics concerns the theoretical assumptions about human behavior.
• The question is whether human beings are rational in their actions, following predictable patterns based on preferences.
• Some scholars use rational choice theory or game theory to study how people make political decisions (voting, choosing a party, supporting a revolution).
• Rational choice theory can lead to explanation and prediction, key elements of science.
• Critics of rational choice theory argue that it overemphasizes individual rationality, ignoring factors like historical complexity, unintended outcomes, and cultural factors.
• Some critics view rational choice theory as rooted in Western (especially American) ideas of self-interest, markets, and individual autonomy that do not easily apply globally.
• Political science has struggled to predict significant events, such as the end of the Cold War, political changes in the Middle East, the re-emergence of religion in politics, and the rise of new economic powers in Asia.
• Terrorism, once associated with secular groups, has resurfaced with different actors, showing the limitations of existing theories.
• Many political scientists have failed to contribute meaningfully to these changing issues, often being caught off guard.
• Recent signs of conciliation are emerging, with scholars acknowledging that both qualitative and quantitative methods can produce valuable theories.
• Inductive reasoning (qualitative) and deductive reasoning (quantitative) are both seen as valuable in generating theories in comparative politics.
• Rational choice and historical or cultural approaches can be integrated into each other, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding.
• Mixed-method research combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches is growing.
• Critics argue that merely expanding methods does not guarantee more reliable outcomes, and that design flaws persist in many fields, including political science.
• Political science has been criticized for losing touch with real-world concerns, becoming inaccessible to the general public, and failing to speak to policy decisions made by voters or elected leaders.
• After the Arab Spring, critics revived the argument that political science has become a field that glorifies arcane unintelligibility while neglecting its impact and audience.
• This criticism is somewhat unfair, as there has been a growing emphasis on reconnecting political science to central policy questions and re-engaging political ideals, which were previously discarded as unscientific.
• The renewed focus does not call for biased research but for comparative politics to be relevant, empowering people, and helping them become better citizens and leaders.
• This shift marks a change for many scholars, as political science should maintain objectivity and scientific rigor while being relevant and contributing to civic life.

A Guiding Concept: Political Institutions

• The goal of this textbook is to provide a way to compare and analyze politics around the world, especially in the context of recent changes and uncertainties.
• A guiding concept for this analysis is institutions, defined as organizations or patterns of activity that are self-perpetuating and valued for their own sake.
• Institutions are embedded in people’s lives as norms or values and are not easily changed or dislodged.
• Legitimacy is central to institutions; they generate authority and influence behavior.
• An example of an institution outside of politics is baseball in the United States, viewed not just as a game but as a vital part of American identity and culture.
• Hockey is seen as a national institution in Canada, while in much of Europe and the world, soccer holds similar importance.
• In many countries, democracy is an institution central to collective identity, even if citizens may be cynical about its practice.
• In contrast, some countries lack a strong democratic institution, which leads to a weaker attachment to it.
• Institutions like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon symbolize American values and are considered national institutions.
• The city of Jerusalem is an institution for both Israelis and Palestinians, reflecting their distinct identities and claims.
• Formal institutions are those based on officially sanctioned rules, while informal institutions are unwritten but still powerful.
• Institutions are persistent and difficult to change, but they can decline or be replaced when new norms emerge or when they become outdated.
• Politics is full of institutions: the army, the police, the legislature, and the courts. These are obeyed because they are viewed as legitimate, not merely out of fear of punishment.
• Taxation is an institution in many democracies; people pay taxes because they believe it is a legitimate way to fund societal needs.
• In societies with weak institutionalization of taxes or elections, people may view taxes as illegitimate or may engage in violence if electoral results don’t align with their preferences.
• Institutions are crucial for setting the stage for political behavior by generating norms and values, which can make certain types of political activity more likely.
• Path dependence refers to how institutions shape the path of political activity, favoring certain outcomes over others.
• This institutional approach combines insights from both the pre-1950s focus on describing institutions and the later behavioral revolution’s focus on cause-and-effect relationships.
• Institutions are not just products of politics; they can also be important causes that influence how politics functions.
• Emergence and disappearance of institutions can have a profound impact on politics.
• There is significant institutional variation around the world that must be understood and compared.
• This textbook will map the basic institutional differences between countries, emphasizing the diversity of institutions and how they can be compared and evaluated.

A Guiding Ideal: Reconciling Freedom and Equality

• Politics is the struggle for power people engage in to make decisions for society.
• An important question in politics is: What do people seek to achieve once they gain power?
• This leads to the core debate of politics: the struggle between freedom and equality.
• The struggle between freedom and equality has existed throughout human history, as societies transitioned from small, nomadic bands to larger, settled communities.
• Freedom refers to an individual’s ability to act independently without fear of restriction or punishment by the state or other individuals.
• Equality refers to a material standard of living shared by individuals within a community or society.
• The relationship between freedom and equality is central to political debates, and it is unclear whether one must come at the expense of the other.
• Greater personal freedom may imply a smaller role for the state, limiting its power to redistribute wealth, potentially increasing inequality.
• Increased inequality could undermine freedom if too many people feel the political system neglects their material needs.
• There are debates over whether society has an obligation to help the poor, raising questions of justice.
• The United States has high levels of economic inequality among developed democracies, raising concerns about its impact on democratic institutions.
• A focus on equality may erode freedom, as demands for material equality could lead governments to control private property and wealth.
• When power is concentrated, as in the Soviet Union under communism, individual freedom can be threatened, though inequality was low.
• The balance between freedom and equality is not necessarily a zero-sum game; both can reinforce each other.
• Material security can help secure political rights, and state power can protect individual freedom from infringement by others.
• The meaning of freedom and equality may evolve over time as the material world and societal values change.
• Some believe centralized political power is necessary to manage freedom or equality, while others see it as an impediment.
• Politics is driven by the ideal of reconciling individual freedom and collective equality.
• Politics involves questions of power and the role of people in political life.
• Questions include how much influence individuals or groups should have, who should make decisions about freedomand equality, and whether power should be centralized or decentralized.
• Each political system must determine where political power resides and how much power to allocate to different individuals or groups.
• Political systems create unique institutions to structure political power and shape people’s role in politics.

In Sum: Looking Ahead and Thinking Carefully

• Politics is the pursuit of power in any organization, and comparative politics studies this struggle worldwide.
• Over the past centuries, political science has evolved from philosophy to a field focused on empirical research and explaining or predicting political change.
• Despite attempts to emulate the natural sciences, comparative politics has struggled to generate grand or smaller theories of political behavior.
• The need to study politics remains important, especially with dramatic changes over the past quarter-century.
• Political institutions help organize the study of politics by generating norms and values that lead to different forms of political activity.
• Institutions reveal how political activity seeks to reconcile the competing values of individual freedom and collective equality.
• All political groups, including countries, must reconcile these two forces and determine where power should reside.
• In later chapters, the relationship between freedom and equality and how they influence and are influenced by institutions will be explored.
• A final thought: scholars debate the best methods and concepts for studying politics, and this may seem to hinder understanding of how to do political science well.
• Philip Tetlock’s study of political predictions divides participants into hedgehogs (who seek overarching explanations) and foxes (who are more flexible and open to revising their views).
• Foxes tend to have a better track record in forecasting because they are more willing to change their views based on new evidence.
• The most fruitful approach to comparative politics is to be skeptical of both others and our own assumptions, ready to reconsider beliefs in light of new evidence.
• All explanations in this book are conjecture, subject to revision if contradictory evidence arises.
• By the end of the course, students should be able to draw their own conclusions about the contours of politics and what combination of values might create a better political order.
• The key is to drop assumptions about how the world works and approach the study of politics with an open mind.