Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

Unit – 1

Harshit Sharma

Political Science (BHU)

Contact

INTRODUCTION

Comparative politics is a field of political science using an empirical approach and comparative method.
It involves comparisons of political experience, behavior, and processes.
Studying governments is a key aspect of studying politics.
Comparative study of government and politics is essential for political science.
Comparative politics analyzes and compares different political systems across societies.
A major challenge in political science was developing a broadly applicable theory of the political system.
David Easton developed a theory addressing this challenge.
Outputs of a political system are authoritative decisions and actions for distributing and dividing values.
The unit introduces the nature and significance of comparative politics.

DEFINITION, NATURE, AND SCOPE

Comparative government evolved over time, studying political systems and procedures across countries and periods.
The field gained prominence in the 1950s, but its roots are older, with Aristotle being a foundational figure.
Comparative study highlights surprising differences in the lives of people in different nations.
Somalia is a poor nation in the Horn of Africa with a history of ancient civilization but now faces adversity due to communist rule and civil war.
The new coalition government in Somalia, with international help, has tried to reform the country but conditions remain challenging.
The United States is a superpower with a large area and population, gaining independence on July 4, 1776.
The U.S. faced a great depression after World War I but emerged as a superpower post-World War II, being the first to possess nuclear weapons.
The U.S. has made significant progress over the years.
Comparative politics relies on conscious comparisons of political experience, institutions, behavior, and processes across different government systems.

Need for the study of comparative governments

Comparative study of governments helps evaluate one’s own political system and reduces ethnocentrism.
The study of government is crucial in political science, focusing on structure and behavior.
Modern governments are essential for development, especially in developing nations.
Political systems vary widely, with no two governments being identical.
Different societies require different governments to meet their needs.
Political science courses often include surveys of various governmental systems worldwide.
The decline of some powers and the rise of new nations affect the study of political systems.
Comparative analysis of political structures and processes is essential in political science.
Comparative government is a core part of political science.
Aristotle was the first to compare political systems and develop theories.
Comparative government has been a significant subject since Aristotle.
Scholars have long compared foreign cultures with varying complexity.
The Cold War era and the rise of informal politics influenced comparative government studies.
The behavioral revolution in the 1950s and 1960s transformed the study of comparative government.
Improvements in concepts, methods, and interdisciplinary studies revolutionized the field.

Popular Definitions of Comparative Politics

M. G. Smith: Comparative politics studies political organizations, their properties, correlations, variations, and modes of change.
Roy C. Macridis and Robert Ward: Comparative politics involves government structure and also society, historical heritage, geography, resources, social and economic organizations, ideologies, value systems, political style, parties, interests, and leadership.
M. Curtis: Comparative politics examines significant regularities, similarities, and differences in political institutions and behavior.
E. A. Freeman: Comparative politics analyzes various forms of government and diverse political institutions.
Comparative politics involves institutional and mechanistic arrangements and empirical and scientific analysis of non-institutionalized and non-political determinants of political behavior.

Nature of Comparative Governments

Comparative politics analyzes and compares different political systems across societies.
It involves three key associations: political activity, political process, and political power.
Political activity deals with conflict resolution and the struggle for power.
Political process transforms signals and information from non-state agencies into authoritative values.
Politics involves studying power, power relations, and conflict resolution through legitimate power.
Features of contemporary comparative politics:
- Analytical Research: Emphasizes analytical, empirical research over mere descriptive studies, providing clearer views of government activities, structures, and functions.
- Objective Study: Focuses on empirical study and scientifically demonstrable values in political science.
- Study of Infrastructures: Analyzes individual, group, and system interactions with their environment.
- Study of Developing and Developed Societies: Includes both developing and developed political systems, with modern political scientists advocating for the study of developing nations.
Contemporary comparative politics offers a realistic and comprehensive view of global political phenomena, moving beyond traditional norms.

APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Major Approaches

Comparative politics and comparative government are often used interchangeably but have differences.
Comparative government studies different political systems focusing on institutions and functions.
Comparative politics has a broader scope, including non-state politics.
Political science concerns the goals of a good society, governing methods, public political actions, and connections between society and government.
Key concern of political science is power—its distribution, participation, representation, and impact by growth and change.
Comparative politics is interesting due to various approaches, methods, and techniques to realize political reality.
David Apter defines key themes in political analysis:
- Paradigm: Framework of ideas for analysis, combining philosophical assumptions and criteria of valid knowledge.
- Theory: Generalized statement summarizing actions of variables.
- Method: Way of organizing a theory for application to data, known by names of conceptual schemes.
- Technique: Links method to data, varies in observation and recording empirical information.
- Model: Simplified way of describing relationships, constructed from paradigms, theories, methods, or techniques.
- Strategy: Combines elements to solve a research problem, ensuring quality and integrity.
- Research Design: Converts strategy into an operational plan for fieldwork or experiments.

The traditional approach

The traditional approach to comparative government emerged as a response to 19th-century historicism.
It focused on historical examination of Western political institutions from early to modern times.
Traditionalists either philosophized about democracy or conducted formal and legal studies of governmental institutions.
The approach was configurative, treating each system as a unique entity.
It was descriptive rather than problem-solving, explanatory, or analytic, and was limited to forms of government and foreign political systems.
Roy Macridis summarized major features of the traditional approach as non-comparative, descriptive, parochial, static, and monographic.
Almond and Powell identified three major criticisms of the pre-World War II approach:
- Parochialism
- Configurative analysis
- Formalism
Harry Eckstein noted the influence of abstract theory, formal legal studies, and configuration studies.
The traditional approach primarily focused on Western political systems and representative democracies.
It studied countries like Britain, the US, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia, with limited focus on Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Cross-cultural studies were almost nonexistent.
The approach was formal, focusing on governmental institutions and legal models rather than performance, interaction, and behavior.
It neglected informal factors and non-political determinants of political behavior.
The study was descriptive, with little attempt to develop general theories or verify hypotheses.
The empirical deficiency led to a drive for behaviorism, referred to as ‘empirical theory’ by Robert Dahl.
The dissatisfaction with traditionalism led to a reconstruction of the discipline.
Three factors contributing to behavioral innovation in political science:
- Changes in philosophy
- Changes in social sciences
- Technological innovations in research
Peter Merkl emphasized the rising importance of developing areas and their impact on world politics.
Almond and Powell cited key developments causing the shift:
- Emergence of numerous nations with diverse cultures
- Social institutions and political traits
- Decline of Atlantic community dominance
- Changing balance of power
- Emergence of communism as a power factor

The revolution in comparative politics

Dynamic efforts in innovation led to creation of new rational order.
Sidney Verba described it as ‘A revolution in comparative politics’.
Principles behind the revolution: look beyond description to theoretically relevant problems.
Look beyond formal institutions of government to political process and political functions.
Look beyond Western Europe to new nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Almond and Powell emphasized search for more comprehensive scope.
Search for realism, precision, and theoretical order.

Nature and directions of the transformation

Behavioural approach is generally accepted in the study of government and politics.
Institutional analysis is replaced by process mode analysis.
Behaviourists focus on the behaviour of people and groups, not structures or institutions.
Process mode captures the dynamic quality of political life.
Focus shifts from state to empirical investigation of human relations.
Smaller units like individuals and groups become the centre of study.
Institutions are redefined as systems of individual behaviour or social action.
Methods include building complex models, using quantitative techniques, and employing computers for data management.
Sydney Verba notes the rich theoretical literature, frameworks, paradigms, and system models resulting from the revolution.
These models are abstract but useful for understanding political behaviour and providing a foundation for further study.

New Approaches to the Study of Government and Politics

General Systems Theory

Behavioural political analysis represents a significant transformation from traditional approaches.
The behavioural approach focuses on the behaviour of individuals and groups rather than institutions or ideologies.
It emphasizes the dynamic quality of political life and avoids static structural analysis.
The state is no longer the central concept; attention is on human relations and interactions.
Institutions are redefined as systems of related individual behaviour.
Methods include building complex models, using quantitative techniques, and employing computers for data management.
Sidney Verba highlights the creation of theoretical literature, frameworks, and models as key outcomes.
Systems theory, originating in natural sciences, offers a broad perspective for political analysis.
Systems theory defines a system as a set of interacting elements.
David Easton defines a political system as the behaviour or interactions for making and implementing decisions in society.
The political system includes the political community, regime, and political authorities.
The general systems theory provides a macro and micro analytical framework for studying politics.
Fundamental concepts include open vs. closed systems, stability, equilibrium, adaptation, and change.
The theory helps integrate micro and macro studies and facilitates interdisciplinary communication.
Criticisms include its limited handling of political power, voting behaviour, and policy-making.
The theory is seen as conservative and reactionary, with challenges in empirical application.

Offshoots of the Systems Theory

Behaviourists adapted the general systems theory framework to political science.
New techniques in political analysis were developed from this adaptation.
David Easton’s ‘input-output’ model analyzes political systems by examining inputs (demands and support) and outputs (policy decisions and actions).
Structural functionalism, a significant derivative of systems analysis, focuses on decision-making models of political systems.
Another systems theory approach uses communications theory to model political integration among countries or ethnic communities.

Input–Output Analysis

David Easton developed a unique systemic approach for political analysis, distinct from other social sciences.
His book “A System Analysis of Political Life” (1965) introduced a new way to explain political phenomena.
Easton criticized the structural-functional approach for lacking concepts to handle all system types and being imprecise.
His empirical theory is called the ‘general theory of politics’, aiming for a unified theory for national and international politics.
Easton focuses on analyzing conditions for political system survival over time rather than power-relations.
He views the political system as a subsystem of society operating within an environment.
Describes the political system as a system of interactions for authoritative allocations.
Features of a political system include a regular pattern of relationships among actors, universality, and authority.
The system processes inputs (demands and support) into outputs (authoritative decisions and actions).
Inputs include demands (requests for action) and support (favorable attitudes).
Overloading in a system occurs due to volume stress or content stress from excessive or complex demands.
Support is crucial for both selection and processing of demands.
Distinguishes between overt support (direct actions) and covert support (non-hostile attitudes).
Outputs are authoritative decisions and actions for value distribution.
Feedback loops are essential for generating specific support and making the system dynamic.
Stability depends on structural mechanisms (political parties, media, etc.), cultural mechanisms (customs, mores), and procedural mechanisms.
The political system is a dynamic, cyclical operation with programmed goals, facing stress and regulatory processes.
Input-output analysis is a comprehensive technique for comparative analysis of political systems.
Eugene Meehan highlights Easton’s contribution to systems analysis and functional theory in political science.
The approach is dynamic, addressing change, stability, and regulatory responses.
Criticisms include its focus on system-persistence, limited interaction scope, elitist orientation, and focus on functional rather than revolutionary change.

Structural–Functional Analysis

Structural–functional analysis is a major framework in political science, emerging from early 20th-century anthropology, particularly by Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown.
Gabriel Almond adopted this approach for comparative politics.
It focuses on system-maintenance and regulation, asking what structures fulfill basic functions and what conditions govern a system.
A political system consists of structures that are patterns of action and institutions performing functions defined as objective consequences for the system.
Functions are recurring actions for system preservation, while dysfunctions are detrimental to system growth.
Robert Merton distinguished between manifest functions (intended and recognized) and latent functions (unintended and unrecognized).
Structures are vital and can fulfill various functions; a single structure can have multiple functions with different outcomes.
Almond and Powell observed that specialized structures in systems like the U.S. are multifunctional.
Structural–functional analysis identifies ‘conditions of survival’ essential for maintaining a system’s characteristics over time.
Marion Levy, Jr. identified four functional requisites of social systems: goal-attainment, adaptation, integration, and pattern-maintenance.
Gabriel Almond’s political functional requisites include four input functions: political socialization and recruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, and political communication.
Output functions include rule-making, rule-application, and rule-adjudication.
Input functions are performed by non-governmental subsystems, while output functions are carried out by traditional governmental agencies.
Almond’s structural–functional analysis aims to develop a universal analytical vocabulary for studying non-Western states, particularly ‘third world’ countries.
Defines politics as integrative and adaptive functions of a society using coercion.
Almond’s political system involves interactions for integration and adaptation through legitimate order-maintaining or transforming mechanisms.
Stresses interdependence between political and societal systems, with common properties across all political systems.
Almond acknowledges criticisms of stability-orientation and conservatism, clarifying his framework as one of interdependence, not harmony.
The approach has been widely adopted for providing standard categories for different political systems and has influenced comparative politics.
Criticisms include value orientations, tautological premises, and vague conceptual units.
Meehan views Almond’s work as a classificatory scheme or an imperfect model rather than a full theory.
Criticized for its tendency to force divergence into a systematic framework and its inability to effectively analyze complex political realities in Third World countries.
The analysis is considered static, favoring stability and status quo, and may struggle with swift or violent changes.
Caution is advised in applying structural–functional analysis due to its limitations in dealing with change.

Decision-Making Theories

Decision-making is a key aspect of studying government and politics but is considered less successful among new approaches.
Politics involves allocating values through decision-making processes.
The process includes techniques, methods, procedures, and strategies used to make decisions.
A political system functions as a mechanism for decision-making.
Efficiency in a political system is gauged by its ability to make widely accepted decisions.
The dynamics of politics involve the interaction between social configuration, ideology, and governmental organs.

Marxist Methodology

Despite claims of progress in comparative politics, sophisticated empirical models remain undeveloped.
Systems analysis and structural-functionalism, among other approaches, have fallen short of satisfactory methodological orientations.
Key questions include the scientific methodology of Marxism and its applicability in comparative politics.
Marxism is based on dialectical and historical materialism, focusing on interdependence, movement, and development in social phenomena.
Marx asserts that the mode of production determines social, political, and intellectual processes, not consciousness.
Marx’s concept of ‘class’ refers to economic categories like wage laborers, capitalists, and landowners based on the capitalist mode of production.
Methodological themes in Marxism include searching for social bias, rigorous scientific efforts, and explanations of human activity through historical and economic contexts.
Marxism emphasizes the importance of economic elements in social structures, recognizing reciprocal interaction with political, social, and cultural elements.
Key aspects include searching for contradictions, using ‘class’ in social development, recognizing technology as a variable, and distinguishing between causes and symptoms of capitalist crisis.
Marxism examines productive forces, productive relations, and ideological superstructures in social structures.
Application of Marxism in comparative politics includes analyzing property relations, focusing on ownership rather than possession.
The social division of labor should be examined, with emphasis on societal rather than localized divisions.
Comparing political development involves assessing the stage of economic activity in different societies.
Marxist theory explains state-society relationships and political authority in different stages of economic development.
Historical background is crucial for understanding the nature and direction of political systems.
Marxist analysis addresses problems of instability and change better than systems and structural-functional theories.
Marxism provides a framework to search for historical process laws applicable to specific contexts, but requires extensive research.
Marx’s framework may not account for 20th-century developments, but his approach remains relevant and adaptable.
Marx acknowledged that laws are modified by numerous conditions in actual practice.

KEY TERMS

Comparative politics: It is the study of the forms of political organizations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change.
Parochial: It refers to an idea or issue having a limited or narrow out look or scope.
Ethnocentrism:It refers to a belief in the superiority of one’ sown ethnic group.Infrastructure:It is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
Paradigm:It is a world view underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject.
Amalgamation:It refers to the action, process or result of combining or uniting.
Articulation:It is the action of putting into words an idea or feeling of a specified type.