Comparative Politics and Policy

Comparative politics is a field in political science that analyzes and compares different types of political systems and countries. It examines similarities and differences in institutions, behaviors, cultures, and policies across countries. Comparative policy examines public policies in different political systems and performs cross-national comparisons. This extensive article will provide an overview of major concepts, theories, and methodologies in comparative politics and policy, discuss prominent comparative frameworks, summarize key findings from comparative research, and identify current debates and future directions for the subfield.

Defining Comparative Politics

Comparative politics involves making comparisons between different countries’ political systems, institutions, cultures, and behaviors. It moves beyond single case studies to make systematic comparisons across a small number of countries or a larger set of nations. Comparative politics emerged as a distinct subfield of political science in the 1950s and 1960s. Scholars like Gabriel Almond, Karl Deutsch, and Stein Rokkan led the way in developing concepts, typologies, and theories for comparing politics across national boundaries (1).

Some key questions examined in comparative politics include:

• How do political regimes and institutions differ across countries? What key variations can be identified in how executive power, legislatures, judiciaries, bureaucracies, elections, and parties function?
• How do political culture, identity, beliefs, and behaviors differ cross-nationally? How does culture shape politics?
• What are the diverse political economies and development strategies pursued by different countries? How do they impact democracy, welfare, and inequality?
• How do transnational and global forces influence domestic politics in different nations? What is the relative influence of international vs. domestic factors?
• What general theories, models, or concepts can be used to explain and predict political phenomena across countries? How can we categorize and classify political systems?

To answer these questions, comparative politics gathers in-depth knowledge of particular countries and regions while also seeking to identify broad patterns and generalizations that apply across cases. It utilizes concepts like democracy, authoritarianism, revolution, corruption, nationalism, political culture, civil society, representation, welfare states, development, and globalization to compare politics within and between regions of the world (2).

Approaches and Methodologies

Comparative politics utilizes both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative methods like comparative historical analysis examine the development trajectories of different countries in-depth. Quantitative methods like surveys and statistical analysis look at patterns across a larger number of countries. Common methodological approaches include:

• Structured, focused comparisons between a small number of countries
• Statistical analysis of a larger set of countries to find correlations and clusters
• Typologies that categorize countries based on political characteristics
• Historical-institutional analysis tracing a country’s development over time
• Examining ‘most similar’ and ‘most different’ countries to isolate explanatory variables
• Case studies of single countries that engage in implicit comparison
• Field research like interviewing elites or ethnographic study of one or more countries
• Using concepts like democracy or nationalism to compare politics cross-nationally
• Testing theories by analyzing whether propositions apply across multiple countries
• Mixed methods that combine quantitative datasets with in-depth case knowledge

A major debate in comparative methodology is between advocates of quantitative, scientific approaches modeled on the natural sciences versus supporters of deep qualitative analysis of cases stresses culture, history, and meaning (3). Most comparative scholars use a pragmatic mix of methods suited to their particular research question.

Prominent Comparative Frameworks

Scholars have developed numerous comparative frameworks, typologies, and theories to categorize national political systems and explain cross-national variations. Some of the most prominent include:

Democracy-authoritarianism: Distinguishing regime types based on level of democracy and authoritarianism. Often uses scales like Polity scores.

Power configuration: Classifying politics based on locus of power in society – pluralist, totalitarian, authoritarian. Almond and Powell (4).

Development: Grouping countries as industrialized/post-industrial versus developing/pre-industrial. Related to modernization theory.

Capitalist-socialist: Dividing countries based on capitalist or socialist economic systems during the Cold War.

Corporatism-pluralism: Corporatist countries have centralized power structures and interest group coordination while pluralist countries have diffusion of power and group competition.

Centre-periphery: Peripheral societies are economically exploited by wealthier core societies. Wallerstein’s world systems theory (5).

Regime types: Distinguishing regime types like presidentialism vs. parliamentary systems, federal vs. unitary states, proportional representation vs. majoritarian electoral systems.

Varieties of democracy: Examining dimensions of democracy – liberal, participatory, deliberative, egalitarian.

Welfare state regimes: Categorizing based on type of welfare state – liberal, social democratic, conservative. Esping-Andersen (6).

Group-centered: Comparing based on cleavages like class or ethnicity. Lijphart’s majoritarian-consensus model.

Cultural: Classifying based on political culture or civilization clusters. Inglehart, Huntington.

Institutional: Focusing on institutions – parties, bureaucracies, constitutions. New institutionalism.

This diversity of frameworks underscores the complexity of comparative analysis. Different approaches can yield valuable insights on distinct aspects of political systems.

Key Findings from Comparative Research

Decades of comparative research have uncovered important empirical patterns, correlations, concepts, and generalizations. Some of the most robust findings include:

Level of economic development strongly predicts regime type, with wealthy countries overwhelmingly democratic. The democratic transition model links modernization to democratization (7).

Presidential systems are more prone to democratic breakdown than parliamentary systems. Linz’s argument about perils of presidentialism (8).

Proportional representation electoral systems favor multiparty politics while majoritarian systems engender two-party politics. Duverger’s law (9).

Corporatist systems with centralized interest groups have more peaceful labor relations than pluralist systems. Democratic corporatism model.

Communist regimes converged on a model of authoritarianism despite differing Marxist-Leninist ideologies.

clientelism and patrimonialism are widespread in developing countries and subvert democratic accountability.

Ethnic diversity raises challenges for democratic consolidation but inclusive institutions can mitigate tensions.

Oil and mineral wealth fosters authoritarianism by reducing regime dependence on taxes. ‘Resource curse’ theory.

Welfare states compress income inequality but also risk fiscal crisis or inadequate innovation. Varieties of capitalism.

National identity is constructed, not primordial. Elites shape national identities and ethnic boundaries.

Global forces like human rights norms and neoliberalism increasingly influence domestic politics in most countries.

These and other empirical findings shaped major debates and theories in comparative politics over the decades.

Current Debates and Future Directions

Comparative politics remains a vibrant subfield engaging with cutting-edge debates and new directions for research. Some active debates include:

• End of transition paradigm? Most countries are neither fully democratic nor authoritarian. Hybrid regimes.
• Democracy in decline? Democratic backsliding in consolidated democracies as well as developing states.
• Populism ascendant? Causes and implications of populist parties and leaders across regions.
• Identity politics – Ethnonationalism and politicized identities reshaping politics within societies.
• Impact of globalization – How cross-border forces interact with domestic politics.
• Inequality and development – Persistence of absolute poverty in some regions amidst growth in others.
• Political violence – Explaining civil wars, revolutions, coups in some countries but not others.
• Clash of civilizations? Debates on culture, religion, and conflict post-9/11.
• Rise of China – Its challenge to Western dominance and impact on global order.
• Democratization theories after the Arab Spring – Understanding complex dynamics of regime change.
• New methodologies – Innovative approaches like field experiments, big data, and focus on causal inference.

Ongoing comparative research engages with these debates and explores new areas like gender and politics, digital technologies, climate change, and human migration. The future trajectory of the subfield will likely involve more mixed methods and interdisciplinary approaches as well as expanding beyond OECD countries to engage the developing world more fully. Thick description, deep knowledge of cases, and cross-regional comparison will remain at the core of comparative inquiry even as scholars incorporate new data sources and methods.

Comparative Politics in Action: Two Brief Case Examples

The best way to illustrate comparative politics is through concrete examples. This section provides a brief comparative analysis of two countries with contrasting political trajectories – South Korea and North Korea.

Prior to division in 1945, Korea had no historical experience with democracy. It was a unitary kingdom annexed by Japan after 1905. After World War II, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel with the North occupied by the Soviet Union and the South by the United States. By 1948, both countries established rival governments claiming to represent all of Korea. The key variable explaining their divergent paths is the different political regimes imposed by Soviet communists in the North and American-backed capitalists in the South.

North Korea became a totalitarian communist dictatorship under Kim Il Sung. It adopted a centralized command economy and pervasive social controls. A personality cult glorified the ruling Kim dynasty. Dissent was ruthlessly suppressed through purges, forced labor camps, and executions. The state maintained tight control over information and internal movement. North Korea was thus a classic totalitarian state.

South Korea initially underwent political instability with sharp ideological divisions between right-wing and left-wing parties. After General Park Chung-hee seized power in a 1961 military coup, South Korea was authoritarian but embarked on export-oriented industrialization modeled after Japan. Rapid economic growth spurred mass education and an expanding urban middle class. These social changes eroded the political legitimacy of autocracy. After Park’s assassination in 1979, South Korea transitioned to democracy in 1987 following mass protests. It remains a thriving multiparty democracy today.

This mini-comparison highlights the importance of regime type in shaping divergent politics. It also shows how economic development enables demographic and social changes conducive to democratization over the long run, confirming modernization theory. South Korea’s democratic trajectory was far from linear, however, passing through various phases of instability, authoritarianism, and pro-democracy mobilization.

Conclusion

In sum, comparative politics uses systematic analysis to explain variation in political processes and systems across countries and regions. Using methods from history, political science, sociology, and economics, it identifies patterns as well as uncovers complex contextual differences. No single theory or framework can fully capture the diversity of country experiences. But strong comparative scholarship combines theoretical rigor with empirical richness and delivers robust evidence for why countries follow distinct trajectories. As global interconnections deepen, understanding these cross-national differences through comparative politics will only grow in significance. This extensive overview summarizes the field’s core concepts, theories, methodologies, frameworks, findings, current debates, and future horizons. Comparative analysis remains integral to political science and social science more broadly.

References

1. Almond, Gabriel A. and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. 1966. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little Brown.
2. Landman, Todd. 2008. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
3. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65(3): 682-693.
4. Almond, Gabriel and G. Bingham Powell Jr. 1966. “Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach.” Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
5. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4): 387-415.
6. Esping-Anderson, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
8. Linz, Juan J. 1990. “The Perils of Presidentialism.” Journal of Democracy, 1(1): 51-69.
9. Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.