Comparing Political Systems PDF

Preview

Summary

Comparing Political SystemsLecture 1; Introduction – Florian Foos What is politics?o “who gets what, when, how” – Harold Lasswell (1936). Refers to thedistribution of limited resources.o “the process by which people negotiate and compete in [...] making andexecuting shared or collective decisions” ...

Description

Comparing Political Systems Lecture 1; Introduction – Florian Foos 

What is politics? o “who gets what, when, how” – Harold Lasswell (1936). Refers to the distribution of limited resources. o “the process by which people negotiate and compete in […] making and executing shared or collective decisions” – Hague, Harrop & McCormick (2016). – shared. o “human activity of making public authoritative decisions. […] It is the conflict or competition for power, and its use.” – Caramani (2017).



What is power? o Power is at the heart of politics. o “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” – Robert A. Dahl (1969). o However, power also includes attitude and preferences, not just behaviour. o Power is relational. Connection between citizens & government, different countries etc.



What is government? o “The institutions endowed with the authority to make, implement and enforce political decisions.” o “Under division of powers, government is the institution that executes political decisions.”



What is Comparative Politics? o Comparison across:  Space (states, regions, cities etc.)  Time



Why compare? o Learn more about a specific country / our own country. o Useful for informing policy decisions – what works in other countries? o To assess the explanatory power of competing theories and hypotheses about the political world. o How do we know if 74% German federal election turnout is high? Compare to previous turnouts, or other countries. Why is German turnout higher than in UK?



Descriptive v. Causal o Descriptive; how do states differ? o Causal; why do states differ? o Comparative politics attempts to answer both questions.



What does Comparative Politics cover? o Institutions (judiciary, executive etc.) o Actors (Politicians, citizens etc.) o Processes and behaviours (elections, voting, protesting etc.)



Features of Democracy (according to Caramani) Free, fair & regular elections Civil liberties Universal participation Responsible government - accountable to the people.

o o o o 

Types of Democracy o Direct v. Representative o Majoritarian (characterised by an electoral system which results in a 2-party system. Disproportionately discriminates against small parties) v. Consensus democracies (proportional representation, representing minority interests).



Measuring Democracy o Freedom House ranking (1/7) o Democracy Index (1/10) o Polity project (-10/10) o Varieties of democracy project (0/1 on multiple dimensions).

Lecture 2; Democratisation and Democratic Backsliding  Number of democracies has increased (esp. post WWII & break down of Soviet Union).

 History is not progressing in a linear fashion eg. 1930s-40s; period of democratic backsliding.

 Huntington’s definition (1991); o o o

The end of an authoritarian regime The installation of a democratic regime The consolidation of a democratic regime – deepening of democratic institutions.



Democratisation is not the same as liberalisation. o



What is ‘consolidation’? o o o



Authoritarian regimes can liberalise – relaxation of censorship etc. – but remain authoritarian.

Peaceful transfer of power/alteration in government Internalisation of democratic norms. Examples:  First alternation in Germany was in 1969 – 20 years after founding of Federal Republic. (Willy Brandt ended rule of Christian Democrats).

Examples of Elections o

2015 Nigerian Elections  

o

2017 Kenyan Elections

 

o

Incumbent Kenyatta did not accept election results – undemocratic behaviour. The constitutional court overruled the incumbent against the will of the government – this behaviour is considered a characteristic of a democracy.

2016 USA Election 



Incumbent president Jonathan peacefully relinquished power to Buhari – accepted democratic norms. This represents consolidation.

Trump threatened to ignore the democratic norm of accepting the democratic legitimacy of one’s opponent if one loses an election.

Why do countries democratise? o

Modernisation Theory   

o

Endogenous democratisation v. exogenous democratisation  

o

Economic development results in democracy. Endogeneous democratization: economic modernisation drives democratisation. Due to; expansion of middle class, literacy and education (resource theory – capacity for political participation), change in attitudes (post-materialism).

Actors

It may be that democracy drives economic development, or that the relationship is interdependent. Evidence for this includes; democratic nations more likely to have better standing in international markets, democratic states arguably make better quality economic policies (Condorcet’s theory) etc.)







“the emergence of social, economic, and external conditions favourable to democracy is never enough to produce democracy. Whatever their motives, some political leaders have to want it to happen […]” – Huntington (19991: 108). Democratisation is not possible due to actors alone; requires combination of actors with appropriate socio-economic and structural conditions.

Huntington’s Waves of Democracy o o o

o

o

Wave 1; 1828-1926 (USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Argentina) Wave 2; 1943-1962 – post WWII (India, Israel, West Germany, Japan, Italy) Wave 3; 1974-1995 (Southern Europe (breakdown of right-wing dictatorships in Greece, Spain, Portugal etc.), Latin America, former East European Communist states, parts of Africa) Wave 4; ? Arab Spring (2011)  Some people referred to the Arab Spring as the 4th wave as it was unfolding.  With the necessary conditions in place, the AS was triggered by self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi on 17th December 2010.  Autocratic leader of Tunisia (Zine El Abidine Ben Ali) was ousted.  6 years later, however, only Tunisia is regarded as a full democracy (according to the Economist). Morocoo, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan etc. all remain autocracies or restricted democracies. Saudi Arabia & Oman remain full democracies whilst Libya, Syria & Yemen are failed states / in a state of civil war. Democratic backsliding occurred within a year in countries like Egypt. Causes of Waves of Democracy 

Common Cause  



Spillover Effect   



Common external cause; International intervention eg. USA & UK in building democracies in Germany, Italy etc. after WWII. Common internal cause; independent developments common to democratising nations.

Revolt and democratisation in country A results in revolts and democratisation in countries B & C. Without the revolt in country A, countries B & C would not have democratised. Known as the domino theory.

Mechanisms of Diffusion o

Information is available instantly   

o

Social media – used to spread information and to facilitate communication for organising protests etc. Independent blogs Foreign media eg. Al Jazeera not controlled by state media. Provided a remarkably different view of the Egyptian protests to that of the state news.

Learning 

Protestors in different countries learn from each other (Bomert 2015)





However, autocrats also learn. They are able to change strategies; during Arab Spring, they became more violent to suppress protest.

Backsliding o o o

1st and 2nd waves of democracy – followed by a wave of democratic backsliding. Some countries reverted back to authoritarianism Types of backsliding:   

Promissory coups eg. Egypt Executive aggrandizement eg. Turkey, Hungary Manipulating elections strategically (suppressing opposition from meaningfully participating in democratic process).

Lecture 3; Social cleavages & political conflict 

What are social cleavages? o o

A politicized division or conflict lines between groups within a polity. “Social divisions become cleavages when they are organised for political action” (Bartolini and Mair 1990).

 Double Revolutions (Lipste & Rokkan 1967) o

National Revolutions

  o

Industrial Revolution 



Worker-owner cleavage

What is social class? o o

Distinct from (but correlated with) income & education. Encapsulates work-relations:   

o



Centre-periphery cleavage Church-state cleavage – state assumed authority over areas previously managed by the church eg. education.

Relation to the means of production (Marx) Autonomy (Goldthorpe) – self-employed or employed? Do you take or give orders at work? Occupation/skills

There is an objective (class position) and subjective (class consciousness - identity) dimension to social class.

Political Representation

o o o o



Urbanisation & industrialisation  poor working conditions, suppression & sweat shops  workers organised. Formation of trade unions & other working-class organisations Formation of first Socialist and Labour Parties as representatives of the working class all over Europe. Reform Act 1867 (enfranchisement of male working class)  parliamentary representation.

Religious Conflict o o o

Modern issues; abortion (especially in America), gay marriage (eg. protests in France against legalisation of gay marriage). Whilst compromise is possible with economic issues like taxes, these issues are binary. Different Dimensions:  

o o o 

o

Centre-periphery cleavage Religious-secular cleavage Monarchist-republican cleavage Political elites on both sides (Catalan Parties, Popular Parties) decide to politicize the independent issue.

To what extent does social conflict appear bottom-up or top-down? o o



In most polities, there is more than one social cleavage. Cross-cutting cleavage: groups are divided along two (or more) different, orthogonal, lines.  This can moderate and weaken conflict. Reinforcing cleavage: The different cleavages line up in the same way. Eg. when if someone is religious or not determines their preference over something else. They have common grievances etc.  This can escalate conflict.

Catalonia – several cleavages in alignment o o o o



Protestants were much more likely to vote for the Nazi party than Catholics. Faith based parties (eg. Switzerland Catholic/Protestant parties) Christian Democracy in Continental Europe after WW2

Cross-Cutting or reinforcing cleavages o o



Denominations (Catholic, Protestant, Muslim etc.) Degree of religiosity (religious versus not religious)

Bottom up: social-structure change. Top down: Political parties/media “create” or “activate” conflicts.

Freezing Hypothesis o

Conflict lines appeared to be ‘frozen’ until the 1960s

o o



Post-materialism o

o



This translated into the stability of party systems (same parties mobilising the same cleavages). 1968; demonstrations against Vietnam War, demonstrations in France etc. Generally, the demonstrations were against an antiquated world order.  modern revolution (feminism, increased liberalism, environmental movement etc.)

Inglehart (1987); As societies get richer, basic material needs are met & war is no longer imminent. Younger people start to care more about self-fulfilment & participation, and less about economic growth/security. Cohort replacement; younger cohorts replace older cohorts  society becomes less materialist  assumes post-materialist values.

Integration or institutionalisation? o o

Does a new cleavage get absorbed by existing parties and integrated into the party system? Or, do new social movements translate into new political parties?

Lecture 4; Theories in Comparative Politics  

“there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas” – Karl Popper (1968, 32). Positivism v. Constructivism o o



Normative v. Empirical

o o o 

Normative – what ought to happen, and why. Empirical – what happened or will happen, and why. Attempts to be ‘value-neutral’. Normative & empirical work has been combined by big thinkers in Political Science (eg. Marx, Machiavelli etc.)

Inductive v. Inductive Reasoning

o o 

Positivism – objective facts, observable & verifiable in the same way by different individuals. Constructivism – facts are socially embedded and constructed. Reality is subjective, & we cannot claim to have an objective knowledge & observation of it.

Inductive – we drive theories from observing empirical reality. Bottom-up approach. Deductive – we develop theories and test them against empirical reality. Top-down approach.

Institutionalism

o

Institution = formal organisation or practice with a political purpose or effect.

o o o



Institutionalism = approach to politics which focusses on “the structure and dynamics of governing institutions” (Hague, Harrop & McCormick 2016). Institutions include the executive, legislature & judiciary. However, the definition has grown to include political parties, electoral systems etc. Eg. institutional explanation of Catalonia – Spanish constitution doesn’t allow referendum on self-determination; electoral system of Spanish Senate (that could change constitution) favours conservatives.

Methodological Individualism

o o o o o

“collectivities must be treated as solely the resultants and modes of organization of the particular acts of individual persons, since these alone can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action” - Max Weber (1922,13) Weber’s ideas were a response to methodological ‘holists’ (eg. Marx) and ‘functionalists’ (eg. Emile Durkheim). Anthony Downs, Kenneth Arrow & Mancur Olson – Rational Choice Theory. Anthony Downs calculates politics as a balance between benefits and costs (“one eye on the gains to be had, the other eye on costs” (1957: 7)). Green & Shapiro’s Key Assumptions or RCT:

  

Individuals are utility maximisers. They maximize the expected value of their pay-offs. Rules and tastes are stable over time and across individuals.

 Behaviouralism o o o o

Focus on actions and attitudes of individuals: voters, political elites etc. Eg. Judges instead of courts, legislators instead of parliaments. Does not assume perfect rationality. Includes insights from social psychology.

 Neo-institutionalism o



Interactions

o o o 

Acknowledges that interests and individual behaviours matter, but they argue that they are endogeneous to institutions. (Institutions shape the interests and behaviour of individuals).

Individuals and institutions interact. Individuals influence & are influenced by institutions. How do institutions condition individual behaviour?

Ideologies

o

Liberalism (freedom), Conservatism (order), Socialism (equality)

o o



Ideologies influence institutions. “there’s no such thing as societies. There are individual men and women and there are families.” – Thatcher (not exact quote). Sums up neo-liberalism.

Theory Development

o o o

A theory is “an abstract or generalised approach to explaining or understanding a phenomenon” (Hague, Harrop and McCormick). We make a theory or concept more abstract by lessening its properties or attributes. We make it less abstract by adding qualifications. Complexity v. parsimony

    o o o o o

If you abstract too much then a concept can become meaningless. Conceptual stretching: conception without a specific boundary, which cannot be negated. Scope of a theory: range/general applicability of a theory. To which / how many cases does a theory apply? Scope conditions: specified boundaries that identify the types of phenomena to which the theory does or does not apply. Operationalisation

 

o

Political world is complex. We need to abstract in order to understand. Parsimony = simplicity. The simplest, viable explanation for a phenomenon.

Allows a concept to be measured. Eg. Concept: democracy. Conceptualisation: free, fair & regular elections. Operationalisation: how many times is “regular”? What specifically does “free” mean? We can then go about measuring whether a country is a democracy or not.

Hypotheses

     

“Comparative politics consists of a systematic testing, against as many cases as possible, of sets of hypotheses…” (see PP). Deterministic hypotheses: If x, then y. Probabilistic A theory must be falsifiable. We should design theories that can easily and quickly shown to be wrong. What evidence would falsify a theory? Mechanism = causal explanation for a relationship.

Lecture 5; Comparative Methods

 

Hypotheses is connected to findings by research design. Data: o “Systematically collected information about the world” (King, Keohane and Verba 1994). o Data can be either quantitative or qualitative – eg. Interviews, historical documents, primary / secondary sources are all data.

o Data is used in the plural. Datum = one piece of data.

 Variable: o An entity that takes on different values. o Variable cannot be constant. o Categorical variables = identify different categories. These cannot be ordered. Eg. Ethnicity.

o Ordinal variables = extent of something. Eg. ‘To what extent do you agree with x on a scale of 1 to 5.’

o Continuous variable = eg. Age and income. Can fall anywhere between eg. 11 years 234 days 4 hours and 8 seconds. Cannot fall between numbers like this in ordinal variables.



Dependent and Independent variables o o o o



Explanations usually have at least two parts. Dependent variable (DV) = the outcome variable, often denoted as Y. Independent variable (IV) = explanatory variable, often denoted as X. X  Y = Cause  Effect.

Validity o Internal validity  

Construct validity: Do we measure what we intend to measure? Does the way we operationalize a concept correspond to its theoretical construct? Causal validity: Is the relationship between the IV and the DV causal?

o External validity  

Is the result of the study generalizable beyond the sample (of countries or other units) chosen by the researcher?

Reliability o The extent to which a measure is stable and consistent. o The extent to which different people get the same result if they measure the same variable.



Mill’s Method(s) o John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) o Two logics of comparative analysis (Mill, 1875). 

Method of Agreement: Most Different Systems Design



 

Method of Difference: Similar Systems Design



  

“If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all ...