Chapter 1

What is Comparative Politics?

Comparative politics (CP) is a major subfield of political science that involves both a
specific subject of study and a particular method of study.

1. The Dual Nature of the Field

As a subject of study, comparative politics focuses on understanding and explaining
political phenomena that take place within a state, society, country, or macrosocial
unit. As a method of study, the field is explicitly defined by the use of comparison as its
mode of analysis.

While some simplistically define it as the study of "foreign" countries, modern

comparativists argue it includes any country, including the United States, and often
focuses on the interplay between domestic and external forces on the politics of a
given society.

2. Comparative Politics vs. International Relations

The distinction between these two fields is often summarized as an "inside-out" vs.
"outside-in" approach:

• International Relations (IR): Traditionally takes an "outside-in" approach,

focusing on interactions between states in an international system. IR often treats
states as "black boxes," assuming they are functionally alike and driven by
systemic anarchy (the lack of a global rule-enforcer) to act in similar ways
regardless of their internal makeup.

• Comparative Politics: Takes an "inside-out" approach, focusing on internal or

domestic dynamics. It rejects the "black box" assumption, arguing that a
country's internal political system—such as whether it is a liberal democracy or a
military dictatorship—matters significantly in explaining its behavior.

3. Broadening the Definition of "Politics"

Comparative politics has moved away from a narrow, traditional focus toward a more
inclusive, process-oriented definition:
 • Traditional (Formal) View: Historically, politics referred strictly to the formal
political system, such as government institutions (parliaments, bureaucracies) and
legal/constitutional rules.

• Process-Oriented View: Modern CP sees politics as part of a larger social

process involving the uneven distribution of power, struggles over power, and
how these affect the creation and distribution of resources and human well-being.
This definition places politics in almost all domains of life, including churches,
corporations, and social organizations

Why to Compare?

In the study of politics, comparison is fundamentally used to provide a form of scientific

control to check, verify, or falsify claims about social, political, and economic
phenomena. This process, referred to as comparative checking, allows researchers to
determine if statements—such as "poverty causes corruption"—are true by "looking
around" at other cases to see if the proposed relationship holds constant across different
settings. Because the social sciences often face the "small-N problem" (having too few
cases for statistical analysis) and cannot easily utilize experimental methods, the
comparative method serves as an essential "second-best" method of control.

There are three general purposes for why we compare:

• Comparing to Control (Comparative Checking): Researchers use a range of

cases to "test" whether a specific claim, hypothesis, or theory is valid. By treating
similarities as control variables, a researcher can eliminate certain factors to focus
on those deemed most important.

Example: Gun Ownership and Homicides: A researcher starts with the claim:
"A high level of gun ownership leads to a high level of gun-related homicide". To
test this, they examine a range of countries to "control" for gun ownership. If they
find countries with very high rates of gun ownership but low rates of gun-related
homicides (or vice-versa), the original claim is falsified and must be rejected.
 Example: US vs. Canada. Using a Most Similar Systems (MSS) design, a
researcher compares the United States and Canada because they share many
attributes like high GDP, moderate unemployment, and Christian-based heritage.
Because these similarities are "held constant," they are considered irrelevant to
explaining the difference in homicide rates. This allows the researcher to focus on
identifying a specific difference—such as levels of private gun ownership or a
"culture of fear"—as the key independent variable

• Comparing to Understand (Interpretation): In this approach, researchers use

comparison to see what other cases can tell them about a specific country or case
they are most interested in. The goal is to gain an in-depth understanding of
unique "stories" or contexts.

Example: Homicides in South Africa. A researcher is primarily interested in

understanding the high level of homicides in South Africa. They use existing
theories on gun violence and look at other countries (like the US or Canada) not
to build a general law, but to see what those cases can tell them about the specific
social and political dynamics in South Africa.

Example: Personal Experience. The sources cite historian Fernand Braudel,

who noted that living in London for a year might not teach you much about England,
but the "surprise" of the comparison will suddenly help you understand the
profound and individual characteristics of your home country (like France) that you
previously took for granted.

• Comparing to Explain (Analytical Induction): This strategy uses cases as

"stepping-stones" to build or revise general theoretical generalizations. It
recognizes that no single case is sufficient to test a theory; rather, knowledge is
built through the accumulation of case-based evidence.

Example: Theory of Democratization. A researcher begins with a general

"structural theory of democratization". They start by examining the democratization
process in Mexico, which might lead them to "tweak" or revise parts of the theory.
 They then look at Taiwan, Poland, and Ukraine, using each new case as a
stepping-stone to strengthen or further develop the original general theory.

Example: Social Revolutions. In the book States and Social Revolutions, Theda
Skocpol compares France, Russia, and China because they all experienced
successful social revolutions despite many other differences. She argues these
cases reveal similar causal patterns. To further strengthen this theoretical
explanation, she adds "negative cases" (like England and Germany) where
successful revolutions did not occur, using the contrast to validate her claims about
the specific conditions required for a revolution to succeed.

Comparative Politics and Complex Causality

In comparative politics, the method of comparison is especially useful for

understanding complex causality. In real societies, political and social outcomes rarely
happen because of one single factor. Instead, they usually emerge from the interaction
of multiple variables—economic conditions, political institutions, historical experiences,
cultural norms, and leadership decisions—operating together within a particular temporal
and spatial context.

Statistical research is very good at identifying correlations between variables. For

example, it may show that countries with higher education levels often have stronger
democracies. However, statistics often cannot explain how or why this relationship
occurs. It tells us that two variables move together, but it does not fully unpack the causal
mechanisms behind the relationship.

Comparative analysis helps scholars move beyond correlation and examine the causal
pathways that produce a particular outcome. In other words, it allows researchers to
open the “black box of explanation.” Instead of only measuring relationships between
variables, comparativists study cases in depth to identify the processes, sequences of
events, and interactions of institutions and actors that lead to a result. This approach
emphasizes process tracing, historical context, and multi-causal explanation.
Another advantage of the comparative method is that it treats each case as a holistic
unit. Rather than isolating variables in an abstract statistical model, comparativists
analyze how economic structures, cultural traditions, political institutions, and
historical legacies combine within a specific society. This is important because the same
factor may produce different outcomes depending on the context in which it operates.

Example 1: Democratization

Statistical studies may show that economic development correlates with democracy.
However, comparative analysis reveals that economic growth alone does not
automatically produce democracy.
For instance, comparing South Korea and Taiwan with China shows that although all
experienced rapid economic growth, their political outcomes differ. Comparative research
demonstrates that factors such as civil society mobilization, elite negotiations,
international pressure, and institutional reforms played crucial roles in the democratic
transitions of South Korea and Taiwan, while China followed a different authoritarian
trajectory.

Example 2: Welfare State Development

Statistical data might show that richer countries tend to have stronger welfare systems.
But comparative scholars studying Sweden, Germany, and the United States
discovered that welfare states developed differently because of party systems, labor
movements, and historical class coalitions. These institutional and historical
dynamics explain why Sweden built a universal welfare state, Germany adopted a
corporatist social insurance model, and the United States developed a more limited
welfare structure.

Example 3: State Failure

When studying state collapse, statistical research may show a correlation between
poverty and instability. However, comparative analysis of Somalia and Afghanistan
demonstrates that colonial legacies, clan structures, external interventions, and
weak state institutions interact in different ways to produce instability. By examining
these cases historically, scholars can trace the causal sequence leading to state
breakdown.

Comparative Politics and Ethnocentrism

In comparative politics, comparison also helps scholars avoid ethnocentrism and

intellectual bias. Ethnocentrism means judging other societies using the standards,
values, and institutions of one’s own culture. For a long time, many political scientists
assumed that Western political systems represented the ideal or final stage of
political development. This assumption suggested that other societies simply needed
to imitate Western institutions.

In earlier scholarship, countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and
France were often treated as the “gold standard” of political organization. Political
development was therefore understood in teleological terms—as if all societies were
moving toward the same Western-style democracy. Non-Western political systems were
frequently studied only to see how far they deviated from the Western model.

The comparative method challenges this assumption. When scholars systematically

compare different political systems, they are forced to step back and reflect critically on
their own normative assumptions and methodological biases. Comparison
encourages researchers to examine political institutions within their own historical,
cultural, and socio-economic contexts, rather than evaluating them solely through
Western benchmarks.

For example, political institutions in China cannot be fully understood simply by

comparing them with liberal democratic institutions in the United States. China’s political
system is shaped by its imperial bureaucratic traditions, revolutionary history, and
one-party institutional framework. Studying it comparatively allows scholars to
understand its internal logic and governing mechanisms, rather than dismissing it as
merely a “deviation” from Western democracy.

Similarly, examining political systems in India or Iran reveals how religion, colonial
legacies, social diversity, and constitutional design interact to produce unique forms
of governance. These systems cannot be evaluated properly without acknowledging the
specific historical trajectories that shaped them.

Thus, systematic comparison performs an important intellectual function:

• It reduces ethnocentric analysis.

• It encourages self-reflection among scholars regarding their assumptions.

• It promotes the study of non-Western political systems on their own terms.

• It broadens the discipline by recognizing multiple pathways of political

development rather than a single universal model.

In this way, comparison strengthens the analytical rigor and inclusivity of political
science by ensuring that every political system is examined as a distinct and meaningful
case, rather than simply being measured against Western institutional standards.

Comparative Politics as a Practical analytical tool

In comparative politics, comparison is also a practical analytical tool that helps

scholars make sense of complex real-world issues. Simply collecting facts about different
countries is not enough. Without comparison, political science would remain mostly
descriptive—it would only tell us what is happening, not why it is happening. The
comparative method turns scattered observations into systematic explanations.

By comparing multiple cases, researchers can test whether certain arguments or

hypotheses about social phenomena are valid, plausible, or misleading. This
approach allows scholars to examine whether a particular factor actually influences an
outcome or whether other intervening variables are responsible.

For example, there is often a debate about whether democracy is compatible with
strong religious beliefs, particularly fundamentalist traditions. A comparative approach
examines different countries with varying religious environments. When we compare
democracies such as Indonesia and Turkey with the theocratic system of Iran, we see
that religion does not produce a single political outcome. Instead, factors like
constitutional design, political leadership, party competition, and civil society
interact with religion to shape different political systems. Comparison therefore helps
scholars avoid simplistic generalizations.

Another example concerns the causes of gun violence. If one only studies the United
States, the issue might appear to be linked purely to cultural attitudes toward firearms.
However, when researchers compare the United States with countries such as Canada
or Japan, they can analyze how gun laws, social norms, law enforcement capacity,
and institutional regulation shape different outcomes. Through comparison, scholars
can identify which variables are most significant.

Similarly, debates about healthcare effectiveness become clearer when systems are
compared across countries. The healthcare models of United Kingdom, Germany, and
the United States differ in funding mechanisms, state involvement, and insurance
structures. By comparing them, researchers can analyze how different policy
frameworks, institutional arrangements, and resource allocations influence health
outcomes and accessibility.

Therefore, comparison performs an important methodological function in political

science. It allows scholars to:

• Evaluate competing theoretical claims about social and political phenomena.

• Identify patterns and causal relationships across different cases.

• Transform isolated facts into coherent analytical explanations.

• Move from description to explanation, which is the central goal of social science.

In short, the comparative method provides a structured framework for understanding

the diversity of political and social systems, helping scholars build more reliable and
evidence-based explanations of how the world works.
What is Comparable in Comparative Politics?

In comparative politics, the question of what is comparable is very important.

Researchers must identify political units that share some common characteristics but
also differ in meaningful ways. These units can include countries, governments,
political systems, institutions, or societies. The purpose of comparison is to
understand why certain political outcomes occur in some places but not in others.

1. The Requirement of Shared and Non-shared Attributes

For two or more cases to be comparable, they must have both similarities and
differences.

• Shared attributes make comparison possible. For instance, all modern states—
such as United States, Japan, and Guinea-Bissau—have certain basic
characteristics. They occupy a defined territory, have political boundaries, govern
a population, and are recognized in the international system.
• Non-shared attributes make comparison meaningful. These countries differ in
economic development, political institutions, culture, and historical experiences.
Because of these differences, scholars can analyze how particular factors
influence political outcomes.

If two cases were completely identical, comparison would be useless because any
finding from one case would automatically apply to the other. That is why political scientist
Giovanni Sartori argued that comparable entities are those whose attributes are “partly
shared and partly non-shared.”

In simple terms, comparativists are not just comparing identical things. They are studying
similar units with important differences.

2. Comparability Depends on Research Design

Whether cases are comparable depends largely on the research design chosen by the
scholar.
For example, comparing very different countries—such as United States, Japan, and
Guinea-Bissau—may still be valid if the research question justifies it. A researcher
studying state capacity, colonial legacies, or development patterns might deliberately
select very different cases to observe how certain variables operate under different
conditions.

Therefore, comparability is not an automatic property of cases. It is something that

researchers must justify through their theoretical framework and research question.

3. The Case for Single-Country Studies

Comparison does not always require multiple countries. A single-country study can also
be comparative if it is placed within a broader analytical framework.

There are several ways this happens:

Implicit comparison: Even when studying only one country—such as China or

Pakistan—researchers often implicitly compare it with other countries or with a
theoretical model of how institutions normally function.

Comparative concepts and tools: If a scholar uses concepts and theories developed
from comparative research—such as democratization, authoritarianism, or state
capacity—then the analysis becomes part of the comparative field.

Comparative context: A single-case study must clearly situate itself within the existing
body of comparative research. This means explaining how the case contributes to
understanding broader political patterns.

Although scholars like Giovanni Sartori were skeptical of single-case studies, many
modern comparativists accept them when they are theoretically grounded and analytically
rigorous.
4. The Core Logic of Comparability

The key lesson is that comparison in political science follows a logical and systematic
process, not random selection of cases. Researchers must carefully justify:

• Why certain cases are selected

• Which attributes are shared
• Which differences are analytically significant

Only by doing this can scholars move beyond simple description toward systematic
explanation, which is the central objective of comparative politics.

Role of Method and Theory in Comparative Politics

Comparative politics is fundamentally defined by a subject vs. method duality, where it

is categorized both by its subject (political phenomena within macrosocial units) and its
method (the explicit act of comparison as analysis).

I. Methodology in Comparative Politics

The comparative method is a distinctive mode of analysis characterized by a bias toward

qualitative analysis, where researchers view cases as "wholes" rather than just a
collection of variables. Because social sciences often lack a sufficient number of cases
for statistical analysis (the small-N problem) and cannot utilize experimental methods,
comparison serves as an essential "second-best" method of scientific control.

1. Core Comparative Logics

• Most Similar Systems (MSS) Design: This logic involves matching units that
share a wide range of attributes (economic, social, cultural) but differ in a specific
outcome—the dependent variable. By holding shared characteristics constant,
the researcher isolates the one significant dissimilarity as the independent
variable or causal factor.
 • Most Different Systems (MDS) Design: This approach seeks very dissimilar
systems that nevertheless share the same outcome. The objective is to find a
single common factor (the independent variable) in a "sea of differences" that
explains the shared phenomenon.

2. Research Strategies

• Case Study in Comparative Perspective: While often an in-depth examination

of a single unit, it is considered comparative when situated within a "comparative
context" or used as a theoretical stepping-stone through analytical induction.
• Within-Case Comparison: A powerful strategy where a researcher divides a
single case into separate time periods to explain a significant change in the
dependent variable between those periods.
• Mixed Design: The most robust approach, which combines multiple strategies—
such as MDS primary cases supported by MSS within-case comparisons and
negative secondary cases—to strengthen causal arguments.

II. Theoretical Traditions in Comparative Politics

Theory in this field acts as a simplifying device or a "map" that allows researchers to
determine which facts are relevant and how they should be organized into a coherent
whole.

1. The Rationality Tradition This tradition utilizes deductive logic and focuses on the
individual as the key unit of analysis.

• Core Assumption: People are rational maximizers of self-interest who perform

strategic calculations of costs and benefits.
• Decisionmaking Context: Strategic action is often conditioned by uncertainty
and constraints, which can be material (limited resources) or institutional (formal
and informal rules).
• Utility: Rationalists believe this framework can explain even seemingly irrational
collective outcomes, such as the persistence of poverty or the decision to engage
 in suicide terrorism, through the logic of collective action or strategic interactive
environments.

2. The Structural Tradition Structural arguments focus on relationships and systems

rather than individual behavior.

• Core Assumption: Human behavior is fundamentally shaped and constrained by

the larger environment, produced by dominant economic, political, and social
arrangements.
• Historical Structuralism: In comparative politics, this often draws from Marxism,
emphasizing how unique historical systems like capitalism impose unyielding
rules and create social classes.
• Dynamic Nature: Structures are often viewed as containing contradictions that
eventually lead to crises or social movements, allowing for systemic change over
long historical sequences.

3. The Cultural Tradition Culturalists view culture not as a derivative factor but as an
independent, powerful force.

• Core Assumption: Culture is an intersubjective system of shared meaning—a

"mental code"—that shapes how individuals perceive reality and define their
interests.
• Fluidity: Unlike traditional views that see culture as static, modern culturalists
emphasize that it is fluid, contested, and multivocal.
• Power: Culture is a political resource used to mobilize groups or legitimize
authority; it is often both a cause and an effect, as established beliefs can
perpetuate certain behaviors even when they become "irrational".

4. The Institutionalism Hybrid Institutionalism focuses on rules, norms, and practices

that prescribe roles and shape expectations.

• Agency of Institutions: "New institutionalists" argue that institutions themselves

can have agency and struggle to maintain their own legitimacy.
• Integration: Institutionalism is often incorporated into other traditions, such as
Rational Choice Institutionalism, which views institutions as the strategic
environment that shapes individual preferences.