2.1 Origins of comparative politics
The history of political thought shows that all major thinkers made contributions to the development of the comparative method.
Politological tradition, beginning from Plato and Aristotle, itself contains a significant element of comparativism. One of the best comparativists and strategists of antiquity was Aristotle, who is in fundamental work “Politics” analyzes systems of 158 states. On the basis of a comparative approach Aristotle created a typology of three main systems of government on the number of high powered persons –monarchy, aristocracy and polity, in which the supreme power belongs respectively to a single, few people and everyone. By comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of them, he also highlighted the antipodes – respectively tyranny, oligarchy and democracy, which Aristotle represented as the result of the degeneration of the first. Aristotle, one of the first, introduced in the comparative analysis the binary oppositions (two alternatives).
A significant impetus in this direction was given by the development of social thought in the Modern era. Elements of comparativistics can be found in the works of such thinkers of that time, like H. Grotius, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, and others. Greatest interest in this context is the developments of Ch. L. Montesquieu, who is known primarily as a thinker, who developed the theory of the separation of powers. At the same time one of the main goals of his main work “The Spirit of Laws”, he saw to identify and explore the spirit of the laws in different countries and peoples, in different forms of government.
Especially the comparative method became widely used in the social and human sciences in the XIX century. Some of its elements were inherent to the representatives of so-called of the Teutonic school of historiography in the United States of America. Under the influence of this school at the end of the XIX century formed methodology of comparative politics. One of its founders is E. Freeman, who in his book “Comparative Politics” (1873) showed that the history and politics are inseparable. Freeman tried to identify and explain the similarities among different peoples and states of different eras their origin from some single root. Especially popular methodology of comparative politics is in the USA.
With regard to the methodology of modern Comparative politics, it is based on different principles and starting positions. An important contribution to the development of the comparative method has made an outstanding German philosopher G. Hegel (1770–1831). He has carried out a deep comparative analysis of the development of the national spirit and the political system of different nations, has left an interesting description of the spatial relationships between the states, civilizations and peoples, known to Europeans to the middle of the twentieth century. The criteria for the comparative analysis of the nations of Hegel are not only features of the climate and environment, but also the most important socio-cultural determinants – the mentality of the people, its national character, the most important goal of social development.
The peculiarity of Comparative politics was that in it developed further trends and processes which in political science emerged in the late XIX - the first half of the XX century.
For all that, Comparative politics as a separate major section of political science separated only in the 50s of the twentieth century. Thus, the modern Comparative politics has deep historical and theoretical and methodological roots in the whole spectrum of the humanities - philosophy, anthropology, history, sociology, psychology. It was formed as an interdisciplinary field of research, absorbed the achievements of social science for more than a thousand-year history of its development.
2.2 Establishment of Comparative politics
Comparative politics came a long and difficult path. In its development can be distinguished the most important critical border in 40-50s years of twentieth century.
In modern political science there is disagreement about the historical stages of development. Nevertheless, according to the general classification there are five periods :
1) formation of Comparative politics as an independent branch of knowledge (second half of XIX century);
2) stage of potential accumulation, "traditional Comparative politics» (the first half of XX century : the end of the 40s and early 50s., divide the “traditional” and “new” Comparative politics;
3) stage of renovation and expansion, "New Comparative politics» (since the early 50s to late 70s.);
4) stage of the crisis and the separation of sub-disciplines, “pluralistic Comparative politics” (since the mid 70s and the end of the XX century.);
5) neoinstitutional stage of Comparative politics (presеnt).
Comparative politics. Consistent consideration of these stages of evolution allows the main trends and the results of Comparative politics.
Modern Comparative politics begins to form in the second half of the XIX century. Then were formed two main traditions of scientific work. One is constructive and active in their methodological orientation, tends to the construction of models and direct data search with the comparisons. The other is more focused on the available empirical data and their generalization
The founder of the school is considered to be a constructive Charles Edward Merriam (1874–1953), who became the first professor of political science at University of Chicago and founded the Chicago political school. Charles Merriam put a new vector of political research from the theoretical discussions to real research. He is considered not only as one of the founders of the American political science, but also the father of the behavioral trends therein.
In 1923, Charles Merriam proposed four stages of development of political science:
1) priori-deductive stage (up to 1850);
2) historical and comparative stage (1850–1900);
3) the tendency to observe, review and measurement (1900 –1923);
4) prediction that “psychological processing of politics” will occur in the future).
Charles Merriam essentially was behind the formation of new directions of political research, he made a great contribution to the study of the phenomenon of political power and democratic theory.
Another prominent representative of this area is Edward Freeman (1823–1892) – one of the leading representatives of the political line in English historiography. Extensive experience in studying the history of different cultures and periods allowed him to carry out a comprehensive analysis of many historical phenomena, in the basis of which he laid the comparative method.
The main objective of Comparative politics he considers evolutionary reconstruction by the type of language reconstruction proposed by comparative linguistics.
In the future, the comparing method has been successfully used by Francis Lieber (1798–1872), who became the first professor of history and political science at Columbia College (later University) in 1857.
In his analysis Lieber came to the determination of the difference between “right” and “wrong” forms of political life organizations, which he spent on the basis of the relationship between society and the specific state apparatus or, in his own words, “on action modus” of that particular state.
Lieber singled out the two forms of government: autarchy and hamarchy.
A significant contribution to comparative policy research contributed the works of Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) the 28th President of the United States of America, one of the founders of the League of Nations, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (1919), democrat, a leading American political scientist of the late XIX - early XX century. Wilson went down in history as a statesman, profitable combining political practice and scientific work.
The main contribution of Wilson to the development of political science was in the period of 1879–1908 and determined by the opening of a new object of study - public administration, as well as the promotion of comparative studies.
It would be nice to settle on the work of John Burgess (1844–1931) “Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law” (1891), which made a significant contribution to the development of political studies of this period. He tried to use the method, which is considered to be so productive in the field of natural science, to political science and law. “The book has to a great degree the nature of political science and in a measure reflects the influence of the French approach to views on constitutional law and political institutions”.
It is also necessary to focus on the works of Sir Frederick Pollock (1845–1937) and the “Atlanticist” Lord James Bryce (1839–1922).
Frederick Pollock, being a specialist in the field of law, has developed his own concept, increasingly preferring the classical works of ancient Greek philosophers.
Having considered most theories of the state organizations, he came to the conclusion that the difference between despotic and free government is in organization of control, rather than real power, which it has. The state should be self-improving primarily modernizing state institutions
James Bryce is famous for its research methodology, Comparative politics and the analysis of democratic development around the world. His scientific credo with respect to Comparative politics, he formulated in the “Modern Democracy” (1921), which opened the four forms of the development of democracy.
In the analysis of the experience of emerging discipline comes under notice regularity, which more or less clarity can be noted in the following periods: bursts accompanied by theoretical discussions, followed by the fall in the methodological definition of research, when new breakthroughs provided a virtuoso using intuition and personal skills.
2.3 Traditional Comparative politics
By the early twentieth century Comparative politics takes the place of one of the main branches of political science, along with the American system of government, the elements of law and political theory that was recorded by the American Association of Political Science in 1912. Franco-British comparativist Jean Blondel (1929) believes that the Comparative politics stands out as an independent branch of the policy research about the beginning of the First world war, that is, by 1914. Although at the end of last and the beginning of this period begins the formation of a new political methodology of comparison (Durkheim, Weber), dominant in Comparative politics remains “the traditional approach”.
So, in the 90s of XIX century. Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) introduced the concept of “social type” as a certain special research tool that allows researchers to overcome the one-sidedness and the very descriptive, and extreme abstraction. Durkheim not only introduces the category of social types, but also the schedule for its special use, mediates between abstraction and narrative field of research - social morphology. The scientist says that the morphological facts constitute “substratum of collective life”, the internal environment of any society, and that the internal social environment is recognized as a determining factor of “collective evolution”. But morphology it is actually comparativistics.
A new step towards the further development of the comparative method was made in the early twentieth century by Max Weber (1864– 1920). He put forward the concept of the ideal type, which characterizes the development of Comparative politics of the period. For him, Comparative politics is a universal description of the characteristics of a social institution of a system of beliefs, as if they existed in a pure form, without falling under the influence of other elements that form the unique historical complex.
The so-called traditional approach, according to Roy Makridis (1918– 1991), is in fact:
1) noncompared;
2) descriptive;
3) limited;
4) static;
5) monographic.
Works in the field of Comparative politics specified period, usually limited to a comparative examination of the board. Comparativists describe the main political institutions of the leading countries. At the time of the field of view of researchers dropped many other countries. Theoretical research level was low.
All this was due to the fact that, firstly, comparativists-researchers had no deep interest in theory due to mistrust of the so-called normative political theory, i.e., political philosophy. Secondly, it was considered that a high level of theoretical abstraction makes it impossible to carry out an empirical test on the other hand, the theoretical abstraction are not observable in principle. Thirdly, there was the belief of the problematic form of the science of politics, which has been subject to fluctuations, and strongly influenced by subjective factors.
Despite the current situation in the traditional approach, already in the 30s of the last century, the situation changed. Start of change marked the fundamental work of Arnold Toynbee (1889–1975). In his work “Study of History”, he illuminates their understanding of the comparative method. He continues and develops the approach E. Freeman, rising to new heights the character of comparative studies.
In the 30s and 40s appeared a number of works that showed the development of meaningful Comparative politics. First of all, it is the work of Herman Finer (1898–1969), “The theory and practice of modern governance”, first published in 1932. In addition it is a book of Karl Friedrich (1901–1984) “Constitutional government and politics”, the works of Kenneth Uier (1907–1979) “Federative rule” and “Modern constitution”, as well as the book by Maurice Duverger (1917) “Political parties”. These and similar work laid the foundation for the next stage of Comparative politics development.
During these years, comparativistics is institutionalized. During the Second World War by the American Political Science Association special committee on comparativistics was created. In a number of US universities hold special comparative studies. This practical-political situation included the creation of a special discipline with its own methodological base and a set of appropriate techniques. All this taken together has raised the comparative studies on a new, higher scientific level.
2.4 “New” Comparative politics
The main event associated with the emergence of the “new” Comparative politics, was the seminar held in 1952 at Northwestern University (Evanston, Chicago) under the auspices of the Council of social science research. After discussing the features of the comparative method, the participants highlighted the levels of comparative political analysis, as well as major thematic research questions. The impact of the seminar and its proposed methodological approach to the development of Comparative politics was great. There was a strong increase in interest in comparative studies, especially in America. In March 1954, the Council for social science research creates a Committee on Comparative politics, which is headed by Gabriel Almond, one of the students of Charles Merriam.
The innovative character of the movement for Comparative politics reflected in the fact that now the objects of comparison were to be no institutions, and amenable to study using behavioral methods of political phenomena. A prerequisite for the implementation of this approach was the development of the grounds on which would be comparable elements stand out in fundamentally different political systems. This problem was solved as a result of the perception of political science achievements of structural functionalism.
Structural functionalism came in political science from the outside – from sociology, in which he was quite a long and complicated path of development. Its formation was associated with the names of Robert Merton, Talcott Parsons.
In this period the tradition of a comparative study of the conditions of democratic and authoritarian regimes emergence, the measurement of political regimes and institutions. An important event in this regard was the meeting of the “round table” on comparative governance, organized by the International Political Science Association in April 1954 in Florence.
During the 50s was gradual methodological update. As a result, formed two new approaches – and the system behavior, or as it is often called, behavioral. Each of these approaches is the theoretical-ideological attitude to politics as an object of study. Effects of systemic and behavioral approaches to Comparative politics was limited to a general increase in the theoretical and, more broadly, cultural and intellectual level of research.
Gabriel Almond (1911–2002), developing a functional approach to Comparative politics, wrote about the four main characteristics of political systems, on the basis of which they can be compared. Firstly, the political systems, including the most simple, have a political structure. Second, in all political systems implemented the same functions, even if these functions may be performed by various types of structures and different frequency. Third, all political structures, no matter how specialized they are there in primitive or traditional societies - are multifunctional. Fourth, all political systems are mixed systems in the cultural sense. No “ultra-modern” systems and structures in terms of rationality and there is no “above-primitive” systems in the sense of tradition.
In 1968 at Stanford met Comparative politics committee. In a subsequent has been published a book “The Crisis, choice and change”. Historical research of political development.
In 1952 in Paris, was founded the International Council for Social Science for interdisciplinary and international comparative studies. Decisive in this respect was the conference organized by Stein Rokkan in 1962, and then to develop under his leadership, a number of projects for a decade, which have been focused on comparative studies and methodology.
Summing up the stage of the “new” Comparative politics, it should be noted that the methodology, perceived from second or third hand, were not sufficiently meaningful and specific methodologies and research techniques have undergone a purely mechanical borrowing. Focus either on the empirical basis of research or the pure theory led eventually to the closure in the narrow range of issues, separation of Comparative politics from the dynamic of the political process. This forces researchers to reconsider their attitude to behaviorism and structural functionalism.
As a result, comes the time of “small business”, begins a new stage of development of Comparative politics.
The Evanston seminar was held in 1952 at the Northwestern University of the USA, (Evanston, Chicago). Roy Macridis was a chairman and leader. There were proposed eight methodological principles:
– abstraction;
– relevance;
– measurement (scaling) of indicators;
– formulation of the hypothesis;
– verification + falsification;
– a series of hypotheses;
– classification and data before hypotheses;
– the way to create a theory.
The impact of the seminar and its methodological approach to comparative politics was great. There has been a strong increase in interest in comparative research.
2.5 Pluralistic stage of Comparative politics
Since the end of 1960 Comparative politics is experiencing increasing impact of new methodological orientations associated with the revival of interest in political philosophy and criticism of rational foundations of science. The revival of interest in political theory and philosophy could not but reflect on the state of the empirically oriented Comparative politics.
In 1970s Comparative politics has once again become the problem of updates. Although G. Almond and said that the crisis in Comparative politics was a political rather than an intellectual discipline began to change and methodologically and substantively. Subjects comparative studies characterized by a shift from the study of traditional institutions and factors of political activity (state, parties, elections, media) to understanding the new phenomena (environmental policy, interest groups and neo-corporatism, new mass movement, post-materialist values, ethnic, linguistic, age and gender). Particular importance is attached to research what constitutes political course, the effect on his old and new institutions and factors. Formed whole self sub-branch – comparative public policy.
There were and there are serious changes in methodology. Perhaps these changes are forced to speak about the crisis tendencies in Comparative politics. First of all, this is due to the revaluation of values behaviouralism and structural functionalism. However, it is possible to speak about the following major trends that characterize the process of methodological transformation Comparative politics.
The first trend can be described as a radical. Most clearly it is represented in postmodern and feminist political and theoretical orientations. In Comparative politics feminist wave is reflected in the status of women in the various studies of the Scandinavian democracies, issues of citizenship and political participation, particularly public policy and the general welfare state.
The second trend is connected with reconstruction of the value of historical and comparative methodology. In 1960s some researchers began to actively use the methodology of political comparisons of M. Weber and K. Marx.
The third trend can be defined as renovation. It is associated with the expansion of scientific methodological tools of comparative analysis by referring to the new conceptual approaches.
Of course, the discussion of the problems of Comparative politics today cannot be reduced entirely to the radical, comparative historical and renovated trends. It may be noted, and other, more specific or more traditional research. Thus, improving and expanding the scope of mathematical analysis methods, increasing the value of the comparison methods, the most similar and most dissimilar systems. It should also be noted and changes in the subject Comparative politics. In the field of view at this stage fall transients, conflicts, regional integration, corruption, etc. Are relatively independent areas such as democratization and transitology. In general, hardly it is possible to talk about the decline of interest in Comparative politics, can only say a major restructuring of its methodology and subject matter. In this connection, we can agree with the assessment of Sidney Verba: “In the future we can expect that in situation of Comparative politics will remain the same, discipline retains its heterogeneity of styles and theories, and the majority of its followers will continue to consider it a blessing”.
2.6 Neo-institutional stage of comparative politics
If at pluralistic stage neo-institutional research methodology of political processes was only one trend along with many others, in the past two decades (1990–2010) it has become the dominant and allowed to transform the industry of Comparative politics in the direction of greater rigor and clarity. Neo-institutionalism as the dominant methodological paradigm in Comparative politics has identified a number of features of the present stage of development of the industry.
Firstly, Comparative politics has received considerable impetus to interdisciplinary research and policy as institutionalized sphere began to be analyzed using a variety of thematic and methodological approaches.
Secondly, neoinstitutionalism increased role and importance of the conceptualization and modeling in Comparative politics. It is possible to raise the value of Comparative politics as a theoretical discipline and give the rigor and integrity of Comparative Political Studies.
Third, it increases the degree of realization of the explanatory function of comparative studies. Neoinstitutionalism in all its forms was trying to show not only what is happening in politics, but also how and why.
Fourth, neoinstitutionalism allows you to analyze the conditions of the emergence of institutions in different cultural contexts and to receive universal generalizations on the one hand, or to explain the feature of the institutional structure of various polities using universal models - on the other.
Fifth, in 1980–1990s is the third wave of democratization, capturing many of the worlds accounted for dominance neoinstitutional methodology in comparative studies. In this respect, Comparative politics at this stage, not only received significant methodology, but also thematically revived by the democratic transitions in which the dominant role played by the institutional processes of transformation and consolidation.
Control questions
Questions for self-testing