Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science

Paper Name Comparative Politics

Module Name/Title Comparative politics : Evolution, Nature and Content

Module Id 5

Pre-requisites

Objectives To get an overview of evolution, nature and content/scope of

comparative politics with special reference to advanced societies
Keywords Political System, Environment, Behaviouralism, Ethnocentrism,
Modernity, Post-modernity Institutionalism, Developmentalism
Political Culture, State, Civil Society, Globalisation, Structural
Functionalism

Structure of Module/Syllabus of a Module

Nature and Scope of Meaning of comparative politics, evolution of comparative political

Comparative Politics studies, nature and scope of comparative political analysis in different
phases; traditional, modern period and post modern period.

2 DEVELOPMENT TEAMS

Role Name Affiliation

National Coordinator

Subject Coordinator Prof. Ashutosh Kumar Department of Political

Science, Panjab
University, Chandigarh
Paper Coordinator

Content Writer/Author (CW) Shashi K. Negi Assistant professor,

Department of Political
Science, MCM DAV
College, Sector 36-A,
Chandigarh
Content Reviewer (CR)
Language Editor (LE)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1 Objectives

2.2. Introduction: What is Comparative Politics?

2. 3 Why there is a need of Comparative Politics

2.4 Comparative Politics in Pre modern Time: Evolution and Development of Concept

4.1 Evolution of Comparative Politics: Aristotle to the 17th century

4.2 Development of Comparative Politics in 18th And 19th centuries
4.3 Features of Comparative Politics in Pre-modern times
4.5 Summary

2.5 Development of Comparative Political Analysis in 20th Century

2 .5.1 Comparative Politics in Early 20th Century
2 .5.2 Development of Comparative Political Analysis after Mid 20th Century
2 .5.3 Features and Scope of Comparative politics in Modern view-point
2. 5.4 Summing up

2.6 Comparative Politics in Post Modern/Post-Behavioural Period

2. 6.1 The Challenges to Developmentalism and Modernization
2. 6.2 Increased importance of State in Post-modern Comparative Political Analysis
2. 6.3 Focus on Democratization, Globalisation and Civil Society Process in late 1980’s
2.6.4 Consequences of the widened scope of Comparative Politics
2.7 Critical Evaluation/Limitations of Comparative political analysis
2.8 Summing up
UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION AND NATURE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ADVANCED SOCIETIES
2.1 OBJECTIVES
After going through this module, students should be able to:

 Trace the historical evolution of comparative political studies since its inception.
 Describe the changing nature of comparative political analysis in various phases
1) Nature and scope of comparative politics in traditional period
2) Nature and scope of comparative politics in modern period
3) Nature and scope of comparative politics in post modern period
 Make a distinction between traditional viewpoint of comparative politics (comparative
government) and modern viewpoint of comparative political analysis.
 Explain the features and scope of comparative political science in various phases.
 Highlight the importance or significance of the study

2.2 Introductions
What is Comparative Politics?
The scholars engaged in the field of comparative politics believe that with the help of
comparative studies we can get precise description of phenomenon happening in the world and in
the local/domestic level. Comparing the similarities and the differences between the political
phenomena across the countries helps the social scientists to assess which factors can play
perfect role in which kind of situation to establish a stable political system. Social scientists
have given three reasons for the need of doing comparative study; a) First we cannot understand
one country without knowledge of others, b) secondly one cannot understand other countries
without knowledge of their background, institutions and history c) and lastly one cannot arrive at
valid generalizations about government and politics without the comparative method.
Comparison has been viewed as the basic function of political science and a reliable strategy of
research.
Comparative politics along with political theory and international relations constitutes
one of the three core components of political science. Whereas, political theory deals with the
normative and theoretical questions, comparative politics deal with the empirical questions.
According to Caramani, comparative politics is a discipline that analyses political phenomenon
as they appear in the real world. This study is value -neutral and empirical by nature and studies
interactions within political systems.

Some important Definitions of Comparative Politics

“Comparative politics is the study politics in foreign countries”. (Zahariadis, 1997,p.2).

“Comparative politics involves the systematic study and comparison of the world’s political system.
It seeks to explain difference between as well as similarities among countries. In contrast to
journalistic reporting on a single country, comparative politics is particularly interested in exploring
patterns, processes and regularities among political system”. (Wiarda, 2000, p.7)

“Comparative politics involves involves both a subject of study-foreign countries -and a Method
study- comparison”. (Wilson 1996, p.4)
“What is comparative politics? It is two things, first a world, second a discipline. As a ‘World,
comparative politics encompasses political behaviour and institutions in all parts of the earth
…..The ‘discipline’ of comparative politics is a field of study that desperately tries to keep up with ,
to encompass , to understand, to explain and perhaps to influence the fascinating world of
comparative politics”. (Lane 1997, p.2)

“Within political science comparative politics is a subfield that compares the struggle for power
across the countries”. (O’ Neil 2009, p.3)

“Comparative politics is a discipline that deals with the very essence of politics where sovereignty
resides in the state: questions of power between groups, the institutional organisation of political
system and authoritative decision that affects the whole of a community”. (Caramani, 2011, p.3)

“Comparative politics is concerned with the study of all forms of governmental as well as
nongovernmental political activity. The field of comparative politics has an 'all encompassing'
nature and comparative politics specialists tend to view it as the study of everything political”.
(Ronald Chilcote 1994, Introduction, Theories of Comparative Politics, p.4)
According to Daniele Caramani, comparative study is a subject matter; it is concerned with the
power relationship between individuals, groups and organisations, classes, institutions within
political systems. This subject does not ignore external influences on internal structures, but its
ultimate concern is power configuration within systems (Daniele Caramani, 2008. p.3).
Comparative politics in more formal terms involve both a method of study and a subject of
study. As a subject of study comparative politics focuses on understanding and explaining
political phenomenon that takes place within a state, society, country or political system. Most of
the comparative political thinkers accept that the distinctiveness of comparative politics mainly
lies in a systematic use of comparisons to study two or more countries with the purpose of
identifying and explaining differences or similarities between them with respect to the particular
phenomenon being analyzed.
For a long time comparative politics appeared merely to look for similarities and
differences. As Mohanty has mentioned that comparative study was earlier directed towards
classifying and dichotomizing political phenomena but in the present period comparative
political analysis is however, not simply about identifying similarities and differences. The
purpose of using comparisons, it is felt by several scholars, is going beyond 'identifying
similarities and differences' or the 'compare and contrast approach', to ultimately study political
phenomena in a larger framework of relationships. (Mohanty, 1975, p.p.1-2).
On the basis of various definitions and explanations it becomes clear that Comparative
Politics is one of the the three main subfields of political science focusing on internal political
structures, actors, processes and analyzing them empirically by describing , explaining and
predicting their variety across political systems.
According to Caramani as all scientific disciplines comparative politics is a combination
of substance (which includes study of countries/ regions and their political systems, actors and
process) and Method (identifying and explaining differences and similarities between cases
following established rules and standards of comparative analysis and using concepts that are
applicable in more than one case (Caramani, 2008 p.4). Comparative politics involves the
analysis of similarities and differences between cases. In comparative politics the cases are
mainly political systems of nation states but it also could be regions which are sub- national or
supera national in nature. Comparative political scientist doesn’t always compare the whole of
 political systems, but sometimes they just compare the elements such as institutions
(parliaments) or actors (parties) or processes (policy making).
The emphasis is on both the method of inquiry and the substance into which inquiry is
directed. It is the substance of comparative politics (subject matter, vocabulary and Perspective)
which gives comparative politics its distinctiveness both as a method and as a specific field of
study. Looking at all these things; it becomes clear that comparative deal with empirical
questions and interactions with in political system. As a subject matter it is concern with power
relations between individuals, groups/ organisations, classes, institutions, within political
systems. Comparative politics is particularly interested in exploring patterns, processes,
regularities among political system. It looks for trends for change in patterns and attempt to
develop general prepositions and hypothesis.

2.3 Why there is a Need of Comparative Politics

 To know how others live and act. Comparative politics help to formulate predictions.
 To discover similarities and dissimilarities between oneself and others and thus gain an enriched
perception of one’s own-self. As it helps to describe and explain similarities and differences.
Comparative politics describes the real world and on the basis of these descriptions establishes
classifications and typology.
 To accept what is perceived to be best in others- a reformist motivation.
 To predict which factors may cause similar or different effects
 With the passage of time world has been changed into a small village. Increased communication
and transportation led to the rise in interaction and gave birth to the world citizens. In this
globalised world ignoring any nation for study is not possible.
 As we all know that there is plurality of data as various variables are working to influence the
different phenomena in the society.

Nature and Content of Comparative Political Analysis with Special Reference to Developed
Societies
Comparative politics as distinguishable sub-field within political science has been emerged only
in recent times. Since then, it has undergone tremendous transformation in terms of its nature
and study. The modern study of comparative politics emerged in the late 19th century, and since
 then has evolved largely due to the research in U.S universities. The nature and scope of
comparative politics has been determined historically by changes in subject matter, vocabulary
and political perspective. To understand where, why and how the changes took place we have to
look at what is the focus of study at a particular historical period, what are the tools, languages or
concepts being used for the study and what is the perspective and purpose of enquiry. Therefore,
in order to study the nature and scope of comparative politics we need to peek into the historical
evolution of concept. The nature and scope of comparative political analysis varies in accordance
to the changes which occur in its subject matter. The subject matter of comparative politics has
been determined both by the geographical location (countries, regions) which has constituted its
field as well as the dominant ideas concerning social reality and change which shaped the
approaches to comparative studies. At the different historical stages the principal concern of the
studies kept changing. We can trace the changing nature and scope of comparative politics by
studying comparative political analysis in various phases given below

Comparative politics in Pre-Modern Times

 Comparative politics from Aristotle to the 17th century
 Comparative politics in 18th and 19th century
Comparative politics in Modern Times: Development of Comparative Political Analysis in
20th century:
 Pre Behaviouralist phase
 Behaviouralist phase (1940’s to 1970’s)

Post Modern phase/ Post Behaviouralist Phase ( period after 70’s)

2.4 Comparative Politics in Pre-modern Times

2.4 .1 Evolution of the Concept: Comparative politics from Aristotle to the 17th century
In its earliest incarnation, the comparative study of politics comes to us in the form of studies
done by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle studied the constitutions of 158 states and
classified them into a typology of regimes. His classification was presented in terms of both
descriptive and normative categories i.e., he not only described and classified regimes and
 political systems in terms 'of their types e.g., democracy, aristocracy, monarchy etc., he also
distinguished them on the basis of certain norms of good governance. One can see Aristotle
evolved a method of comparison which was distinctive in nature. His comparison can be outlined
in systematic manner by outlining his study as:
a) Formulation of research problem: he raised the question that which constitutions are more prone
to revolt or what are causes of political stability?
b) After choosing the problem he collected the data relevant to the problem.
c) Then he analyzed the data on the basis of following criteria :
i) On the basis of number of rulers ( i.e Monarchy, Aristocracy, Polity)
ii) Modes of Operation: Oligarchic or Democratic
iii) By class structure and distribution of powers among classes
iv) Correlation among these above given points with political stability and instability.
v) Lastly he came up with the conclusion which type of regime is most stable and why?
The study of various constitutions of ancient Greece was considered as truly comparative and
systematic in nature by social scientists. Aristotle used the law of limitation, the law of diffusion
and the law of similar causes to explain uniformities and similarities.
These Aristotelian categories were acknowledged and taken up by Romans thinkers such as
Polybius (20 1 - 120 B.C.) and Cicero (1 06-43 B.C.) who considered them in formal and
legalistic terms. Polybius was the first analyst to concentrate on measuring the success of power
sharing and differentiation. His “Universal History” analyzed the virtues of the Roman system-
the mixed constitution that combined monarchical, aristocratic and democratic systems-
compared to the Greek and explained its success. He believed a mixed constitution with checks
and balances would provide stability. Concern with comparative study of regime types
reappeared ' in the 15th century with Machiavelli (1469- 1527). In the renaissance period
Machiavelli used the comparative method of study in his writings – the prince and the
Discourses. Later on French Philosopher Jean Bodin undertook a comparative study of
governments of various European states.

2.4.2 Development of Comparative Politics in 18th And 19th Centuries

After the origin of comparative politics it remained in abeyance for several centuries. It was
revived only in the 18th and 19th centuries with the Montesquieu work of “Spirit of Laws (1748)
 which deeply influenced the constitution making process in USA, France and other western
countries. He used the comparative method for analyzing law and politics. He made a
comparative study of British and French system of governance and formulated his theory of
separation of powers. In the 19th century J.S Mill and E.A Freeman made good efforts to
compare the state and governments. They also made contribution to develop comparative
method. A.D Tocqueville took forward the practice of comparative study with his work
“Democracy in America”. By the end of 19th century comparative study of government took a
new shape with various works of political scientist. In 1896 A, Lowell published his work
“Governments and parties of continental Europe” which was the comparative study of various
political systems like: France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary and Switzerland. James Bryce
through his work “Modern Democracies” also made a great contribution to the development of
comparative study and comparative method during this period.

2.4. 3 Features of Comparative Politics in Pre-modern times (Traditional Approach)

 The pre modern stage or the traditional approach to comparison since Aristotle was was highly
speculative and normative, mostly ethnocentric and used comparisons in an anecdotal way.
Comparative Political Science owes a lot to other social sciences: philosophy, legal
constitutionalism and political Economy. In 19th century ‘Sociology’ was coined by Auguste
Comte and soon became important in helping political science to liberate itself from
jurisprudence and be transformed into a ‘Social Science’. One can clearly see that boundaries
with other social science subjects were not clearly defined.
 Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Tocqueville came close to founding a modern comparative
political Science. During the Renaissance Machiavelli came close to a Social Science Approach,
Minimizing the Philosophical normative approach of former times. Many historical comparisons
in early modern times from Machiavelli to Montesquieu were rather a-historical confrontations
of Roman experience and the life of modern states.
 The main goal of these comparative analyses was to establish classifications and typologies.
Very often these classifications concerned evolutionary models, as in the case of Spencer and
Marx.
 The scholars of the sub-discipline put almost exclusive emphasis on the study of governmental
structures and the formal organisation of the state institutions and secondly, the subject was
 discussed in a purely descriptive, historical or legalistic manner. It had thus adopted a rather
limited methodology. Government studied was smaller in in number, all falling in a single
cultural pattern. Traditional approach was non-comparative, Descriptive, Parochial and Static.
The focus was on western European democracies. Comparative politic at that time was mainly
normative in nature.
 There is an emphasis on the study of formal institutions to the neglect of political processes
 It is focused on the western European political system and thus the non –western European
Political system are neglected. It was culture bound.
 There is an emphasis on description existing institution with little attention given to the analysis
and development of systematic generalization about the political phenomena.
 There is lack of concern for the development of theories through collection and analysis of data
in order to test specific hypotheses.
 There is a neglect of the findings of other social sciences having bearing on the political
phenomena
 The traditional approach showed insensitiveness to non political determinants of political
behaviour and thus to the non political bases of governmental institutions.
 The comparative politics of this time has been considered as comparative government.

2.4.4 Summing up
Pre-modern phase was highly speculative and normative, mostly ethnocentric, used comparisons
in an anecdotal way. The pre-modern or pre-paradigmatic phase is the traditional phase ridden
with many limitations like being descriptive, assumptive, too generalized and impressionistic.
As such this phase was marked by porosity of boundaries of different disciplines like philosophy,
history, jurisprudence etc. There was pressure to find similarities and overall the objective was to
establish classification or typologies rather that focused or meticulous study of any particular
systems.

2.5 Comparative Politics in Modern Times: Development of Comparative Political Analysis

in 20th Century
There is no agreement when modernity starts. In the Art and literature it is often located earlier in
the 19th century. In the social sciences modernity is scheduled later. In order to avoid the quarrels
of definitions social scientist used the term classical modernity for the new social sciences in the
20th century. According to Caramani Classical modernity coincides largely with the
establishment of separate discipline in the social sciences, such as Sociology and Political
Science
2.5.1 Comparative Politics in Early 20th Century
The obsession with philosophical and speculative questions concerning the 'good ' or the 'ideal
state' and the use of abstract and normative vocabulary, persisted in comparative studies till late
nineteenth and early twentieth century. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s
signified the period when liberalism was the reigning ideology and European countries enjoyed
dominance in world politics. The 'rest of the world' of Asia, Africa and Latin America were
either European colonies or under their sphere of influence as ex-colonies. Major comparative
works of this period like James Bryces's Modern Democracies (1921), Herman Finer's Theory
and Practice of Modern Governments (1932) and Carl J. Friedrich's Constitutional Government
and Democracy (1937), Roberto Michels, Political Parties (1915) and M. Duverger, Political
Parties (1950) were largely concerned with the comparative study of institutions, the distribution
of power and the relationship between the different layers of government. These studies were
Eurocentric i.e., confined to the study of institutions, governments and regime types in European
countries like Britain, France and Germany.
It may thus be said that these studies were in fact not genuinely comparative in the sense
that they excluded from their analysis a large number of countries. Any generalization derived
from a study confined to a few countries could not legitimately claim having validity for the rest
of the world. It may be emphasized here that exclusion of the rest of the world was symptomatic
of the dominance of Europe in world politics which however, was on the wane, and shifting
gradually to North America. All the history of this period kept Europe at its centre and ignored
the rest of the world as 'people in the rest of the world is without histories' or the histories of
these people were bound with and destined to follow the trajectories already followed by the
advanced countries of the West. Thus the works done in till mid 20th century manifest their
rootedness in the normative values of western liberal democracies which carried with it the
baggage of racial and civilization superiority, and assumed a prescriptive character for the
colonies/former colonies.
2.5.2 Development of Comparative Political Analysis after Mid 20th Century: Adoption of
Behavioural Study
The traditional approach to comparative politics was not completely worthless. But the
shortcomings of this approach were becoming increasingly obvious. The comparative study of
governments till the 1940’s was predominantly the study of institutions, the legal-constitutional
principles regulating them and the manner in which these institutions and regulations functioned
in western liberal-democracies. A powerful critique of the institutional approach emerged in the
middle of 1950’s. The critique had its roots in Behaviouralism which had emerged as a new
movement in the discipline of politics aiming to provide scientific rigour to the discipline and
develop a science of politics. Known as the behavioural movement, it was concerned with
developing an enquiry which was quantitative, based on survey techniques involving the
examination of empirical facts separated from values, to provide value-neutral, non-prescriptive,
objective observations and explanations. The Behaviouralist attempted to study social reality by
seeking answers to questions like 'why people behave politically as they do and why as a result,
political processes and systems function as they do'. It is these 'why questions' regarding
differences in people's behaviours and their implications for political processes and political
systems, which changed the focus of comparative study from the legal-formal aspects of
institutions.
What is Behavioural Approach?
The Behaviouralist approach insists on the application of scientific methods to the study of
politics, its structure, processes and behaviour within these structures. It seeks to focus on the
behaviour of individuals and groups rather than their formally prescribed roles and activities.
Methodologically, the Behaviouralist scholars try to be rigorous and systematic in their political
inquiries and seek scientification’ of the discipline through the formulation and testing of
empirical hypotheses and quantification and measurement of data. Substantively, they seek to
build up theories and discover uniformities or regularities in political behaviour. The beahvioural
approach was a movement against the conventional, historical, philosophical and descriptive
 institutional approach to the study of political science. Behaviouralism is distinguished more
than anything else by its emphasis on:
a) Individual being treated as the basic unit of analysis by political science
b) The use of scientific methods in political science for observation, classification and measurement
of data
c) It stresses on the unity of political science with other social science
The principle features of the behavioural approach could be summarized as follows:
 The behavioural approach attempts to study all the phenomena about politics in terms of
observed and observable behaviour of men.
 It generates and tests verifiable scientific explanations about the political phenomena.
 It emphasis quantification and operational definitions.
 The behavioural approach assumes natural science as its ideal and rejects the methods of the
humanities.
 It scrupulously keeps out normative or value statements and even attempts to eliminate the
influence of personal values of researchers.
 It is characterized by an inter-disciplinary orientation and consciously seeks affiliation with
concepts, theories and approaches of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics etc.
 It seeks an effective system of back feeding the findings of empirical research into
methodological improvement.
 It lays stress on comparative inquiries and practical cross cultural research.

In the 1955 Roy Macridis criticized the existing comparative studies for privileging formal
institutions over non-formal political processes, for being descriptive rather than analytical, and
case-study oriented rather than genuinely comparative (Roy Macridis, 1955). Whereas, Harry
Eckstein points out that the changes in the nature and scope of comparative politics in this period
show sensitivity to the changing world politics urging the need to reconceptualise the notion of
politics and develop paradigms for large-scale comparisons (Harry Eckstein, 1963).
Rejecting the traditional and almost exclusive emphasis on the western world, Gabriel
Almond and his colleagues of the “American Social Science Research Council's Committee on
Comparative Politics” attempted to develop a theory and a methodology which could encompass
and compare political systems of all kinds (primitive or advanced, democratic or non-democratic,
 western or non western). The notion of politics at this period was broadened by the emphasis on
the concept of 'realism' or politics of practice. The scope of the study has been widened and
focus has been shifted to the functioning of less formally structured agencies, behaviours and
processes e.g. political parties, interest groups, elections, voting behaviour, attitudes etc.
With the decline in the attention from studies of formal institutions, there was simultaneously a
decline in the centrality of the notion of the state itself. The emergence of a large number of
countries necessitated the development of frameworks which would facilitate comparisons on a
large scale. This led to the emergence of inclusive and abstract notions like the political system.
Almond and his colleagues cited that the political theorists in the past did not concern
themselves with the performance of institutions, their interaction and political behaviour of man.
As the state is limited by its legal and institutional meanings, therefore the modern thinkers have
discarded the traditional concept of State and substituted it by "political system" similarly other
terms like powers, offices, institutions and public opinion' have been replaced by the terms
functions, role, structures, political culture and political socialization respectively.
According to Wiarda in the period of the sixties the 'new nations became for most of
these scholars 'living laboratories' for the study of social and political change. It was during this
period that some of the most innovative and exciting theoretical and conceptual approaches were
advanced in the field of comparative politics. These were study of political culture, political
socialization, developmentalism, dependency and interdependency, corporatism, bureaucratic-
authoritarianism and later transitions to democracy etc. (Wiarda, 2007, p.935)
The modern period of comparative analysis has also seen the mushrooming of various
universalistic models. David Easton's Political System theory, Deutsch's Social Mobilisation
theory, Shil's, Centre and Periphery, Theories of Modernization’ by Apter, Rokkan, Eisenstadt
and Ward and The Theory of Political Development’ by Almond, Coleman, Pye and Verba also
claimed Content universal relevance. According to Wiarda ‘Developmentalism' was perhaps the
dominant conceptual paradigm of this time. To a considerable extent, the interest in
developmentalism emanated from US foreign policy interests in 'developing' countries, to
counter the appeals of Marxism-Leninism. (Wiarda, 2007, p.937)
2.5.3 Features and Scope of Comparative Politics according to Modern view-point
 Modern viewpoint of comparative politics stresses more on Analytical and empirical
investigation. It is no longer confined to descriptive studies.
 It emphasis on value free political study. Only those values are admitted whose validity can be
scientifically demonstrated. It concentrates on study of “what is” rather than “what should be”. It
rejects the normative approach of traditional viewpoint.
 The aim of modern view point is to develop an empirical and objective theory of politics capable
of explaining and comparing all phenomenons of politics.
 In the traditional approach stress was laid on the study of formal structures of the government.
But in the modern viewpoint the stress is laid on formal as well as informal structures and
political processes/political behaviour. Such behaviours and matters which affects the society as
a whole. This viewpoint is more concerned with decision making processes, role of political
parties and pressure groups in the whole process. Modern viewpoint lays stress on the study of
infrastructures of political institutions rather than mere formal structures.
 It stresses on study of developing areas and societies. Whereas earlier studies were only on
developed areas. The biased and parochial nature of traditional view has been replaced by all
embracing studies of developing as well as developed societies or major as well as minor
countries of the world.
 In traditional viewpoint emphasis was on horizontal comparative study. But modern view lays
emphasis on both horizontal and vertical comparison. It involves both a comparative study of
political structures and functions of political systems of various nations and also compares
political systems and sub-systems at work within a single state.
 Modern view-point on comparative political analysis lays emphasis on interdisciplinary
approach. It accepts the need to study politics with the help of the knowledge of other social
science subjects.
 Tools of research have been drawn from the discipline as –economics, sociology, and
psychology.
 System of study borrowed from the natural sciences. Input –output system used by
comparative politics is borrowed from biology.
 In comparative politics more stress is laid to study problems like political socialization,
political modernization and political culture etc.
Comparative politics is an interdisciplinary approach and it is now closely linked with social
structures working in a society.
 The objective of the study of comparative politics in modern times is not only to make
comparative studies of similarities and dissimilarities of different political systems but also to
build a theory of politics. Its main purpose is to develop concepts, approaches and theories which
can be used for scientific theory building in politics.
 The behavioural revolution played a crucial role in establishing a modern comparative political
science, regularities lead to generalizations to be tested empirically and measured quantitatively.
 Comparative politics was progressively established in US and then European universities with
departments and chairs. Internationally, associations and consortia were created for the exchange
of information and scientific collaborations.
 From typologies and classifications of polities, comparative politics moved to the analysis of
politics and policies.

2.5.4. Summing-up
Deep analysis of the comparative political study in modern times shows that comparative
analysis at this time was able to overcome many of the problems of its preceding paradigm. The
phase of modernity had overwhelming stress on empiricism, experimentations and scientific
comparisons. It resulted in establishment of separate disciplines such as Political Science and
sociology in social sciences and aided scientific comparative studies. This endeavour was
formalized with the Behavioural movement under David Easton in post Second World-War era.
In 1960 this got further momentum from functionalist system theories. Rigorous criteria for
scientific comparisons were developed. Scholars tried to spot regularities to establish
generalizations. This behavioural upheaval expanded the frontiers of political science by
stressing interconnections between social, cultural and sometimes economic aspect of life.
However, Behavioural theory and theories of modern times failed to recognize the variation
among the developing societies by asking developing nations to follow the footsteps of
developed nations. It ignored the influence of vital determinants like history, culture, different
colonial experience of these societies. Also racism, ethnicity, gender dimension were not
factored in its analysis.
2. 6 Comparative Politics in Post Modern/Post-Behavioural Period
During the later 1970’s/early 1980’s number of theories and subject matters emerged into the
field of comparative politics against the existing theories of Modernisation, Developmentalism
and Behaviouralism. These theories included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, systems theory, and
transitions to democracy, neo-liberalism, and the politics of structural adjustment and so on. The
Post-modern era challenged all the earlier established modes of knowledge and understanding of
behavioural period. It claimed that social facts are social constructs

2.6.1 The Challenges to Developmentalism and Modernization

According to postmodernist development of value free scientific and universal theories in social
sciences is not possible. As such, there cannot be any universal concept of good or bad. Different
societies differ in terms of their values, political system everything. The absence of certain set
rules and universal standards in comparative politics, it became very difficult for researcher to
compare and arrive to any conclusions. Many scholars felt helpless, as such theories like post
modernism and relativism pointed the problems, but never came up with any solutions.
Comparative politics in post modern-era is encouraged to abstain away from any ethnocentric or
Euro centric prejudices and presumptions.
Towards the end of 1970’s, developmentalism and other approaches of modern era came under
criticism for favouring abstract models, which flattened out differences among specific political,
social, cultural systems, in order to study them within a single universalistic framework. These
criticisms emphasized the ethno-centricism of the models of modern period and focused on the
third world in order to work out a theory of underdevelopment. Post modernist stressed the need
to concentrate on solutions to the backwardness of developing countries. Two main challenges to
developmentalism which arose in the early 1970’s and gained widespread attention were (a)
dependency and (b) corporatism. Dependency theory criticized the dominant model of
developmentalism for ignoring (a) domestic class factors/social factors (b) international market
and power factors in development. Dependency theory was particularly critical of US foreign
policy and multinational corporations and suggested that development of the already
industrialized nations and that of the developing ones could not go together. Dependency theory
claimed that the development of the West had come on the shoulders and at the cost of the non-
West. The idea that the diffusion of capitalism promotes underdevelopment and not development
in many parts of the world was embodied in Andre Gundre Frank's: Capitalism and
Underdevelopment in Latin America (1967), Walter Rodney's: How Europe Underdeveloped
Asia (1972) and Malcolm Caldwell's: The Wealth of Some Nations (1979). Marxist thinkers
criticises the dependency theory and explains the nature of exploitation through surplus
extraction. As mentioned by Chilcote in his study that the Marxist thinkers sees dependency not
simply on national lines but, as part of a more complex pattern of alliances between the
metropolitan bourgeoisie of the core-centre and the indigenous bourgeoisie of the periphery
satellite as they operated in a worldwide capitalist system. The corporatist approach criticised
developmentalism for its Euro-American ethno-centricism and indicated that there were
alternative organic, corporatist, often authoritarian ways to organize the state and state-society
relations (Ronald Chilcote, 1994, p. 16)

2. 6.2. Increased importance of State in Post modern Comparative Political Analysis

During the later 1970’s/early 1980’s number of theories and subject matters emerged into the
field of comparative politics against the existing theories of Modernisation, Developmentalism
and Behaviouralism. These theories included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, systems theory,
transitions to democracy, neo-liberalism, the politics of structural adjustment and so on. The
notion of the political system remained quite popular as the core of political study till 1970’s.
The state, however, started receiving its share of attention in the 60’s and 70’s in Latin America,
especially in Argentina in the works of Guillermo O'Donnell e.g., “Economic Modernisation and
Bureaucratic Authoritarianism” (1973), Ralph Miliband's “The State 'in Capitalist Sociery”
(1969) Nicos Poulantzas's “State, Power, Socialism” (1978) and political sociologists like Peter
Evans, Theda Skocpol and so on .
With the 1980, however, there has been a move away from general theory to emphasis on
the relevance of context. Comparative political analysis of 1980’s put more emphasis on
culturally specific studies (e.g. Islamic countries), nationally specific countries (e.g. England)
and even institutionally specific countries (countries under a specific regime). Unit of study has
been changed from 'grand systems' and model building to specific contexts and cultures. The
scale of comparisons was brought down in post modern period. Comparisons at the level of
'smaller systems' or regions, however, remained in existence.

2.6.3 Focus on Democratization, Globalisation and Civil Society Process in late 1980’s
Globalization and other emerging trends in 1980’s led to the complete shift in comparative
political analysis. The disintegration of Soviet Union brought into currency the notion that there
is an end of ideological war with the end of communist ideology. Francis Fukuynma in his article
‘The End of History?' (1989), which was developed later into the book “The End of History and
the Last Man” (1992), argued that the history of ideas had ended with the recognition and
triumph of liberal democracy as the 'final form of human government'. With end of communist
ideology; the western liberal democracy has become dominating ideology to form governments.
Most of the developed and developing nations adopted liberal democratic form of government.
In the nineteen eighties, the idea of the 'end of history' was coupled with another late nineteen
eighties phenomenon ‘globalisation’. Globalisation refers to a set of conditions, scientific,
technological, economic and political, which have linked together the world in a manner so that
occurrences in one part of the world are bound to affect or be affected by what is happening in
another part. It may be pointed out that in this global world the focal point or the centre around which
events move worldwide is still western capitalism.
The concept of civil society has gained more importance in comparative political analysis in
the globalised world order. Civil society was defined in terms of protection of individual rights to
enter the modern capitalist world. According to Mohanty (2000) comparative study of this period not
only focused on development of market democracy but also focused on the various civil society
activities like resurgence of people's movements seeking autonomy, right to indigenous culture,
movements of tribal’s, dalits, lower castes, and the women's movement and the environment
movement. These movements reveal a terrain of contestation where the interests of capital are in
conflict with people’s rights and represent the language of change and liberation in an era of global
capital.” (Manoranjan Mohanty, 2000). Concerns with issues of identity, environment, ethnicity,
gender, and race have provided a new dimension to comparative political analysis.
Third world began to acquire a distinct character in comparative political analysis by the end of
70’s. The Euro-centric discourse of social science and comparative politics gradually started to
acknowledge various activities like youth uprisings, anti-war movements, China’s Cultural
Revolution in third world countries. The emergence of third world challenges to the validity and
reliability of study started since the beginning of seventies. Comparativists increasingly started
recognizing the peculiarities of Asia, Africa and Latin America due to its colonial past and
present encounter with neo-colonialism.
 2.6.4 Consequences of the Widened Scope and Historical Experiences of Comparative
Politics
 According to Almond widened scope of comparative politics in recent times increased the
variety of political systems. It pointed to the role of agencies other than institutions, in particular
parties and interest groups, the role of civil society organisations, public opinion, social
movements. (Almond, 1978: 14).
 It introduced a new methodology based on the analysis of ‘Real’ behaviour and roles based on
empirical observation.
 The development of statistical techniques for the analysis of large datasets
 An extra-ordinary efforts of systematic data collection across cases , the creation of data
archives, combined with the introduction of computerization and machine readable datasets.
 A new language - a new framework namely systematic functionalism was imported in
comparative politics. the challenge posed by the extension of the scope of comparison was to
elaborate a conceptual body able to encompass the diversity of cases

2.7 Critical Evaluation of Comparative Political Analysis

Comparative political analysis which has been developed through the various phases faced many
problems and limitations. These limitations are mainly concerned with the comparative method
and content.
 Comparative political analysis is heavily dependent upon other subfields of political
science (such as political theory and political philosophy) for its approaches, methods and
concepts. In comparative politics there is no longer any central body of literature and any
coordinating grand theory. It does not have any autonomous status. In many centers it is
regarded an extension of International Politics and foreign policy. Comparative politics is
methodologically and epistemologically dependent on other subjects.
 Scholars of comparative politics used many new terms but there is no consensus among
scholars regarding meaning of terminology. There is the problem of standard and precise
definitions of various important concepts and terms. Many terms used in comparative
politics is suffers from the ambiguity as social scientists use concepts according to their
specialized knowledge.
  Serious difficulties are faced by the comparative political analyst while collecting
information and data about the political system and other non state institution. Wide
range of characters of the background variables, role of norms, institutions and
behaviours in government and cross cultural studies.
 The adoption of inter-disciplinary approach in comparative politics has so much widened
the scope of this subject that one is often faced the difficulty of knowing what subject of
political analysis included and what it excluded. It is difficult to draw boundaries in the
study of comparative politics.
 Universally acceptable results are not possible in comparative politics because political
economy and social conditions of every country are diverse. As the problems of
developed countries are not similar to developing countries.
 Political behaviour is not concluded on a rational basis or scientific principles therefore,
doing systematic study in comparative politics is more difficult.
 The concept of political institutions and nation’s state in comparative politics are facing
the challenges from the capital and technology, cultural practices, cross-country labour
migrations, monitoring of human rights violations, military interventions and autonomy
movement from below. This signifies that the ideas and the institutions of a ‘culturally
homogenous’ nation state which had come to pervade political thinking since the 18th
century, are in crisis. (For more details on limitations/problems please see Neera
Chandhoke’s “Limits of Comparative Political Analysis. 1996. Epw, 31.4: 2-8, and
Daniele Caramani, 2014. Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press )

2.7 Summing up

Field of comparative politics is very dynamic in nature (as we have evidenced the quick
variations in different periods of comparative political analysis). Comparative politics by
necessitating comparison help us to find out various ways in which politics operate and provides
with the diversity of the alternatives that exist in the world. Comparative political analysis
always remains the creative, self reflective, open and critical. While the earliest studies
concerned themselves with observing and classifying governments and regimes, comparative
politics in the late 19th and 20th century was concerned with studying the formal legal structures
of institutions in western countries. Towards the end of the Second World-War; a number of
‘new nations’ emerged on the world scene having liberated them-selves from colonial
domination. The dominance of liberalism was challenged by the emergence of communism and
the powerful presence of Soviet Union on world system. The concern among comparativists
changed in this juncture to studying the diversity of political behaviours and processes which
were thrown up, however within a single overarching framework. The concept of ‘systems’ and
‘structures functions’ came in vogue. These frameworks were used by western scholars
particularly those in the United States to study phenomena like Developmentalism,
Modernization etc. In the late 1980’s focus on studying politics comparatively, within an
overarching framework of system’ declined and regional systematic studies assumed
significance. These studies started focusing again on study of state (political forms) and power
structures within civil society, which had suffered a setback earlier with the arrival of systems
and structures-functions into comparative politics. Collapse of USSR, dominance of liberalism
democracy, capitalism and the emerging concept of globalization in 1980’s led comparativists
into adopting universalistic, homogenizing expressions like ‘transitions to democracy, the global
market’ and ‘civil society’. Some of the social scientist sees resurgence of civil society in terms
of challenges to global capitalism which comes from popular movements and trade union
activism throughout the world. Comparative politics lay emphasis on comparative and analytical
study, study of the infrastructure of developed and developing countries. Modern thinkers of
comparative Politics have also favored inter-disciplinary and value–free study. Comparatives
always tried to expand their vision. Comparative politics should realize the limitations of the
comparative method. Study of comparative politics has included many new topics and content
into its scope. The comparative politics is not attached to any particular values rather it is a
neutral study and is more worried about present than about the future. Along with the study of
developed political systems of the west, it has also included the comparative study of the
political systems of developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America in its scope.
GLOSSARY
Sr Terms Glossary (meaning )
no
1 Behaviouralism A phase in Comparative Politics that is associated with the
scientific method, value neutrality and empiricism under leadership
of American Political Science Association.

2 Ethnocentrism The privileging of western race, culture, religion and ways of living
and prejudices against the post colonial societies

3 Euro centrism Bias towards Western institutions and processes that emanates from
various sources including the colonial domination and presumed
inferiority of the non-western societies.
4 Institutionalism Known as the traditional approach that had study of political
institutions as it central focus

5 Political Culture Signifies sum total of set of belief, orientation and attitudes o the
citizens towards their political system.

6 Post-modernism Denotes a departure from the usual lines of analysis, where the
given set of universal assumptions are rejected and subjective
interpretations becomes the reference point
SOME IMPORTANT POLITICAL THINKERS
Sr Thinkers Some Prominent Thinkers of Comparative Political Analysis
no
1 Aristotle Classified Government’s in to Monarchy, Aristocracy, Polity Tyranny,
Oligarchy and Democracy.

2 Machiavelli He used comparative method of study in his works, “The Prince” and
“Discourses” .
3 Montesquieu He used the comparative method for analyzing law and politics. He made
a comparative study of British and French system of governance and
formulated his “Theory of Separation of Powers”.

4 A Lawrence In his work government and parties of continental Europe (1896) he has
Lowell
made comparative study of political systems of France, Germany, Italy,
Africa, Hungry and Switzerland.

5 David Easton Developed Systems Theory.

6 Gabriel Almond Studied Political System Approach.

and Powell

7 Finer Classified Regimes into three type: Liberal Democratic, Totalitarian and
Autocratic types.

8 Barrington Moore Work on Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.

9 Geovani Sartori Analysis on Parties and Party System.

10 Arend Lijphart: He has analyzed the Patterns of Democracies around the World.