Comparative

Government
and Politics
LIA CONCEPCION B. VILLANUEVA
Comparative government and politics is a
subfield of political science that focuses on the
study of political systems and processes in
different countries and regions of the world.

MAIN GOAL
1. To understand the similarities and differences
between political systems, and
2. To identify the factors that shape political
outcomes across different countries and
regions.
Some of the key topics and questions that
comparative government and politics
addresses include:
Political institutions: How do different
countries organize their governments and
political systems? What are the roles and
powers of different branches of government,
such as the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches?
Political behavior: What motivates citizens
to participate in politics, such as voting or
engaging in political activism? How do
cultural and social factors influence political
Political economy: How do different
economic systems, such as capitalism or
socialism, shape political outcomes? How do
economic factors influence political decision-
making?
Political culture: How do different cultural
values and beliefs shape political outcomes
and attitudes? How do cultural factors
influence political institutions and behavior?
Political change: How do political systems
evolve over time? What factors contribute to
political stability or instability, and what are
the consequences of political change?
Comparative government and
politics uses a variety of research
methods, including case studies,
statistical analysis, and
comparative surveys, to analyze
political systems and processes in
different countries and regions.
The goal is to generate theories
and explanations that can help us
better understand the complex
and diverse world of politics.
 Empirical Theory versus
Normative Theory
Political theory is the study of the ideas and values concerning
concepts of the state, power, individuals, groups and the relationship
between them. You can divide the approaches to political theory into
two categories.

Empirical political theory focuses on the observation and explanation

of political phenomena and involves formulating and testing
hypotheses through experimentation. Normative political theory
focuses on what ought to be and explores the values and ideals of a
political system.
 Empirical Theory
In the simplest terms, empirical political theory is focused on explaining
'what is' through observation. Empirical political theory deals with
observing and explaining political phenomena through experimentation
and testing hypotheses

Let's look at an example.

Elaine is interested in the role of money in modern Senate elections. She

develops a hypothesis that candidates who spend more money on their
campaigns than their opponents will win. Elaine then goes about
designing a study to test her hypothesis by examining election results
and campaign finance reporting disclosures. Elaine must be careful to
control for other variables that may affect the result, such as
incumbency, and focus on states with a relatively equal balance of
political party membership. After collecting the data, she will determine
through statistical analysis if it tends to support or not support her
Normative Theory
Normative political theory is concerned with 'what ought
to be.’ Normative political theory is concerned about how
the world should be and focuses on the exploration of
values and what should be done based upon those values.

Nathan is also interested in the role of money in

democratic elections. However, remember that his focus is
on normative theory. So while Elaine wants to explore
whether candidates that spend more, win more, Nathan
explores whether the influence of money in modern
campaigns is a threat to the Philippine values of
democratic choice and fair, open elections.
 Empirical VS Normative
Empirical Theory Normative Theory
'what is' 'what ought to be.'
objective subjective
Description (describe) Prescription (what should be
done)
Based on observation, facts Based on values
 Interaction of Approaches
Elaine and Nathan don't interact much because their approaches to scholarship
and research are on different paths. However, both Elaine and Nathan, as well
as their theoretical approaches, would benefit if their paths did cross more
often.

Nathan's normative studies could benefit from understanding what is, and more
importantly, what is feasible. For example, it may be best that money be taken
out of elections in the Philippines from a normative standpoint, but it's probably
not feasible.

On the other hand, Elaine's empirical research can benefit from using normative
insights in evaluating her findings. Just because something happens in a certain
way doesn't mean it ought to be that way.
 WHY DO WE COMPARE?
Comparing to Escape from Ethnocentrism

It is a natural risk, when one compares, to fall into

ethnocentrism; but comparison may be the best antidote
to this danger. Irresistibly, the perception of contrasts
makes researchers sensitive to the relativity of knowledge
and consequently helps liberate them from cultural shells.
An age-old idea of philosophers is that knowledge of the self is gained
through knowledge of others. The ego affirms itself by the roundabout way
of multiple comparisons. The child develops by imitating or opposing. The
very stature of a person, original and unique, exists only in a relative
sense. Hegel clearly states that consciousness recognizes itself in others,
and knows the other in itself.
 WHY DO WE COMPARE?

Comparison is the engine of knowledge. Because the comprehension

of a single case is linked to the understanding of many cases, because
we perceive the particular better in the light of generalities,
international comparison increases tenfold the possibility of explaining
political phenomena. The observer who studies just one country could
interpret as normal what in fact appears to the comparativist as
abnormal
 WHY DO WE COMPARE?

Comparison represents a quest for enlightenment. And that is what

makes it one of the most fruitful ways of thinking. It helps to rid
us of inherited fossilized notions, obliges us to reconsider the
validity of undiscussed interpretations, and enlarges our visual
field.

The most commonly accepted values, the most uncontested social structures or political
institutions, are not necessarily universal.

there exists a plurality of values, structures, and systems, which are not simply
products of nature.
 Objective of Comparison

CONTEXTUAL
CLASSIFICATION DESCRPTION

HYPOTHESIS TESTING PREDICTION

 Objective of Comparison

CONTEXTUAL
DESCRPTION

The first strength of a comparative approach is

straightforward: it improves our understanding of
government and politics. Through comparison we
can pin down the key features of political
institutions, processes, and actions, and better
appreciate the dynamics and character of
political systems.
Comparison helps us make generalizations that can,
Objective
in theory at least, of the
help us predict Comparison
outcome of
political events.

If the explanation of a phenomenon is sound, and all

the relevant factors have been reviewed and
considered, then
it follows that our explanations should allow us to
predict with at least a high degree of accuracy, if
not with absolute
certainty.
PREDICTION
 Objective of Comparison
comparative politics provides a systematic
framework for hypothesis testing by
facilitating the identification of patterns,
theory development, case studies, control of
variables, cross-national data analysis, and
comparative institutional analysis. These
approaches enable researchers to generate
empirical evidence and advance our
understanding of political phenomena across
HYPOTHESIS TESTING different contexts.
 comparative politics provides a systematic
Objective
approachof to Comparison
classifying political systems by
identifying common features, developing
typologies, analyzing political institutions,
conducting cross-national surveys,
CLASSIFICATION considering historical and contextual
factors, and contributing to theory
development and testing. These methods
help researchers organize and classify
diverse political systems, facilitating a
deeper understanding of their similarities
and differences.
CLASSIFYING POLITICAL SYSTEMS
 Finally, we must not forget the importance of gauging political
systems by looking at their relative performances in terms of
providing their citizens with basic needs. There are different
ways of understanding ‘basic needs’, but at a minimum they
would include adequate nutrition, education, and health care,
and in this regard the most often-used comparative measure of
social conditions is the Human Development Index maintained
by the UN Development Program. Using a combination of life
expectancy, adult literacy, educational enrolment, and per capita
GDP, it rates human development for most of the states in the
world as either very high, high, medium, or low. On the 2017
index, most democracies were in the top 30, while the poorest
states ranked at the bottom of the table, with Niger in last place
at 187.
 POWER and POLITICS

Politics
The process by which people negotiate and
compete in making and executing shared or
collective decisions.
Three of its features, though, are clear:
■ It is a collective activity, occurring between and among people.
■ It involves making decisions regarding a course of action to take or avoid, or a
disagreement to be resolved.
■ Once reached, political decisions become policy for the group, binding and
committing its members even if some of them continue to resist (an action which is in
itself political).
 POWER and POLITICS

At the heart of politics is the

distribution and manipulation of
power. The word comes from
the Latin potere, meaning ‘to
be able’, which is why the
philosopher Bertrand Russell
(1938) saw power as ‘the
production of intended
effects’.
Three Dimensions of
POWER
Steven Lukes

The first dimension is straightforward: power

should be judged by identifying whose views
prevail when the actors involved possess
conflicting views on what should be done. The
first dimension of power, according to Steven
Lukes, is about who gets their way when there
are disagreements. If someone's views
consistently win out over others' when
decisions are made, they're considered more
powerful. This idea was first explored by Robert
Dahl (1961) in his study of democracy and
power in New Haven, Connecticut. Essentially,
it's about who has the most influence in
Three Dimensions of
POWER
The second dimension focuses on the
capacity to keep issues off the political agenda
by preventing the emergence of topics which
would threaten the values or interests of
decision-makers. As Bachrach and Baratz
(1962) once put it, ‘to the extent that a person
or group – consciously or unconsciously –
creates or reinforces barriers to the public
airing of policy conflicts, that person or group
has power’.
It's like having the ability to decide which topics
are allowed to be debated openly.
Three Dimensions of
POWER
The third dimension broadens our conception
of power by extending it to cover the
formation, rather than merely the expression,
of preferences. Where the first and second
dimensions assume conflicting preferences, the
third dimension addresses the idea of a
manipulated consensus.
the third dimension explores how power can
influence people to accept certain ideas or
values without even realizing they're being
influenced. It's like the idea of a manipulated
agreement or consensus, where power
operates not just in decision-making but also in
 AUTHORITY and LEGITIMACY

AUTHORITY LEGITIMACY
● Authority is a concept that is ● Legitimacy builds on, but is
broader than power and, in broader than, authority.
some ways, more When a state is widely
fundamental to comparative accepted by its citizens, and
politics. Where power is the by other states with which it
capacity to act, authority is deals, we describe it as
the acknowledged right to legitimate. Thus, we speak
do so. It exists when of the authority of an official
subordinates accept the but the legitimacy of a state.
capacity of superiors to give
legitimate orders.
 AUTHORITY
The German sociologist Max Weber (1922) suggested that, in a
relationship of authority, the ruled implement the command as if they
had adopted it spontaneously, for its own sake. For this reason,
authority is a more efficient form of control than brute power. Yet,
authority is more than voluntary compliance. To acknowledge the
authority of your state does not mean you always agree with its
decisions; it means only that you accept its right to make them and
your own duty to obey. In this way, authority provides the foundation
for the state. Just as there are different sources of power, so too can
authority be built on a range of foundations. Weber distinguished three
ways of validating political power:
◆ By tradition, or the accepted way of doing things.
◆ By charisma, or intense commitment to a leader and his or her
message.
◆ By appeal to legal–rational norms, based on the rule-governed
 LEGITIMACY
Although the word legitimacy comes from the Latin legitimare,
meaning ‘to declare lawful’, legitimacy is much more than mere
legality: where legality is a technical matter, referring to whether a rule
is made correctly by following regular procedures, legitimacy is a more
political concept, referring to whether people accept the authority of a
state, without which its very existence is in question.
In fact, we can think of legitimacy as the credit a political system has
built up from its past successes, a reserve that can be drawn down in
bad times. In any event, public opinion – not a law court – is the test of
legitimacy. And it is legitimacy, rather than force alone, which provides
the most stable foundation for rule.
 IDEOLOGY
An ideology is today understood as any system of thought expressing a view on human
nature, the proper relationship between state and society, and the individual’s position
within this order.

This is a term that was coined by the French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy
during the 1790s, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, to describe the science of
ideas.

Even though the age of ideology may have passed, we still tend to talk about
ideologies, placing them – and the political parties with which they are associated – on
a spectrum between right and left. For the origins of this habit we turn again to
revolutionary France, where – in the legislative assemblies of the era – royalists sat to
the right of the presiding officer, in the traditional position of honor, while radicals and
commoners sat to the left. To be on the right implied support for aristocratic, royal, and
clerical interests, while being on the left implied support for a secular republic and civil
liberties. The words ‘left’ and ‘right’ are still commonly encountered in classifying
political parties.