1.2: Ways Comparativists Look at the World

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the meaning and scope of area studies.
• Trace the origin and scope of cross-national studies.
• Identify the best application of subnational studies.

Introduction

If comparative politics involves ‘looking inside’ countries, regions, institutions or other entities and then comparing across them, then what we are comparing matters. For example, often that ‘what we compare’ involves countries. Yet can we just compare any two countries? Is it appropriate to compare two countries that are systematically different from one another? Is there a time when we would want to compare countries that are different? What are the ‘rules’ when it comes to being a comparativist? As we shall see in Chapter Two, case selection is an important process in comparative political science. Yet, over the years, a number of approaches have evolved when it comes to comparing.

Comparativists often study institutions when looking inside a country and then comparing across. Institutions are the beliefs, norms and organizations which structure social and political life. They encompass the rules, norms, and values of a society. March and Olsen (2011), define institutions as

a relatively enduring collection of rules and organized practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individual and changing external circumstances.

Institutions come in many shapes and sizes. There are formal institutions, which are based on a clear set of rules that have been formalized. Formal institutions often have the authority to enforce the rules, usually through punitive measures. Examples include universities, sports leagues, and corporations. Formal institutions often have tangibility, often identified through a building or a location, such as a university campus, or the headquarters for a sports team or a corporation. However, physicality is not a requirement. Universities have had an online presence for years. Sports teams and corporations now engage with their fans and clients virtually.

There are also informal institutions, which are based on an unwritten set of rules that have not necessarily been formalized. Informal institutions are based on conventions on how one should behave. There is no authority that monitors behavior and people are expected to self-regulate. Examples could include societal expectations for waiting in line, or a cue. Of course, expectations for waiting in line will vary, depending on the location. Waiting in line for lunch at school is different than waiting in line to check in at a hospital, which is really different from waiting in line at the airport. In the first example, it’s more about who lined up first. In the second example, it is more about whose medical needs are more significant and not about when one checked in. In the latter example it is about the security of the facility. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, these conventions have become formalized, with the Transportation Security Agency monitoring and enforcing behavior. This is a good example of how conventions can become codified into formal rules over time, of how informal institutions can become formal institutions.

According to Peters (2019), institutions “transcend individuals to involve groups of individuals in some sort of patterned interactions that are predictable” (23). Given this, the author writes that there are three defining features of institutions: predictability, stability, and that it must affect individual behavior. Given this, organizations can end up mattering more than the people. If institutions are self-enduring and long-lasting, then institutions can outlive the people that founded them. This allows us to talk about roles rather than individuals. This is why in political science we can talk about the judiciary instead of judges, or about the presidency instead of presidents. The institution transcends the individual or individuals that occupy that role.

Political institutions are “structures that lend the polity its integrity” (Orren & Skowronek, 1995). They are the space where the majority of politics and political decisions take place. Formal political institutions include written constitutions, executives, such as the US President, legislatures, such as the US Congress, and judiciaries, such as the US Supreme Court. They can also include the military, police forces, and other enforcement agencies. Examples of informal political institutions involve expectations during negotiations. For example, lawmakers may logroll, or exchange promises of support during when laws are written. This is the old saying, ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’. Logrolling is an extremely important part of lawmaking. Without this practice, it is unlikely many laws would get through. Other examples of informal political institutions include levels of corruption, political ideology, such as identifying as liberal or conservative, and political culture. The latter example, political culture, is important for political science. Recent research suggests that political culture may strongly influence the formation and endurance of political institutions.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Formal and Informal Political Institutions. Political institutions can be either formal or informal. The Supreme Court, pictured on the left, is a formal institution. A Trump supporter, pictured on the right, represents informal political institutions through political culture. (Source: From left to right, The Supreme Court, by Joe Ravi is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, Trump Supporter, by Johnny Silvercloud is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

Area Studies

One of the more traditional ways of comparing is through the field of area studies, where scholarship is organized geographically. Area studies have their roots in the age of empires when European powers began expanding their borders beyond the continent of Europe. As imperial forces, such as the British and the French, began to occupy more territory, there was an attempt by ‘enlightened’ Europeans to understand the peoples and the indigenous languages, cultures and social of the regions they conquered. The peoples were seen as ‘exotic’ and Eurocentrism was the norm. Museums were filled with items from other civilizations that were often stolen or ‘bought’ by invading forces.

World War II transformed area studies from a colonial enterprise into a geopolitical imperative. Specialists were needed by the U.S. military for the war effort. Campaigns in Europe, Asia-Pacific and North Africa required understanding of the terrain they were fighting in. The Cold War solidified the need for area studies. The conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was fought through proxy wars across all continents and it pushed the U.S. military to extensively rely on the university system for expertise. For example, the 1958 National Defense Education Act provided the funding for training in critical language studies. And it was not just the defense establishment, other organizations engaged in the interdisciplinary pursuit. Entities such as the Ford Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the American Council of Learned Societies all contributed to the effort. Universities established various centers, programs, and initiatives, such as the Center for Latin American Studies at Stanford, Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and the Asian Studies Initiative at Boston University.

Yet despite the complicated origins of this research, area studies have become important segments of contemporary university curriculum in many countries. Area studies are by their definition multidisciplinary. They can include disciplines such as political science, history, economics, sociology, anthropology, geography, literature, linguistics, and for some area studies, religious studies and theology. They also now include geographical areas that were once not considered, such as European Studies.

List Area of Studies

This list provides a near comprehensive list of area studies and their fields of study.

• Asia
  • Asian Studies
  • Asian-Pacific Studies
  • East Asian Studies
  • Critical Asian Studies
  • Southeast Asian Studies
  • Modern Asian Studies
  • South Asian Studies
• Latin America
  • Latin American Studies
  • Latino Studies
  • Central American Studies
  • Caribbean Studies
  • Southern Cone Studies
  • Amazonia Studies
  • Iberian Studies*
• Africa
  • African Studies
  • Africana Studies
  • East African Studies
  • Southern African Studies
  • West African Studies
• Middle East
  • Middle East Studies
  • Near Eastern Studies
  • Oriental Studies
  • Levantine Studies
  • Maghrib Studies
  • Gulf Studies
  • Islamic Studies**
• Europe
  • European Studies
  • European Union/West European Studies
  • East European Studies
  • Eurasian Studies
  • Post-Soviet/Communist Studies
  • Mediterranean Studies
  • Southeast European/Balkan Studies

*Iberian Studies involves Spain and Portugal, the two countries in the Iberian peninsula. Even though these two countries are geographically in Europe, they are often grouped under Latin American studies due to the strong associations of Latin America with Iberia.

**Historically, Islamic Studies is often grouped in the same department with Middle Eastern Studies and/or Near Eastern Studies. This is a reflection in Western societies of associating the Middle East with Islam, even though only 18% of the World’s Muslims live outside the Middle East.

Cross-national Studies

Cross-national studies can be broadly defined as “any research that transcends national boundaries” (Kohn, 1987). However as Kohn notes this definition is unclear. Thus he further refines his definition to “studies that are explicitly comparative, that is students that utilize systematically comparable data from two or more nations” (pg. 714). In this sense, area studies could also be labeled as cross-national studies, as it involves comparing two or more countries, yet in one defined geographical region. Yet we distinguish cross-national studies from area studies.

Cross-national research has its roots in the behavioral revolution of the 1950s. According to Franco, et al (2020), “behavioral political science, or behavioralism, is the study of political behavior and emphasizes the use of surveys and statistics''. During this era, social scientists moved away from studying institutions,which often involved in-depth contextual analyses, and more towards using quantitative measures to understand relationships between variables. The goal was to have external validity, or confidence in one’s conclusions across a larger number of observed cases. A good example includes the 1999 book by Arend Ljiphart, Patterns of Democracy. In this seminal study, the author examines thirty-six diverse democracies, comparing institutions ranging from their electoral systems to the role of their central banks to internal policy-making techniques.In comparative politics, cross-national studies often involve the comparisons of countries, or country institutions. Cross-national studies usually involve comparing countries across regions, and outside a specific geographical region. A good example includes cross-national analyses of countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD is an intergovernmental organization that facilitates dialogue on macroeconomic policies. There are 38 countries in the OECD. They include countries in Europe, North and South America, Asia and Australasia. OECD countries have harmonized their economic indicators, which allows for easier comparisons across countries.

Other examples of cross-national research includes the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, where scholars meet to design common post-election surveys. The researchers ask the same questions regarding the impact of elections in democratic countries. There have been five modules since 1996, with a new module released every five years. Not all countries participate in the Study and participation may vary from module to module. Another example of cross-national research is the Polity data series. Polity is one of the more prominent datasets that ranks countries from strongly democratic to strongly autocratic based on political regime characteristics. The most recent one is the Polity IV dataset that has analyzed democratic backsliding, state failure and current regime trends.

One of the major critiques of cross-national studies are the measurements themselves. Can we properly compare across large swaths of countries? Do our measurements have enough validity that allow us to make generalizations about certain political phenomena? These are excellent questions that have led some to reject cross-national research in comparative politics. Nevertheless, the attempt to systematize analyses across countries is important. Even if the variables we are looking at are slightly off in their measurements, which is a problem that all social scientists face, the deliberations on how to measure democracy, capitalism, and election integrity are important. It opens a much-needed discussion on what these concepts mean. They key according to Przeworski and Teune (1966) is to “identify ‘equivalent’ phenomena and analyze[ing] the relationships between them in an ‘equivalent’ fashion” (pg. 553).

Subnational Studies

Subnational studies can be defined as comparing subnational governments within countries. This comparison can be accomplished wholly within one country, or across countries. A subnational government is any lower level of government. In the United States this would consist of state governments, such as California, and even smaller governmental units, such as county and city governments. In other countries it could include provincial governments, regional governments, and other local governments often referred to as municipalities.

Subnational governments vary in regards to their level of sovereignty. Sovereignty is defined as fundamental governmental power. Fundamental governmental means the power to coerce those to do things they may not want to do, such as paying taxes, or not speeding on the California freeways. In countries, such as the United States, sovereignty is shared between the national government in Washington, DC and the fifty states. These are referred to as federal governments. Whereas in other countries, the power is concentrated at the national level. This is the case with France, where most power is in Paris and lies with the President and Parliament. These are referred to as unitary governments. And still there are other countries where most sovereignty is at the subnational levels. This is the case with countries like Switzerland and more recently Iraq. These are referred to as confederal governments.

Subnational research has its roots in the 1970s. Snyder (2001) points out that the Third Wave of democratization, where the world saw a surge in the number of democracies. At the same time, we saw significant decentralization trends, where subnational governments and domestic institutions were empowered, both in the newly created democracies and in some more established states. Recent scholarship has referred to this decentralization of power as devolution. Devolution occurs when the central government in a country deliberately transfers power to a government at a lower level. Devolution is almost always associated with autonomy, where subnational governments have a certain level of power independent of the central government. Good examples include the creation of parliaments in Scotland and Wales, and in Spain, with the Catalan, Basque and Galician regional governments.

Out of this two different approaches have developed in subnational studies. The first is what is referred to as within-nation comparisons. A within-nation is studying the subnational governments or institutions within a single country. For example, the subfield of American politics, mentioned earlier in this chapter, could be considered a within-nation comparison. If we were to analyze all fifty states’ policies towards COVID-19, and compare, we are engaging in this strategy. The second is between-nation comparisons, where subnational governments are compared across different countries. Between-nation comparisons of subnational units could include analyzing autonomous areas within countries. It also includes studying contiguous subnational governments. This is especially useful when looking at postcolonial Africa where tribal, ethnic or religious group boundaries overlap national borders.