Introduction
Comparative politics is a subfield within political science where the focus is understanding the similarities and differences between cases. For comparative politics, these cases mostly consist of states or countries. However, states are no longer the only actors on the international stage. Non-state actors, such as terrorist and criminal organizations, have been much more active. International and supranational organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union, have taken on more state responsibilities, such as medical provisions. Finally, there has been a rising call for greater autonomy within states. Through subnational governments, minority groups have been pressing for more say in their affairs, with some groups seeking outright secession.
Given this increasing complexity, is there still a value in studying comparatively? Are we better off focusing on the global level of analysis? Should we analyze global trends and processes that impact our lives?
No one doubts the importance of a global economy in our lives. The Covid-19 Pandemic disrupted global supply chains, causing shortages in products throughout countries. Alternatively, countries are increasingly fragmented along ethnic, racial, or religious lines, such as Ethiopia or India. Other countries struggling with intense politics in the wake of the pandemic. For example, while the U.S. and Brazil may both be hyperpolarized, they are clearly two different countries, with two vastly different historical trajectories and outcomes. Given these challenges, is there a value in studying comparatively?
Our direct answer is yes. Pressures from above and pressures from below make it even more important for comparative politics to exist and grow as a subfield and area of research. Why? The state remains the central actor. During the Covid-19 pandemic, responses to the virus were overwhelmingly managed by individual governments. Even within the European Union, where member-states have given up sovereignty for peace and prosperity, European countries struggled to coordinate the Covid-19 policies. It took quite a bit of time for the European Commission to provide a coherent policy (Goniewicz, et. al. 2020). Responses to Covid-19 are also compared cross-nationally. In June 2020, research suggested a bivariate (two variates) relationship between a country’s Global Health Security Index Score and its death rates.
What about pressures from below? During Covid-19, subnational governments, such as U.S. states or Canadian provinces, looked to their national government for policy coordination, funding, and political leadership. In federal countries, where power or sovereignty is shared among the national government and subnational governments, the pandemic laid bare the disparities within a country. For example, India has 28 states and 8 union territories. In April and May 2021, individual states, such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, were caught off guard by the swift rise in cases. According to Lancet (2021), the states were “quickly running out of medical oxygen, hospital space, and overwhelming the capacity of cremation sites”. In contrast, other states, such as Kerala and Odisha, were better prepared and could even export supplies to neighboring states.
Can the world really be globalizing and fragmenting at the same time? The answer is yes. Right after the Cold War ended, Barber (1992) wrote Jihad vs. McWorld, in which argued that two principles, tribalism and globalism were happening at the same time, and sometimes in the same place. He labeled globalism, McWorld, where a market imperative drives integration and a certain homogeneity. In contrast, he used the term Jihad for tribalism, using the Arabic word for struggle. In this tendency, Jihad represents the fracturing of societies. Small-scale wars instigated by subnational groups seek to redraw boundaries, both internally and externally. Many of these groups seek a state of their own, with the promise of self-determination. Barber noted that neither force is democratic. McWorld requires “order and tranquility” and not necessarily freedom. Whereas Jihad is “grounded in exclusion”, parochial by definition, and achieves solidarity through warfare.
Most comparativists research aspects of the state, such as their regime type, political economy, or episodes of political violence, including terrorist attacks, and then compare across states. Thus, the paradoxical forces of globalization and fragmentation have been less central in the study of comparative politics. How these two forces fit into this subfield is the focus of this chapter.
