1

Shashi K. Negi

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:

Ø Trace the historical evolution of comparative political studies since its inception.

Ø 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

Ø Make a distinction between traditional viewpoint of comparative politics (comparative government) and modern viewpoint of comparative political analysis.

Ø Explain the features and scope of comparative political science in various phases.

Ø 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

Ø Modern viewpoint of comparative politics stresses more on Analytical and empirical investigation. It is no longer confined to descriptive studies.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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

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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø 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.

Ø Political behaviour is not concluded on a rational basis or scientific principles therefore, doing systematic study in comparative politics is more difficult.

Ø 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.

you can view video on COMPARATIVE POLITICS

References

Chilcote, Ronald. H. 1994. “Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered”. West View Press, Oxford.
Almond, Gabriel. and G. B. Powell. 1978. “Comparative Politics: System Process and Policy”. Boston: Little Brown Press.
Bara, Judith. and Mark Pennington. 2009. “Comparative Politics”. (eds.), New Delhi: Sage Publications, India.
Barrington, Lowell. 2013. “Comparative Politics, Structures and Choices”. Wadsorth: Cengage Learning.
Beyme, Klaus Von. 2008. “The Evolution of Comparative Politics”. in Comparative Politics (ed.) Daniele Caramani, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blondel, Jean. 1999. “Then and Now: Comparative Politics” Political Studies, 47 (1): 152 160.
Caramani, Daniele. 2014. “Comparative Politics”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chandhoke, Neera. 1996. “Limits of Comparative Political Analysis”. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(4):4-8Chilcote, Ronald. H. 1994. “Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered”. West View Press, Oxford.
Eckstein, Harry. and Apter, David. 1963. (ed.) Comparative Politics: A Reader, New York: The Free Press:
Eckstein, Harry. 1989. “Comparative Politics: A Reader”. New Delhi: Surjeet Publishers.
Johari, J. C. 2011. “Comparative Politics”. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Kopstein, J. and Lichbach, M. (eds.) 2005. “Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lichbach, Mark Irving and Alan S. Zukckerman. 2009. “Comparative Politics Rationality, Culture and Structure”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lijphart Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”. The American Political Science Review, 65(3): 682- 693.
Lim, Timothy C. 2016. “Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Approaches & Issues”. Colorado, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Mohanty, Manoranjan. 1975. “Comparative Political Theory and Third World Sensitivity”. Teaching Politics, No. 1&2.
Mukherjee, Subrata, and Sushila Ramaswamy. 1996. “Issues in Comparative Politics”. New Delhi:Deep & Deep Publications.
O’Neil, Patrick H. 2015. “Essentials of Comparative Politics”. New York: Norton.
Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth. 2010. “Foundations of Comparative Politics”. (Second Edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’ Neil, Patrick H. 2007 Essentials of Comparative Politics (Second Edition), W. W. Norton and Company: New York, London.
Roy Anupama. 2001. “Comparative Method and Strategies of Comparison”. Punjab Journal of Politics, 25 (2): 1-25.
Roy C. Macridis. 1955. “The Study of Comparative Government”. New York: Doubleday.
Lim, Timothy C. 2006. Doing comparative politics: an introduction to approaches & issues,USA:Lynne Rienner Publishers
Vidya Bhushan. 2006. “Comparative Politics”. New Delhi: Atlantic.
Wiarda, Howard J. and Esther M. Skelley. 2007. “Comparative Politics: Approaches and Issues”.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publications.