different definition, which is to “encompass the major political
similarities and differences between contries… (and) …the comparative
approach is simply the family of strategies and techniques which
advance understanding within this field.
The truth is that only “comparison brings a sense of perspective to a
familiar environment and discourages parochial responses to political
issues”. (Hopkin, ) In order to study politics comparatively, we have to
use a certain approach in order to have a theory tested.
At first M. Pennington tries to clarify what institution is and given this
definition “a rule that has been institutionalized” (2004) we may consider
two different kinds. We live in a society which is based on two kinds of
institution, two ways how to influence a human behavior in order to
avoid disorder, disobedience or eventually, “state of anarchy”. The first is
formal-hard institution which gives us a sort of frame by which we and
the state are able to control ourselves. The other kind is soft, which
importance may differ from one country to other. I believe that though
formal rules are the only legal obligation we have got to be “oppressed”
by, soft institutions are the most influential ones. The reason is the
innermost want of human being to belong to a certain group of people, to
be accepted and tolerated by others. So, it is, assumingly, not our need
to favor any sort of institution, nor to understand the real meaning or
aim of such an institution, but it is based on listening to our needs
solely, to our selfish, self-interested nature. This is the main point of
rational choice theory “whose central focus is the purposeful individual
and his motivation and beliefs.” (Pennington, 2004) Whenever we talk
about this approach we have to come back againto the nature of human
being, its behavior, needs and wants, which seem to be the constant
cause of i.e. free-riding/collective action problems too, which evolves
form this theory.
Human being is, according to M. Pennington, “a maximiser of benefits
over costs”, (2004) while struggles to “derive benefits from a particular
good without paying their full personal share of the costs.” (Pennington,
2004)
The second theory stemming from new institutionalism is a culturalism,
which is, by definition a theory consisting in “individuals who always
make decision in a manner which reflects prevailing ideas and beliefs
that are widely shared…” (Pennington, 2004) This is the base of the
argument I made about soft institutions; to keep the informal, cultural,
rules to avoid separation of yourself from the community.
Marxists create the mainstream of the third approach, structuralism and
they saw “society progressing through a series of historical epochs, each
with its own mode of production, which would eventually collapse under
the strain of contradictions and tensions internal in order to give way to
a more progressive social form… (and they believed in) …replacement
with a social order in which people’s interests are unified in pursuit of a
common plan.” (Pennington, 2004) And I think that’s main cause of
collapsing system, besides the fact that Marxism has not been practiced
strictly by theory, is again our nature telling us to control.
People prefer rather knowing there is a chance to succeed (in a
capitalistic economy), though it is extremely small, than just getting
accustomed to the unsatisfying, accepting the reality, to cease with the
status quo and with impossibility of change to take place.
Hopkin introduces us to a bit different comparative approaches. There is
a “method of difference”, “which involves studying two similar cases ,
whose relationship to each other is studying.” “The method of agreement”
comprises of two different cases and similar variables and the “method of
concomitant variables” “seeks to identify variables which seem to move
more or less contemporaneously in the hypothesized directions” (Hopkin)
R. Hague and M. Harrop discuss the reason to study politics
comparatively, the risks which come with it and the specific techniques
used. Globalization is one of the examples which pose a risk and a
challenge simultaneously, but the reason is perceived by Green as
“nation is a cell of a larger entity with a life all its own.”
All the authors try to bring an understanding of studying comparative
politics. Each technique the disclipline is based on has its advantages
and weaknesses. M. Pennington’s summarizes the main approach within
a new institutionalism, but obviously, there is no only one approach
which should be used.
Hopkin’s method are generally about the risks each of them brings
considering variables and case studies, importance of number we study.
Hague and Harrop’s theory talks about variables, their particular use,
when the outcome may be successful.
I am assuming most of the theories have to be put together in order to
gerenare a realistic and true outcome, what is the purpose, to
understand the processes and their influence.
Comparative politics is about studying the practical use of a theory to
create a theory more likely to succeed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Approaches to the Study of Comparative Government, M. Pennington, QMUL, London, 2004
Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, R. Hague and M. Harrop, Palgrave MacMillan, London
Theory and Methods in Political Science (2nd ed.), D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds.), Palgrave MacMillan, London
