AP COMPARATIVE GOVT

1. AP COMPARATIVE GOVT THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Presentation based on Patrick O’Neill’s Essentials of Comparative Politics, 3rd Edition

2. What is Comparative Goverment & Politics? • POLITICS: basically is all about power, the struggle in any group for power that will giver them the ability to make decisions for the larger group • POLITICS is everywhere! • Office Politics, sexual politics, family politics, politics in academia, national politics, global politics... • Comparative Politics—compares this stuggle for power across countries

3. The Comparative Method • QUANTITATIVE METHOD (empirical data): gathering of statistical data across a large number of countries to look for correlations and test hypotheses about cause and effect. More “objective” and breadth over depth. • QUALITATIVE METHOD (normative value judgments) Mastery of a limited number of cases through the detailed study of their history and culture, can’t be limited to numbers. Depth over breadth.

4. Quantitative v. Qualitative Methods • Limits of Quantitative Method: “What is important to study cannot be measured and what can be is not important to study” • Limits of Qualitative Method: studies are mere description and story telling, and too biased • We need a little of both...

5. Comparative Govt as a Social SCIENCE • Uses scientific method—hypothesis, variables (independent and dependent) and we look for correlation and causation • Problems: • Political scientists can´t control for the variables bc they are a function of real world politics, hard to establish causation • Variables are too varied! Countries are SO diverse in economics, culture, geography, resources, and poltiical structures—you can’t possibly control for these differences • Limited number of cases...not a large enough sample size (political world not like the natural world)

6. Correlation v. Causation • Correlation: when a change in one variable COINCIDES with a change in another. Causation may be present, but not necessarily. • Causation: One variable causes or influences another • Example: Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention (correlation—yes, causation???)

7. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics • Aristotle (384-322 BCE): not concerned with ideal political system, but instead with analyzing, comparing and understanding the way different poltical systems worked and understand their relative strengths and weaknesses. • Empirical science of politics with a practical purpose STATECRAFT (how to govern) • Separated study of politics from philosophy

8. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • Machiavelli (1469-1527): first modern political scientist • Pragmatism—mechanics of govt, diplomacy, military strategy and power. • It’s all about POWER, how you get it, how you keep it, how you lose it, etc. • Ideals have no place in politics—quest for power will always conflict with moral values • Machiavellian: referring to someone cunning, devious, ambitious, unscrupulous, with no moral standards, etc.

9. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • 16th and 17th centuries: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke...advocated particular political systems on the basis of empirical observation and analysis, social contract, consent of governed, etc. • 18th century: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron de Montesquieu...writings on separation of power and civil liberties impact the American Constitution and other subsequent ones... • 19th-20th centuries: Karl Marx and Max Weber...analyses of nature of poltical and economic organization and power

10. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • In early 20th cent, field was limited and ethnocentric, Europe, description over explanation or prediction...how not why Traditional Approach • REALITY CHECK: rise of fascism & communism, WWII, Cold War... New questions for this new world • Post WWII scholars believed the field must become a true science...science would lead politics and like all things in the Cold War, political science became part of the battle between the new superpowers. • Largely conservative discipline...

11. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • Political science becomes a very conservative discipline • MODERNIZATION THEORY: As societies develop, will become capitalist democracies. The US & West were ahead, the others would catch up, unless their evolution was sabotaged by alternative systems like communism. • MODERNIZATION THEORY is a set of hypotheses about how countries develop

12. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • BEHAVIORALISM no longer descriptive study of politics, no we talk about causality, explanation and prediction. Look at rational choice theory as predictor for individual political behavior...quantifiable, use logic. • BEHAVIORALISM is a set of methods with which to approach politics. • Deductive, large scale research over the single case study common in inductive reasoning (more scientific • Quantitative over qualitative method.

13. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • POST BEHAVIORALISM • Rejection of a grand theory of politics; criticism of modernization theory as Western biased and inaccurate; diversity of methods and politicla approaches, emphasizing issues as gender, culture, environment and globalization. • Now the big arguments are over: • Methodology quantitative vs qualitative • Rationality rational choice/ game theory as valid predictors for human behavior vs. historical complexity and idiosyncratic behavior

14. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics (cont) • 1960s: questioning behavioralism, ideological bias (don’t want to understand, just impose Western model) • 1970s – 1980s: lots of fighting within the discipline—ideological and methodological debates • Three major events shake up the field: • Rapid industrialization in Asia • Collapse of communism in Eastern Europe & USSR • “Third Wave” of democracy—mainly in Latin America, Asia and Europe • Also...rapid spread of democracy

15. Disciplinary History of Comparative Politics • Where are we today??? • Fukuyama’s “End of History” • Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” • Benjamin Barber “Jihad vs. McWorld” • GLOBALIZATION debate...yes, it’s happening, but its results are very different. • Continued integration and trade, inequalities, destruction of local cultures, indigenization of elites, backlash against globalization

16. Comparative Government = Comparative Institutions • INSTITUTIONS organizations or patterns of activity that are self-perpetuating and valued for their own sake, rules, norms, values that give meaning to human activity, stable, long lasting organizations that help turn political ideas into policies. • Ex: Football is a Brazilian institution, Baseball is an American institution but soccer is not; democracy can be an institution, taxes in US vs. Nigeria, NHS in Britain, etc. • People ususally defend institutions...glue of society • Institutions are good because they persevere, but they often resist necessary change...its hard to get people to change institutions (Ex: 2nd Amendment in the US, Electoral College). • Some political institutions: army, elections, the STATE!

17. Reconciling Freedom and Equality: A core political issue • Politics is struggle for power, but what are we fighting for? • Individual freedom vs. Collective equality • These are both viewed in terms of JUSTICE. • The big question: Does one necessarily come at the expense of the other? Is this really a zero-sum issue? • Maybe these should reinforce each other...

18. Matrix of Freedom and Equality

19. EQUALITY IS EQUALITY? • EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY (the ideal of equality championed by capitalism, everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed...but does this really exist? Or do some people have more opportunities? Or do some people just have to do more to get to those opportunities? • EQUALITY OF RESULT (the ideal of equality championed by socialism—everyone will share through wealth redistribution to eliminate inequalities, all have 1 house (not you have 5, I have none)

20. States • Weber: “State is the organization that maintains a monopoly of violence over a territory” • Highly institutionalized, not easily changed • Has Sovereignty: ability to carry out policies within their borders independently from interference from inside or outside forces • Usually has institutions like army, police, taxation, judiciary, social welfare system, etc.

21. Nation • Group of people bound together by a common political identity • Nationalism—sense of belonging and identity that distinguishes one nation from another...patriotism is pride and loyalty • Stateless nations: Palestinians, Native Americans in US, Quebecois?

22. Regime • Rules that a state sets and follos in exerting its power are referred to as a REGIME • Endure beyond individual govts and leaders, institutions and practices • Institutionalized, but can be changed by dramatic social events like a revolution • Often embodied in a constitution • Regimes: Democratic or Authoritarian systems, Baathist regime in Iraq, France and all its republics—each is a regime, etc.

23. Government • Leadership or elite in charge of running the state • Weakly institutionalized • Elected officials, like president or PM, or sometimes unelected officials in authoritarian regimes • Limited by the existing regime • (USSR-State, Communist Regime, Khruschev govt, Gorbachev govt...then revolution and regime change!)

24. State-Regime-Govt • State is the Computer, the CPU, the machinery, the hardware • Regime is the operating system or the software that determines how it will operate • Government is the operator or user, that tells the institutions what to do, implements policies, etc.

25. Political Organization • If you believe in the institutions of democracy... Political organization is viewed as a consensus, with people willingly surrendering some of their power in order to gain greater security and prosperity Democratic rule • Politics is by its nature coercive, the state is domineering and it creates unequal relations. Individuals are brought together by a ruler who imposes authority and monopolizes power. Security though domination Authoritarian rule

26. Legitimacy • Right to rule—as viewed by their citizens • Max Weber—three forms of legitimacy: • TRADITIONAL: tradition should determine who should rule and how, monarchy, based on heredity, myth, legend, rituals and ceremonies reinforce authority. Ex: Prince in Saudi Arabia, Queen of England • CHARISMATIC: based on dynamic personality of indiv leader or small group. Ex: Napoleon, Jesus, Mohammed, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Lenin, Castro, Che, Chavez still in power, etc. • RATIONAL-LEGAL: based on system of well-established rules and procedures, highly institutionalized, you accept ruler bc you accept the rules of the game that brought them into office andbecause they accept rule of law (elected presidents, Bush, Tony Blair, Sarkozy, Lula)

27. Factors that encourage legitimacy in all types of regimes: • Economic well-being • Historical tradition or longevity • Charismatic leadership • Nationalism/shared political culture • Satisfaction with the government’s performance/responsiveness What are some issues that could cause a regime to lose legitimacy?

28. Centralization or Decentralization? • UNITARY STATES: invest most political power at the national level, centralized national govt and allow only limited local power. • You can still have local representation at the natl level, and federalism weakens state efficiency by dispersing power among many local authorities...it can also weaken govt, make populations more unruly to govern • Most states are Unitary states (UK, Mexico, Iran, China)

29. Centralization or Decentralization? • Federalism: significant powers (like taxation, lawmaking, security) are devolved to regional bodies like states in the US or Brazil, provinces in Canada or Argentina. Powers defined in the national constitution. • Federalism represents local interests (good for larger, very diverse populations), checks the growth of central power (threating to democracy or to regional interests) • Ex: Nigeria and Russia

30. Do states work? • Strong states: can fulfill basic tasks, can defend their territory, make and enforce rules, collect taxes, manage the economy, rule of law, etc. • Weak States: Cannot execute basic tasks well, rules are haphazardly applied, tax evasion and corruption or noncompliance is rampant, rebel movements or organized crime may control chunks of territory or economy, state officials lining pockets, economic problems, not very institutionalized and lacks authority and legitimacy. • Failed States: extreme where the structures of the state may collapse resulting in a complete loss of power, anarchy and violence or inability to control parts of country. Afghanistan pre-2001 under Taliban, etc.

31. Capacity v. Autonomy • Capacity: ability of the state to wield power to carry out basic tasks. • High capacity requires not just $, but organization, legitimacy, effective leadership, etc. (Roads get paved, schools built, rules created and followed, if you break the law you are punished, etc.) • Autonomy: ability to wield its power independently of the public

32. Look at the matrix of autonomy and capacity • What are the benefits and dangers of high autonomy? High capacity? Low autonomy? Low capacity? • Can you think of states that would fit each of these descriptors? • Why do some countries develop higher degrees of autonomy or capacity than others? Ex: the case of Argentina