What is Comparative Politics

4/22/085:41 PM1Page 1IntroductionMy purpose is to consider if in political society there can be anylegitimate and sure principle of government taking men as theyare and laws as they might be. I shall try always to bring togetherwhat right permits with what interest prescribes so that justiceand utility are in no way divided.Jean Jacques Rousseau The Social ContractGOVERVIEWClark_CH01_001_014Political science is the study of politics in a scientific manner. Whereasinternational politics is the study of politics predominantly betweencountries comparative politics is the study of politics predominantlywithin countries.GIn this chapter we outline the central questions in comparative politicsthat we address in the remainder of this book. These questions are allrelated to the causes and consequences of democracy as well as to thetremendous variety of democratic institutions seen in the world.GWe argue that attempts to engineer democracy should they occur shouldrest on foundations provided by the study of comparative politics.GWe also discuss why we adopt an explicitly cross-national approach tointroduce students to the study of comparative politics.Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No partof these pages may be quoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from the publisher. Clark_CH01_001_01424/22/085:41 PMPage 2Part I: What Is Comparative Politics?On February 26 2003 just a few weeks prior to ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Iraqipresident Saddam Hussein American president George W. Bush declared that the UnitedStates would ensure that “one brutal dictator is not replaced by another.” He asserted that“[a]ll Iraqis must have a voice in the new government and all citizens must have their rightsprotected.” He then drew an analogy between his plans for “postwar” Iraq and what had happened in Japan and Germany after World War II. In particular he highlighted how the UnitedStates left behind “constitutions and parliaments” rather than “occupying armies” in Japan andGermany. The result of this was that “in societies that once bred fascism and militarism libertyfound a permanent home” despite the presence of cultures in both countries that “many said . . .were incapable of sustaining democracy.” He went on to state that the “nation of Iraq—with itsproud heritage abundant resources and skilled and educated people—is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.” Later in his speech President Bush tempered thisoptimistic statement with a warning: “It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a countrythat has known three decades of dictatorship secret police internal divisions and war.”1This speech came twelve days after the chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blixchallenged various elements of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation before the UNSecurity Council which had claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Blixaccused the U.S. and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to strengthen the case for toppling Saddam Hussein. In his speech PresidentBush was clearly making the case that the desirability and feasibility of encouraging democratization in Iraq (and the broader Middle East) should be taken into account when weighing thepros and cons of invading Iraq. In effect he was suggesting that the goal of establishing a democracy in the Middle East could legitimately be used to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein evenin the absence of any weapons of mass destruction. Less than a month after this historic speech the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was under way; less than a month after that U.S. forces wereinvolved in toppling a statue of SaddamHussein in Baghdad’s Firdos Square—thisevent captured by the invited media andpress symbolized more than any other thetoppling of the Iraqi dictator.Every generation seems to have its ownmotivation for studying comparative politics. The unfortunate truth is that each generation seems beset by a problem that isboth devastatingly complex and extraordinarily urgent. For example the Great Depression and the rise of fascism in Europecompelled comparative politics scholars inAmerican marine watches as Saddam Hussein statue is toppled inthe middle of the last century to addressBagdad’s Firdos Square April 19 2003.two important topics. The first was whatgovernments can and should do to encour-Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No part of these pages may bequoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from thepublisher. Clark_CH01_001_0144/22/085:41 PMPage 3Chapter 1: IntroductionBOX 1.1WHAT IS COMPARATIVE POLITICS?Traditionally the field of comparative politics has been characterized by many related but distinct endeavors. An influential comparative politics textbook by Joseph LaPalombara (1974)was entitled Politics within Nations. LaPalombara’s title distinguished comparative politics frominternational politics which Hans Morgenthau (1948) famously called Politics among Nations.This definition of comparative politics with its complementary definition of international politics has one of the desirable features of all good scientific typologies in that it is logicallyexhaustive. By defining comparative and international politics in this way these scholars haveexhausted the logical possibilities involved in the study of politics—political phenomena occureither within countries or between countries.Still all good scientific typologies should also be mutually exclusive. Whereas logical exhaustion implies that we have a place to categorize every entity that is observed mutual exclusivityrequires that it not be possible to assign any single case into more than one category.Unfortunately the typology just presented does not satisfy mutual exclusivity. A quick glanceat today’s newspapers clearly reveals that many contemporary political issues contain healthydoses of both “within country” and “between country” factors. As a consequence the linebetween comparative and international politics is often blurred. This is particularly the casewhen it comes to studying how politics and economics interact. For example ask yourselfwhether it is possible to fully understand American trade policy say toward China withouttaking account of U.S. domestic politics or to fully understand European Union economic policies without taking into account the domestic policies of its member states. Similarly manyenvironmental issues involve factors both within and across a country’s borders. In addition because many violent antistate movements receive support from abroad it is hard to categorize the study of revolutions terrorism and civil war as being solely in the domain of eithercomparative or international politics.Nonetheless it is possible to retain the basic insights of LaPalombara and Morgenthau bysimply saying that comparative politics is the study of political phenomena that are predominantly “within country” relationships and that international politics is the study of politicalED/?phenomena that are predominantly “between country” relationships. This view of compara- Useperiodtive politics and political science more generally is illustrated in Figure 1-1. As you can see international politics addresses things like conflict foreign policy and international organiza- forFiguretions that shape the relationships between countries. In contrast comparative politics focuses 1.1 likeon issues such as party systems elections identity politics and interest group relations within incountries like Brazil China France and Nigeria. Scholars interested in political economy issues figurelegend?such as trade central bank independence and exchange rate policy cross the divide between Also fortables.international and comparative politics.Students in the United States may wonder where American politics fits into this description.In most political science departments in the United States American politics is considered aseparate subfield. Does the fact that American politics focuses predominantly on politicswithin the United States mean that it should be considered part of comparative politics? Thisis a question that for some reason generates quite heated debate among political scientists.Uncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No part of these pages may bequoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from thepublisher.3 Clark_CH01_001_01444/22/085:41 PMPage 4Part I: What Is Comparative Politics?FIGURE 1.1One View of Political ScienceElectionsConflictParty SystemsRevolutionForeign PolicyPolitical EconomyInternationalOrganizationsEnvironmrntalPoliticsExecutive-LegislativeRelationsInterest GroupsLegislaturesInternational Politics(Between Nations)Comparative Politics(Within Nations)Historically a second traditional definition of comparative politics has been that it is the studyof politics in every country except the one in which the student resides. Thus according to thisdefinition comparative politics is the study of what economists often like to call “the rest ofthe world.” This definition however seems rather silly to us because it means that the studyof Nigerian politics is part of comparative politics unless one happens to be studying it inNigeria in which case it is simply “Nigerian politics.” We leave it up to you to decide whetheryou think American politics should be considered part of comparative politics or not.In addition to the two definitions just outlined comparative politics has sometimes beendefined as the study of politics using the method of comparison. In fact as seen in Chapter 2 scholars of comparative politics who seek to define their subject in this way typically have aparticular type of comparative method in mind. This tradition which dates back at least as faras Aristotle’s attempt to classify constitutional forms seeks to answer questions about politicsby comparing and contrasting attributes of different polities (predominantly city-states inAristotle’s day but nation-states today). Although this third definition is to some extent descriptively accurate it is not particularly useful. As we show in Chapter 2 comparison iscentral to any and all scientific endeavor. As a result defining comparative politics in terms ofa “comparative” method would make it synonymous with political science itself. If this is thecase it makes one wonder why there are two phrases—comparative politics and politicalscience—to describe the same thing.We believe that comparative politics is best understood as the study of politics occurringpredominantly within countries. As such it is a rather vast field of research. For reasons thatUncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No part of these pages may bequoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from thepublisher. Clark_CH01_001_0144/22/085:41 PMPage 5Chapter 1: Introductionwe explain in this chapter we choose not tofocus on the politics of a single nation or aparticular collection of nations in this book.Instead we try to understand political behaviorthrough the explicit comparison of importantnational-level attributes. In other words we compare domestic political behavior from a crossnational perspective. As an example of our approach we prefer to ask why some countrieshave two parties (like the United States) but others have many (like France) rather than examine the party systems in the United States and France separately. By taking this approach we do not mean to suggest that the study of politics within individual countries should beexcluded from the field of comparative politics. Nor do we mean to imply that cross-nationalcomparison is a more worthy endeavor than studying a single country. Having said that webelieve that a comparison of national-level attributes is a reasonable introduction to comparative politics and one that will set a broad framework for the closer study of politics withinindividual polities at an advanced level.Comparative politics is the study of political phenomenathat occur predominantly within countries. International politicsis the study of political phenomena that occur predominantlybetween countries.age stable economic growth. In other words what if anything can governments do to protecttheir citizens from the devastating consequences of market instability? The second was howto design electoral institutions in such a way as to reduce the likelihood that political extremists who oppose democracy like the Nazi Party in Germany’s Weimar Republic might beelected. Both of these topics remain central to the field of comparative politics today.In the aftermath of World War II decolonization and the onset of the cold war combinedto drive many comparative politics scholars to focus on the question of “political development.” What if anything could be done to reduce political and economic instability in poorand underdeveloped countries? Research conducted at that time frequently focused on theproper relationship between the government and the market with the central concerns ofthe day perhaps being best summarized in the title of Joseph Schumpeter’s 1942 classicCapitalism Socialism and Democracy. The cold war between the United States and the SovietUnion only heightened the urgency with which scholars struggled to understand the causesand consequences of communist revolutions in China and Cuba as well as the political turmoil in places like Vietnam and Chile.By the 1970s economic instability brought on by the Middle East oil crisis returned towealthy industrial countries. As a result many comparative politics scholars revisited questions raised during the interwar years on their home turf of Western Europe. By now however the discussion had been narrowed somewhat because many scholars had come toaccept the “postwar settlement ” or “class compromise ” that had essentially seen workersaccept a capitalist economy and free trade in return for the expansion of the welfare state andother benefits. With the widespread acceptance of capitalist economies across WesternEurope researchers now turned their attention to how the specific variety of capitalism thatUncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No part of these pages may bequoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from thepublisher.5 Clark_CH01_001_01464/22/085:41 PMPage 6Part I: What Is Comparative Politics?existed in a particular country might influence that country’s capacity to weather economicstorms created elsewhere.In the waning days of the twentieth century attention turned to the fallout created by theend of the cold war. Suddenly dozens of countries in eastern and central Europe were negotiating the twin transitions from centrally planned economies to market-based ones andfrom one-party dictatorships to democracy. Now in the twenty-first century attentionappears to be turning once again to questions of political and economic development.President Bush’s speech cited earlier is full of statements about the desirability and feasibility of democratization in Iraq. In effect his speech sought to make the case that invading Iraqwas an option that should be seriously considered because an Iraqi democracy was both desirable and achievable. To that end much of what President Bush had to say was designed to convince people that democratization in Iraq was a realistic possibility even if it was going to bedifficult to achieve. It is worth noting that President Bush did not say that because democracy isa good thing a democratic Iraq should be pursued no matter what the cost.2 By raising the issueof whether it was actually feasible to establish a democracy he was essentially stating that anydecision about whether to invade Iraq would have to involve weighing the purported benefits ofsuccessful democratization against the expected costs in light of the probability of success.President Bush made many claims about the benefits of democracy and the likelihood ofsuccessful democratization in Iraq in his speech. But what is the theoretical basis for theseclaims? What does the empirical evidence say? Exactly how would you begin to evaluatethese and other similar claims? In this book we introduce you to what comparative politicalscientists have to say about these types of questions. One of the central goals of this book isto provide you with the substantive knowledge and methodological tools to begin evaluating such claims for yourself.OVERVIEW OF THE BOOKPolitical science is the study of politics in a scientific manner. It is easy to see that as it stands this definition of political science is not particularly informative. For example what is politics? What is science? We explicitly address these questions in Chapters 2 and 3 of Part I. Withthese preliminaries out of the way we begin to examine the substantive questions relating tothe causes and consequences of democracy that are the book’s central focus. In Part II wecontrast democracies and dictatorships. Specifically we explore the origins of the modernstate and ask two questions that have been central to the study of comparative politics. First why are some countries democracies and others dictatorships? And second does it matter?In Part III we turn our attention to the different types of democracy that exist around theworld. In particular we examine the sometimes dizzying array of institutional forms thatdemocracy can take on. Finally in Part IV we investigate how different types of democracyaffect government performance and the survival of democracy itself.Our goal in writing this book is to provide answers that are relevant to the problemsmotivating the study of comparative politics today and that are reliable—that is built on thebest practices of contemporary political scientists. In what follows we highlight some of theUncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No part of these pages may bequoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from thepublisher. Clark_CH01_001_0144/22/085:41 PMPage 7Chapter 1: Introductionquestions and issues that we address in the upcoming chapters. These issues have been oflong-standing interest to comparative political scientists and remain vitally important forunderstanding the contemporary world.State FailureAlthough state failure has long been recognized as one of the key sources of political and economic instability around the globe the horrific events of September 11 2001 have lent a newurgency to the need to understand the conditions under which states fail and the conditionsunder which such power vacuums might foster international terrorism. The reason for this isthat the September 11 terrorist attacks were planned from Afghanistan—a failed state inwhich the Taliban provided sanctuary for al-Qaida to train terrorists and plan attacks againstvarious targets around the world. In Chapter 4 we define what political scientists mean whenthey speak of the “state” and describe what life is like in a failed state by looking in detail atSomalia since 1991. To a large extent the case of Somalia resembles that of Afghanistan in thatan Islamic group the Supreme Council of Islamic Courts is attempting to establish an Islamicstate and is vying for control of the country against the internationally backed TransitionalFederal Government and various other militias and warlords. The fear that Somalia willbecome a safe haven for terrorist activity as Afghanistan did in the 1990s has led the UnitedStates to become increasingly involved in Somali affairs over the past few years. To understandhow one might fill the power vacuum that exists in failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan it is necessary to understand the historical development of the modern state. What distinguishes the modern state from other forms of political organization? What led to its development? The rest of Chapter 4 focuses on addressing these types of questions.Economic Determinants of DemocracyIn October 2001 the United States responded to the September 11 terrorist attacks by invadingAfghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. In addition to trying to capture Osama bin Laden anddestroy al-Qaida’s terrorist infrastructure one of the stated goals of this attack was to replacethe Taliban with a more democratic form of government. In order to establish democracyintentionally and successfully in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq however it is importantthat we first understand the factors that encourage or discourage the emergence and survivalof democracy. In other words to critically evaluate President Bush’s suggestions about thetypes of factors that make democracy feasible in places like Iraq we need to turn both to thefacts of the specific case at hand and the considerable body of theoretical and empirical evidence that comparative political scientists have compiled on the determinants of democracy.Recall that President Bush pointed to Iraq’s “abundant resources” and its “skilled and educated people” as two factors that make democracy feasible in Iraq. Iraq is an oil-rich country(only Saudi Arabia has larger oil reserves) that has either in spite of or because of this fact anailing economy. In 2005 Iraq had a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of $3 400 and itderived 95 percent of its foreign exchange earnings (assets denominated in foreign currenciesthat are needed to purchase imports) from oil. Between 1950 and 1980 the Iraqi economyunderwent a rapid modernization process that transformed it from a traditional agriculturalUncorrected page proof. Copyright (c) 2008 by CQ Press a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. No part of these pages may bequoted reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical without permission in writing from thepublisher.7 Clark_CH01_001_01484/22/085:41 PMPage 8Part I: What Is Comparative Politics?economy to the third largest economy in the Middle East. Over the next quarter of a century however war international sanctions and inefficiencies encouraged by a centrally plannedeconomy undid many of these economic gains. The net effect of these recent developmentshas been an Iraqi economy that is poor by global standards. Since Iraq gained independencefrom British colonial rule in 1932 the country has been ruled by a monarchy and a series ofdictatorships. It is reasonable to ask whether recent economic conditions such as the onesjust described make it more or less likely for democracy to be established in a land in whichit has not yet taken root.In Chapter 6 we explore in great detail whether successful democracies can be createdunder such circumstances. Specifically we examine how economic development and thestructure of a country’s economy influence the likelihood that a country will become andremain democratic. Some scholars have argued that countries are more likely to experiencetransitions from dictatorship to democracy as their economies become more modern—thatis less reliant on natural resource exports more productive more industrial more highlyeducated and so on. Other scholars have argued that such modernization may affect the survival of democracy but does not influence the emergence of democracy. In other words theyargue that modernization helps democracies stay democratic but does not help dictatorshipsbecome democratic. Although debate continues over the precise relation between economicmodernization and democracy the fact that Iraq does not fulfill many of the basic requirements of “modernization” means that comparative politics scholars on both sides of thedebate would reach essentially the same conclusion regarding the prospects for democracyin Iraq—they are poor. On a related note many political scientists have argued that democracy is unlikely t…