What is Comparative Politics? - CiteSeerX

ARTICLE

What is Comparative Politics? Standpoints and Debates in Germany and The United States 1 Detlef Jahn

Abstract Comparative Politics is a subfield of political science that is defined by the application of the comparative method in order to achieve predictive accuracy and obtain explanatory adequacy. It is argued that Comparative Politics is defined mainly by its nomothetic approach and the application of the comparative method. These factors must be more strongly emphasized in contrast to other ways of comparing in order to secure the identity of Comparative Politics and to guarantee scientific progress. Keywords Comparative Politics·Methodology·Nomothetic Approach·Idiographic Approach “Too few studies are nomothetic, creatively combining theory and cases and developing general propositions. Too many studies are idiographic, offering no more than a wave to the systematic development and assessment of powerful explanatory arguments.” Mark Irving Lichbach und Allan Zuckerman (1997: ix) “We all compare, don‘t we?” This was the response of an influential colleague of mine when I told him that I am of the opinion that the subfield of Comparative Politics defines itself through the comparative method. If, however, his opinion holds true, then Comparative Politics does not have a distinguishing feature concerning the ways and means of comparison. Unlike the other subfields of political science (Political Theory and History of Ideas, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy and International Relations), the term “Comparative Politics” does not refer to a certain subject matter but rather to a 1 I wrote this article during my stay as a research fellow at the Hanse Institute for Advanced Studies in Delmenhorst (Germany). The inspiring environment at the institute strongly contributed to the successful completion of the article. I would like to extend my gratitude to the Rector of the HWK, Prof. Dr. Dr. Gerhard Roth and all of the coworkers as well as the other fellow researchers. In addition, I would like to thank Susanne and Gert Pickel as well as Kati Kuitto for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank Wiebke Breustedt for translating and editing the article.

2

Detlef Jahn

particular procedure, i.e. comparison. This reference to a method, which is particular to Comparative Politics, is not always taken seriously in German political science - as indicated by the quote above.2 The consequences are fatal, as Comparative Politics and as I will argue in this article - a socio-scientifically oriented political science in general will face hard times under these circumstances. The problem - in particular with regard to German Comparative Politics - lies in a general aversion to methodologically founded approaches, be it a well thought-out research design or an elaborate analytical approach. To a large extent, this is due to the history of ideas as well as the historical and educational tradition of German political science. Reflexion on methodological issues is not one of the main concerns of political science in Germany.3 A number of facts highlight the problem Comparative Politics is faced with (Falter/Knodt 2006). The most recent reputational study (Falter/Knodt 2006) comes to the following conclusion with regard to the subject fields which German political scientists work in: 58 per cent indicated that they work in the field of Comparative Politics (multiple references possible). International Relations and Policy-Analysis ranked second with 37 per cent each. Initially, this is good news. Many colleagues compare internationally. However, the results of the study may be interpreted as such that many colleagues allocated their research with an international approach of some sort to the field of Comparative Politics without taking methodological considerations into account. Many times too much is subsumed under the field of Comparative Politics - consequentially, the core of Comparative Politics cannot be determined anymore. On the whole, political science tends to share this problem (Coleman 2007: 132). What is Comparative Politics? Certainly, this question cannot be answered exhaustively in a single article by a single author. Striving to answer this question in the first issue of a new specialist journal, the article almost seems to have programmatic features. I deliberately do not follow a latitudinal approach and will not consider everything which relates to other countries or cultures to be part of Comparative Politics. Even though such research may have a value of its own, they arenot part of what determines the essence of Comparative Politics. 2 This becomes apparent when considering who has been offered a chair of Comparative Politics during the past years. Mostly, these colleagues have specialized in certain regions or in the political system of the European Union or they come from other subfields which focus on different countries. Seldom, researchers are offered a chair who advocate a methodologically oriented approach to Comparative Politics. 3 Among other things, this can be gathered from the low number of articles on methodological issues which were published in the PVS, the “flagship journal” of German political science. Unlike in US-American top specialist journals, there appears to be a reluctance to discuss methodological developments in political science in Germany. American Political Science Review regularly publishes articles on methodological aspects. A study of the articles published in the Politische Vierteljahresschrift (PVS) from 1988 to 1992 showed that the content of only one article (1.25 per cent of all articles) focused on methodology (Alemann/Tönnesmann 1995: 23-27). Until today, little has changed in this respect. When I did a rough overview of the articles published between 1990 and June 2007, I only noticed one article which focused on methods (Berg-Schlosser/Sventer 1996). However, recently, there has been a stronger methodological awareness in German Comparative Politics. This, however, appears to develop outside of established approaches and has only reached part of the discipline through publications in edited volumes (Kropp/Minkenberg 2005; Lauth 2006; Pickel et al. 2003; 2008). My textbook (Jahn 2006) also strives to steer Comparative Politics towards a better methodological awareness. The Journal of Comparative Governance and Politics - even though it is a segregationist move - may be able to alleviate this deficit.

What is Comparative Politics?

3

By writing this article, I would like to use the opportunity to take on a certain position. I am aware of the fact that it will not necessarily meet with general approval. I would like to consider the core of Comparative Politics and would like to call for a strengthening of this core in German political science in order to catch up internationally. In recent years, Comparative Politics has lost ground in Germany due to “comparative studies” which did not actually compare in a strict sense.4 All too often, there is a rather careless attitude toward defining Comparative Politics (and who is offered the respective chairs). Falsely interpreted pluralism has led to an “everything is possible” approach and has caused analytically well-founded political science to be at a disadvantage. 1. Trends in Political Science and the Position of Comparative Politics Every discipline has its own rules regarding the acquisition of knowledge. Political science originated from philosophy, however historically, it has increasingly turned into a social science. Thus, political science has two “epistemological souls” (Mayer 1989: Kapitel 2). The acquisition of knowledge in political philosophy is based on the method of rationality, authority or by reference to moral truths.5 Rational claims to validity declare that something appears to be self-evident or that it is “common sense”. Often, authorities such as great philosophers are referred to during the philosophical acquisition of knowledge. Hence, a statement is valid or is at least taken seriously if it was uttered by an authority. Finally, some statements are valid because they hold the status of moral truths. The subsequent argumentation then refers to this prerequisite. With all of these types of acquisition of knowledge it is difficult to decide how to choose among different perceptions of reality based on the above-mentioned criteria. Depending on personal experience or one‘s social context, “common sense” may be based on different norms. Authorities may contradict each other and in particular when performing intercultural research, it quickly becomes apparent that moral truths are only deemed to be true in certain cultural environments. Rhetorical persuasive power or even populism are important means to settle differences of opinion in these contexts. The personality or the individual characteristics as well as the rhetorical and writing skills of the individual political scientist as well as her professional network are often the deciding factors in order for an opinion to gain validity. Scientific methods, on the other hand, include inter-subjective criteria in order to measure the acquisition of knowledge. This does not imply that differences of opinion between scientists of this tradition never occur. It only implies that there are explicit criteria in order to settle these differences. The main criteria of scientific research are:6

4

Please refer to the rankings by Simon Hix (2003), Thomas Plümper (2003) and Dethloff et al. in this issue for a ranking of German (comparative) political science. Additional ways to acquire knowledge are based on intuitions, religions or belief in myths. 6 See for example King et al. 1994; Johnson/Reynolds 2005: 27-40; Danziger 2005: 8-22; Taagepera 2007. 5

4

Detlef Jahn

Scientific research strives to identify regularities and patterns of phenomena and to deliver theoretically oriented explanations. Scientific research is empirical, i.e. the phenomena can be observed or at least measured and The research design is constructed so that it can be replicated. Scientific research is cumulative, i.e. it is based on previous scientific research and the fundamental principles do not have to be verified anew in each survey. Scientific research tests the assumptions it has drawn up, i.e. all of the assumptions have to be stated and clear criteria have to be named in such a manner as to be able to determine under which circumstances they can be identified as false. Scientific research not only describes or reconstructs (postdictive) but it is predictive thanks to the explanations it provides.

Thomas Kuhn (1976) describes sophisticated science as a science which applies central and shared (a) concepts, (b) theories, (c) rules of interpretation and (d) topics. According to this standard, political science (still) surely is in a pre-scientific stage (Dogan 2001). However, when considering the acquisition of knowledge in political science on a continuum from political philosophy to science, Comparative Politics falls into the category of scientific research the most due to its reference to methodology. At the same time, the frequently cited differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research plays only a minor role. Both approaches have merit with regard to social scientific phenomena and both have their advantages and disadvantages. The main difference within Comparative Politics is the difference between nomothetic and idiographic procedures.7 Nomothetic views, i.e. approaches which seek to explain, are based on the assumption that general principles exist which can be determined. By discovering such general principles, current and past phenomena can be explained and future phenomena can be predicted. The epistemological interest which focuses on understanding/experience represents a methodological procedure whereby the object of research is to be interpreted in the light of the intention of the acting person. “Understanding” thereby implies that the validity of hypotheses of interpretation has to be critically tested according to tried and tested criteria, which have to be derived from theory themselves. The hermeneutic procedure serves to do so. Among other things, the fact that it is directly connected with the experience of the researcher and that it is in part beyond intersubjective examination is characteristic for it. Social reality is thereby considered to be and interpreted as a social construction. A deeper understanding of a phenomenon is gained at the price of replicable - one of the main requirements of empirical social research. Furthermore, the term “heuristic understanding” is often improperly used in the social sciences when the research results cannot be scientifically proven but rather depend on ad-hoc interpretations and references to common stereotypes. Surely, hermeneutics is one of the terms which is most often improperly used in social science (Mayer 1989: 284). The main difference between idiographic and nomothetic approaches is the fact that the nomothetic approach assumes that political events 7 About 100 years ago, Heinrich Rickert (1921: 35-51) and Wilhelm Dilthey (1922: 68-69; 169ff.) related these schools of thought to the terms “explain” (nomothetic) and “understand” (idiographic) (see also Windelband 1894; most recent: Meinefeld 1995; Patzelt 2005: 19-20).


5

follow rules and patterns which can be identified with analytical procedures. A systematic method is necessary in order to identify such rules and patterns. The range of methods in political science includes the experiment (which is often not feasible), as well as the statistical and the comparative method (Lijphart 1975).8 The idiographic approach acts on the assumption that everything is unique. Thus, from this perspective, comparison cannot deliver any further insights as the things as such cannot be compared. Following Neil Smelser (1976: 204; see also Mayer et al. 1996: 1-10) the fundamental positions of the idiographic and nomothetic approaches can be summarized as follows: Table 1: Basic Principles of Idiographic and Nomothetic Research Idiographic Approach

Nomothetic Approach

Few cases

Many cases

Strives to understand a case, often without determining causalities; also analyzes under aesthetic aspects

Explanatory approach; interested in determining causalities; reference to variables

Interested in a single case, explanations usually aim to outline why an event occurred or why it did not occur

Determination of universally valid statements; focuses on statistical correlations between cause and effect

Integrates many factors which can have different effects; explanatory power is also attributed to coincidences

Attempts to exclude unusual factors in order to describe causal relations which are as precise as possible and which are generally valid

Control via the variables results from different knowledge which exists outside the research project (theory, hypothetical thought experiments, impressionistic understanding)

Control ensured by covariance and partial correlations as well as by consciously choosing the cases

Comparisons based on case-by-case descriptions which strive to draw attention to the general and the particular

Applies the comparative method in order to give explanations and make predictions

Assuming that the comparative method is the constitutive element of Comparative Politics, the core of Comparative Politics lies in the nomothetic approach. An exclusively idiographic approach undermines the identity of Comparative Politics as a subfield. If everything which concerns other countries, cultures and regions is part of Comparative Politics, then a German expert on France would be a political scientist who compares. Giovanni Sartori (1991: 243) has expressed his incomprehension regarding this allocation. He asks why a researcher, who does research on the American president as an American political scientist supposedly works in the field of American Studies whereas another researcher who does the same research on a French president is a comparatist. His answer to this question is clear: “Do not ask me how this makes sense - it does not.” However, I do not unquestioningly support the statement that researchers who work in the field of regional studies work idiographically and comparatists work nomo8

Lijphart (1975) also considers case studies to be part of the range of methods of political science – however, only under certain circumstances.

6

Detlef Jahn

thetically. Case studies can be carried out nomothetically and regional studies can definitely be of nomothetic use (Jahn 2006: Chapter 11). On the other hand, many comparative edited volumes which contain a string of chapters on different countries are hardly nomothetic.9 The fundamental difference is whether a research project includes comparison or whether the comparative method is applied. 2. Comparison and the Comparative Method Human thought is based on comparison. Thus, in this respect, my colleague‘s statement, which I mentioned in the introduction, is correct. However, such a broad sense of the term “comparison” cannot procure an identity for the subfield of Comparative Politics. Only when comparison is applied as a method and is based on the scientific criteria elaborated above, it can serve as a constituing characteristic of Comparative Politics. Dieter Nohlen (1994: 507-517) explains the difference between comparison and the comparative method in his lexical introduction. Comparison consists of confronting knowledge of and experience in familiar contexts with (initially) unknown contexts. Of course, the interpretation of familiar things can change after having gained experience in other cultural environments. It may be an incisive experience to notice that traffic can be regulated with other traffic regulations than in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the United States. Hence, a visit to Great Britain illustrates that road users can indeed drive on the left side of the road without constantly causing disastrous accidents. And for the individual, it may be even more surprising that this “abnormal” behavior is far more common than it may appear from a European perspective. However, the description of such facts and the recognition that traffic can indeed be regulated differently does not by any means constitute the application of the comparative method. In political science, research performed in the legalistic tradition of institutional theory represents such a type of comparison. On the one hand, it may serve to systemize (categorizations or typologies) or to argue anecdotally. The latter approach in particular has caused comparison to have a bad reputation: “Comparisons are weak” (une comparaison boiteuse), is how these ad-hoc comparisons are correctly described in the vernacular. Frank Aarebrot and Pal Bakka (2003: 57) report that Goethe supposedly claimed that only fools compare. A systematic comparison is based on explicit rules on what and how to compare. Besides, one of the main prerequisites for the application of the comparative method is to find criteria which permit a systematic comparison. Most of the time, these criteria cannot be derived directly from the observation of individual phenomena. In order to carry out comparisons, criteria need to be established which the phenomena which are to be compared have in common and which can be comparatively recorded. When we wish to compare two phenomena, we need to determine a criterion (tertium comparationis) based on which we can carry out the comparison. Finding comparative criteria for apples and pears - a common example in order to prove the impossibility of comparison - is easy: both belong to the same category (fruit). Within this category, we can 9

For an overview see the book review by Gert Pickel in this edition of the journal.


7

find criteria for comparison (tertium comparationis) such as weight, juice content per kilogram, vitamin content etc. However, the comparative method is supposed to go beyond a descriptive depiction of social phenomena and is supposed to provide social scientific explanations: “A consensus exists that comparative research consists not of comparing but of explaining” (Przeworski 1987: 35). What is the logic of the comparative method? On principle and with reference to Arend Lijphart (1975: 164) and Guy Peters (1998: 30) it can be summarized as follows: Maximize experimental variance, minimize error variance and control extraneous variance. The experimental variance consists of an observable, systematic variance of the dependent variable, which is considered to be the result of the systematic variance of the independent variables which were included in the analysis. In general, the values of the dependent variable should vary explicitly in a comparative analysis. If the dependent variable does not vary, covariance with the independent variables cannot be generated. The same is true vice versa, i.e. the independent variables have to vary (King et al. 1994: 146). Furthermore, the variables should differ as much as possible (maximize the experimental variance) in order to clearly perceive the effects. With regard to the comparative analysis, controlling the extraneous variance is an important constituent of a systematic comparisons. Ideally, certain aspects can be considered as given for a unit of analysis and thus do not have to be taken into account during the analysis as they do not vary. The problem of the (in this case uncontrolled) external variance occurs for example when the variance of the dependent variable cannot be explained with the independent variables of the analysis but rather with a factor which was not included in the research (omitted variable bias) or when the cases which were chosen are not representative or only include a part of the experimental variance (selection bias). The error variance is caused by incidents and errors during the measurement of the values of the variables. This includes all aspects which were included in the research due to systematic and unsystematic components of a concept. In order to carry out research based on the above-mentioned criteria, the research design is paramount in Comparative Politics. In particular the choice of cases (see for example Jahn 2006: Chapter 8) can serve to optimize the above-mentioned guiding principle. Analyses which fulfill these conditions are the core of Comparative Politics. 3. Core and Subsidiary Areas By referring to everything which concerns other countries and cultures or any kind of comparison as Comparative Politics, the core area of Comparative Politics is lost. By carelessly including everything, the discipline as such cannot develop further. On the

8

Detlef Jahn

other hand, an overly rigorous interpretation of the term causes many interesting aspects to be excluded. In the United States at least, the (natural) scientific approach of political science follows a long tradition and has been characterized by many countermovements (Somit/Tanenhaus 1967; Grofman 2007). The “Perestroika-Movement” in American political science is the most recent countermovement against a scientification of political science. However, in the United States, a movement has recently started which strives to emphasize scientific standards more strongly and which is grouped under the label EITM (Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models) (Aldrich et al. 2008). This trend could improve the status of Comparative Politics among the subfields, after the less methodologically oriented area of International Relations in particular gained in importance with catchwords such as “de-nationalization” and “methodological nationalism” during the past years.10 11 Research which reaches conclusions using the comparative method constitutes the core of Comparative Politics. Thus the kind of research and scientific papers which can apply the comparative method are at the center of attention. As research which is aimed at explaining phenomena based on the measurement of the experimental variance depends on a certain number of observations, Comparative Politics is inherently interested in working with a great number of observations. This is not to say that only multiple-country comparisons constitute the core of Comparative Politics, even though they are certainly part of it. Even nomothetically oriented case studies strive to increase the number of observations in order to come to more valid conclusions (King et al. 1994: Chapter 6; Gerring 2007). Simply referring to John Stuart Mill‘s method of agreement and method of difference surely does not suffice for research to be considered to be located in the core of Comparative Politics. In a lot of research, the cases are chosen according to these two principles. In doing so, they are often described with related phrases such as: most similar (most different (or dissimiliar)) case design or most similar systems with different outcomes and most different systems with similar outcomes or- to top it off - most indifferent systems designs, an “approach” which was once presented to me in an application for research funding. However, such designs disregard the following issues: (a) Mill himself considered these principles to be methods of analysis, not case selection criteria.12 (b) Even if used as methods of analysis, these approaches are deficient (Lieberson 1992; 1994). (c) If cases are selected based on Mill‘s principles, this clearly 10

These concepts discussed in German political science are not part of the main focus of international research and are mostly based on hermeneutic observations with reference to anecdotal country comparisons. However, unfortunately they stronlgy influence the German research agenda. 11 This is not to say that the field of International Relations is per se methodologically underdeveloped. It is undisputed that the influence of King et al. (1994) has had an effect on German International Relations in particular. One may even go so far as to say that German International Relations has a stronger affinity with American political science than German Comparative Politics. Thus, it is currently more methodologically oriented than Comparative Politics. However, this does not change the fact that Comparative Politics has a stronger methodological potential than International Relations as the latter is often deeply embedded in debates over normative issues. 12 Thus, this critique does not concern the techniques of analysis of the “stepwise multi-methodological approach” which are based on these pairs of concepts (Berg-Schlosser/de Meur 1997).


9

involves strong violations of case selection criteria and leads almost always to selection bias (case selection based on the dependent variable or according to causal relations which are to be tested) (King et al. 1994: Chapter 4). In order to avoid confusion regarding the difference between Mill‘s method of analysis (method of agreement, method of difference, indirect method of difference) and the research design (most similar systems design and most different systems design), they should not be referred to each other. The most different systems design was developed as a two-level analysis by Przeworski and Teune (1982) without reference to Mill and the most similar systems design which Lijphart referred to as comparable cases design, is only indirectly related to Mill‘s teachings. Multiple-country comparisons enjoy high representativity concerning the research results while suffering from a deficit regarding the explanation of causality - for case studies, the opposite is true. During the past years, case study researchers have been very productive which has improved the plausibility of the determination of causality (Bates et al. 1998; Mahoney/Rueschemeyer 2003; George/Bennett 2005; Gerring 2007). However, even protagonists of comparative case studies admit that comparison within these studies is deficient: “However, the procedures through which analysts decide whether a narrative account lends support to a cross-case causal pattern have not been well specified.” (Mahoney 2003: 365-366).13 As the determination of the research objects of political science - and thus also of Comparative Politics - will always be disputed and as the disagreement concerning the appropriate methods will continue, a differentiated perspective on the disciplines may be of help in this case. Interdisciplinary differentiation is important. Research in the core area enables us to work with concepts and subject matter which a large number of political scientists are familiar with. Thanks to this common ground, a discourse within and a development and refinement of the scientific field can arise, i.e. scientific progress. Research in subsidiary areas in terms of methodology or content is often only of interest to a small number of scientists. Thus, research activities in this area contribute less to scientific progress. This description holds true in general, although I have to point out that on occasion, the paradigm of the core area is questioned by research in subsidiary areas and a new paradigm is developed. This is the main point raised by Thomas Kuhn (1976) in his disquisition on scientific progress. As much as the impression may be correct, that fundamental reorientations may occur due to the challenge of the core area by research in subsidiary areas, it is also true that this only seldom occurs. Not every subsidiary work in research leads to a paradigm change. Thus, the focus should be aimed at research in the core area. Currently, the sum of research work performed in the subsidiary areas of Comparative Politics clearly dominates over the research work in the core area. This is not only the case in Germany but also on an international level (Munck/Snyder 2007).

13

Initial considerations to overcome this problem are presented by George and Bennett (2005: Chapter 11).

10

Detlef Jahn

Figure 1: Core Area and Subsidiary Areas in Comparative Politics

Even though I declare aggregate data analysis14 to be part of the core area of Comparative Politics at this point, I do not mean to imply that this method has been perfected and that all contributions in this tradition per se constitute well done comparative research. Criticizing this approach is indeed appropriate (Kittel 2006). However, there is a discernable development from uncritical correlations between variables (kitchen sink regression) to efficient (parsimonious) model-based comparative studies whereby many problems such as linear, additive correlations between increasingly interactive cases are taken into account (Franzese 2007; Jahn 2008). The core area of Comparative Politics also includes nomothetic comparative case studies. However, this is true only with certain reservations: particularly with these studies, the comparative method cannot be applied to the same extent as in aggregate data analyses due to the number of degrees of freedom which is too low as well as due to the selection of cases, which is often controlled only to a limited extent. Hence, systematic comparison is not an asset of nomothetic comparative case studies but rather a finely tuned reconstruction of causal chains which can be supported with intra-case comparative analyses. 14

The term aggregate data analysis refers to the macro-comparative study with formalized analysis techniques (see Jahn 2008).


11

Single case studies are located further away from the core area, even if they are intended to be nomothetic. Like nomothetic comparative case studies, they are of particular value to the discovery of causal chains. This is particularly the case when dealing with special (deviant) cases. In these instances, nomothetic case studies can identify correlations which are blended out in comparative studies with a large number of cases and thus possibly go unnoticed. However, the results of the case study themselves are not tested with a systematic comparison. Idiograpahic comparative case studies, which include edited volumes which contain a string of chapters on different countries, are located far away from the core area of Comparative Politics. They may serve to induce comparative analyses by emphasizing the particular characteristics of the individual cases, however, the single case studies themselves contribute little in this respect. Such studies may gain in nomothetic value thanks to a final synthesis chapter. However, the publishers of most edited volumes content themselves with the fact that the main aspects are categorized in an introductory chapter in the beginning which serves as a guideline for the individual chapters. The decision of whether or not these categories serve to explain a phenomenon in political science is often left to other research studies. Lastly, idiographic single case studies in themselves are of no value to Comparative Politics (Lijphart 1971: 691). It may be that descriptions of cases result in a detailed comparison, however, this is not the intention of the authors of idiographic single case studies. The presentation of the different strategies which are applied in Comparative Politics draws attention to the dilemma of using the comparative method while neglecting the determination of causal mechanisms or alternatively determining causal chains with deficits regarding the comparability. The following two sections will focus on these two aspects. 4. Theories, Explanations and Causal Mechanisms Comparative Politics cannot make causal explanations based on the comparative method alone. Like all other methods, the comparative method depends on pre-existent relevance criteria, which are provided by analytical concepts, hypotheses and theories. These can be tested with the method, however, the method itself cannot discover them (Faure 1994: 313; Hackman 2005). In order to make well founded causality claims, there needs to be a reference to the knowledge of the respective discipline.15 General knowledge emerges in the form of theories. However, even in this field social sciences suffer from fundamental deficits. Even though it is a general postulate that empirical work should refer to a theory, this is not the case with most research studies. Unlike in the natural sciences, there is no straightforward canon of accepted theories in political science. Rather, there is an abundance of theoretical streams which can hardly be applied beyond a very limited 15

However, causality can never be determined with absolute certainty: “Our uncertainty about causal inference will never be eliminated” (King et al. 1994: 76; see also Holland 1986).

12

Detlef Jahn

range and which represent the convictions of individual authors more so than strive to facilitate a cumulative, consecutive acquisition of knowledge (Taagepera 2007). The usual procedure in social sciences in general and thus also in political science and Comparative Politics in particular is to approach an object of research by striving to capture it exhaustively. In order to do so, various theoretical elements are projected on the object of research. In doing so, an eclectic approach is usually applied. However, such an approach has several grave disadvantages regarding scientific progress. Even though it may seem plausible that an object of research can be captured most appropriately with a whole range of theories, such an approach is based on an idiographic logic. The individual object of research is supposed to be explained using different theoretical elements. Such an “explanation” actually corresponds to the logic of understanding. From this perspective, “explaining” means that one can infer from the concrete object of research to general phenomena thanks to the causal mechanisms which were discovered. However, this cannot be carried out when using a whole range of theories which are tailored to a specific object of research (for a similar line of argument see Colemann 2007: 132). Furthermore, a lot of the time, empirical research does not test a whole theory, but elements of a theory at best which moreover do not constitute the core elements of the applied theory in many cases (Mayer 1989: 28-59). Even if theories are available, often, they are not very exhaustive for empirical work: “Theories are testable where they are least needed, and are not testable where they are most needed.” (Manski 1995: 18) Social science is missing research guiding theories which have a certain degree of generalization and can be applied to a wide range of subjects in political science.16 This problem is precarious since a lot of research work in political science does not test theories but - and this is the actual problem of qualitative research - generates theories. This produces an excess supply of theories which are rarely if ever tested (Peters 1998).17 In order for the research field to remain comprehensible, it would be necessary to test theories so that only those theories would persist which have proven to be of value. However, even in the field of testing theories there are no generally accepted criteria. This circumstance as well as the continuous generation of theories in almost every piece of research, cause great complexity and eventually, analysis in political science looses its ability to act. Furthermore, this problem is aggravated by the fact that overly complex concepts are often introduced without an empirical reference. Such conceptual constructs of ideas should not be published without tests and a convincing empirical basis as they needlessly increase the complexity. However, this type of presentation of conceptualizations without empirical reference is the preferred mode of presentation in German 16

This comes as no suprise as theories - which are supposed to guide empirical work - are after all themselves a product of empirical work: “Theory, after all, should be about data” (Mayer et al. 1996: 3). As theories are meant to provide orientation, theories in social science represent the accumulated knowledge of various kinds of empirical research which are related to one another with logical deduction. If the accumulated knowledge is ambivalent, the purpose of theories to provide orientation also remains vague. 17 It is a general demand – which is seldom fulfilled however – that theories should be tested against other cases than those upon which they were developed (Geddes 2003: 141; George/Bennett 2005: 76; Munck/Snyder 2007: 26).


13

specialist journals where the description of concepts is made plausible with anecdotal reference to reality. As mentioned above, this is the worst way of drawing scientific conclusions. Finally, using empirically applicable theories for a research object is also problematic as theories from philosophical political science usually cannot and do not wish to provide orientation for empirical research. The acquisition of knowledge of these theories (in part) consciously does not conform to the scientific standards presented in the beginning of the article. The problem of theory based research in general consists of the fact that there are few instructions on how and with which theories to support empirical research. Thus the uncritical call for a reference to theory resembles the conjuring of spirits and theories are elevated to a status of “sacred cows”. In particular at the juncture between theory and practice there is a great backlog. The problem is described very clearly by Stephan Coleman (2007: 128): “If data do not fit the theory, one cannot be sure if one should reject the theory, the methods used, or auxiliary assumptions made to test the theory.” This state of affairs prevents scientific progress. 5. Strengths and Weaknesses of Comparative Methods What are the strengths and weaknesses of comparative methods? The common classification of scientific methods by Arend Lijphart (1971; 1975) is comprehensible only to a limited extent and is in part misleading.18 He differentiates between experimental and non-experimental methods. Among the non-experimental methods, which are applied in Comparative Politics in particular, he differentiates between the statistical and the comparative method as well as the case study. The differentiation between the statistical and the comparative method is problematic. In particular, defining the statistical method as an independent procedure is arbitrary. Assuming that we infer from covariance to causal relationships, both the statistical as well as the comparative analysis are based on covariance. The statistical analysis is only different with regard to the range of applicability of its conclusions. Thanks to random sampling and statistical inferences, we can infer to a basic population which is larger than the number of cases under investigation. With regard to the comparative method, the case selection is the main analytical element for controlling the research process. Case selection corresponds to the control function of the conscious and controlled manipulation of an independent variable in an experiment and to partial correlation in the statistical method: “… the selection of cases acts as a partial substitute for statistical or experimental control” (Collier 1993: 106). The disadvantage of this procedure lies in the fact that the research conclusions are limited to the chosen cases. The explanatory power of research depends on the choice and the number of cases (countries etc.). The explanatory power remains limited when consciously choosing few cases. Even if the chosen cases probably represent additional cases or all logical possiblities, this is merely speculative and cannot be tested without doing research on additional cases. Doing research (often qualitatively) on few cases is problematic how18

For a review of Lijphart see Jahn 2005: 60.

14

Detlef Jahn

ever. Intra-case analyses can be carried out in such comparative case studies. These permit a more differentiated determination of causal chains through process tracing than statistical analyses with many cases. However, there is no criterion for generalizations. In particular research designed according to the categories of John Stuart Mill‘s method of agreement and method of difference which are applied to comparative analyses with few cases all too often, are highly deficient (Jahn 2006: 166- 173; Gerring 2007). Thus, Stanley Lieberson (1992) hits the nail on the head when confronting such research with the following reproval: Small N’s and Big Conclusions. The dilemma between universal validity and detailed analysis remains. It can only be overcome with a combination of both methods of analysis which requires a lot of resources (Lieberman 2005). However, the problem of universal validity is more extensive than the fact that the results may not be representative. With empirical analyses, one can never be sure whether the research comprises the whole explanatory spectrum. Even if a relatively high number of cases is included in the analysis (30 OECD countries or 26 Latin American countries or the approximately 30 post-communist states for example) and the conclusions of the statistical analyses refer to this group of countries, not all possible logical statements have been taken into account. It can be approximated with appropriate methods of analysis (counterfactual analyses (Tetlock/Balkin 1996; however also see King/Zeng 2005); qualitative comparative analysis (Ragin 1987; 2000)) however a certain configuration or variance which cannot be controlled always remains (Przeworski 2007). In Comparative Politics, several methods should be applied (for an overview see Jahn 2006: Part IV). However, methodical pluralism should only be approved of under two conditions: (a) The research should be performed in a nomothetic research tradition which strives to fulfill the above mentioned scientific criteria. In this case, it is not contradictory to point out case- or country specific aspects as long as these are translated into categories relevant to the explanation. This request corresponds to Przeworski‘s and Teune‘s dictum (1982: 26-30) that names should be replaced with analytic variables. (b) Quantitative and qualitative research should be carried out in such a manner as to enable the two logics of science to learn from one another and to be able to build upon the results of the other. This request is far reaching and we are far from fulfilling it. It contains the following elements: first, the traditions themselves have to come to an agreement what they consider to be valid results in their field. The goal should be to develop a straightforward range of explanations for the respective other side. In this respect, both qualitative and quantitative research need to develop further in their respective fields. It is unbearable that each object of research is presented with an individual explanation. Second, the proponents of each tradition are responsible for editing their results in such a manner as to enable the other side to understand them. This includes freeing the results in quantitative political science from technical terms and clearly stating what the conclusions imply. Gary King et al. (2000) in particular speak out for this approach. On the other hand, qualitative research should dismiss descriptions which reach up to a thousand pages and appear to correspond to the motto:


15

everything you really never wanted to know about.19 In this regard, James Mahoney‘s (1999) attempts are worth emulating. 6. Tasks of a new Journal in Comparative Politics In my opinion, a new journal in the field of Comparative Politics only makes sense if it serves to enhance a development of the subfield and counterbalances the deficits of existing publishing organs in Germany. If such a journal turns into a melting pot of research results in the subsidiary areas of Comparative Politics, which cannot be published elsewhere, it would fall short of its target. A new journal such as this should be required not to simply permit pluralism according to the motto everything goes but should rather promote a dialogue across the whole range of Comparative Politics and thus strengthen the core area of Comparative Politics. In addition to the above-mentioned combination of different strategies of comparison a large part of such a journal should be dedicated to the development of the comparative method. Particularly the improvement of research in the core area of Comparative Politics should be the main task of such a journal. A dynamic debate on established as well as falsified theories is also necessary. A mere appraisal of how different theories are applied in comparative analyses would also be helpful (for an overview see for example: Lichbach/Zuckerman 1997; Landman 2003: 236-237; Jahn 2006: Chapters 9 and 10). While I reject latitudinalism (everything goes) as much as misinterpreted syncretism, which merely comprises neglected teachings, which unite in order to assert themselves, I regard the Journal of Comparative Governance and Politics as a forum for the formation of a common identity of a selfconfident, innovative and methodologically cognizant subfield.20 Such an endeavour is necessary in order for German Comparative Politics to catch up with international developments. I would like to wish all the best to the editors and to the publishers for the realization of this demanding undertaking. Bibliography: Aarebrot, Frank H., and Pal H. Bakka. 2003. Die vergleichende Methode in der Politikwissenschaft. In Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, edited by D. Berg-Schlosser and F. Müller-Rommel. Opladen: Leske + Budrich (UTB).

19 Keeping scientific papers short is an analytical criterion of quality as this indicates that the author made a selection. The more efficient the chosen approach, the shorter the scientific paper: “Since understanding requires some abstraction, the sign of a good book is as much what is left out as what is included.” (King et al. 1994: 50; see also 42/43) Long scientific papers often attest to the fact that the author did not dare to make analytical choices. Thereby, they often neglect the fact that exhaustive descriptions are impossible. A 1:1 depiction of reality is analytically and practically impossible. 20 The English title of the journal concerns me a bit. Governance is certainly not a term which originated from the core area of Comparative Politics and suggests a latitudinal approach due to its lack of clarity.

16

Detlef Jahn

Aldrich, John, James Alt, and Arthur Lupia. 2008 (in press). The EITM Approach: Origins and Interpretations. In Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady and D. Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alemann, Ulrich von, and Wolfgang Tönnesmann. 1995. Grundriss: Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. In Politikwissenschaftliche Methoden. Grundriss für Studium und Forschung, edited by U. v. Alemann. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Bates, Robert H., Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry R. Weingast. 1998. Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, and Gisèle de Meur. 1997. Reduction of Complexity for a Small-N Analysis - A Stepwise Multi-Methodological Approach. Comparative Social Research 16:133-162. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, and Sven Quenter. 1996. Makro-quantitative versus makro-qualitative Methoden in der Politikwissenschaft - Vorzüge und Mängel komparativer Verfahrensweisen am Beispiel der Sozialstaatstheorie. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 37 (1):100-118. Coleman, Stephen. 2007. Testing Theories with Qualitative and Quantitative Predictions. European Political Science 2 (6):124-133. Collier, David. 1993. The Comparative Method. In Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, edited by A. W. Finifter. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. Danziger, James N. 2005. Understanding the Political World. A Comparative Introduction to Political Science. 7. Auflage ed. New York, NY: Longman. Dogan, Mattei. 2001. Paradigms in Social Sciences. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Falter, Jürgen, and Michèle Knodt. 2007. Die Bedeutung von Themenfeldern, theoretischen Ansätzen und die Reputation von Fachvertretern. Politikwissenschaft. Rundbrief der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft 137:147-160. Faure, Andrew M. 1994. Some Methodological Problems in Comparative Politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (3):307-322. Franzese Jr., Robert J. 2007. Multicausality, Context-Conditionality, and Endogeneity. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by C. Boix and S. C. Stokes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, Analytical perspectives on politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grofman, Bernard. 2007. Toward a Science of Politics? European Political Science 2 (6):143-155. Heckman, James J. 2005. The Scientific Model of Causality. Sociological Methodology 35:1- 97. Hix, Simon. 2004. A Global Ranking of Political Science Departments. Political Studies Review 2 (3):293313. Holland, Paul. 1986. Statistics and Causal Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 (396):945-960. Jahn, Detlef. 2005. Fälle, Fallstricke und die komparative Methode in der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. In Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft, edited by S. Kropp and M. Minkenberg. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Jahn, Detlef. 2006. Einführung in die vergleichende Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Jahn, Detlef. 2008. Die Aggregatdatenanalyse in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. In Neuere Entwicklungen und Anwendungen auf dem Gebiet der Methoden der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft, edited by S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth and D. Jahn. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Johnson, Janet B., and H. T. Reynolds. 2005. Political Science Research Methods. 5 ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):341-355. King, Gary , and Langche Zeng. 2005. When Can History be our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference. Cambridge, MA/San Diego, CA: Harvard University/University of California, http://gking.harvard.edu/files/counterf.pdf (02.08.2005).


17

Kittel, Bernhard. 2006. A Crazy Methodology? On the Limits of Macro-Quantitative Social Science Research. International Sociology 5 (21):647-677. Kropp, Sabine, and Michael Minkenberg, eds. 2005. Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1976. Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Landman, Todd. 2003. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. An Introduction. 2. Auflage ed. London: Routledge. Lauth, Hans-Joachim, ed. 2002. Vergleichende Regierungslehre: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Lichbach, Mark I., and Alan S. Zuckerman, eds. 1997. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieberson, Stanley. 1992. Small N's and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies based on a Small Number of Cases. In What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieberson, Stanley. 1994. More on the Uneasy Case for Using Mill-Type Methods in Small-N Comparative Studies. Social Forces 72 (4):1225-1237. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political Science Review 65 (3):682-693. Lijphart, Arend. 1975. The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies 8 (2):158-177. Mahoney, James. 1999. Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis. American Journal of Sociology 104 (4):1154-1196. Mahoney, James. 2003. Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manski, Charles F. 1995. Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mayer, Lawrence C. 1989. Redefining Comparative Politics: Promise Versus Performance. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mayer, Lawrence C., John H. Burnett, and Suzanne Ogden. 1996. Comparative Politics: Nations and Theories in a Changing World. Vol. 2. Auflage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Meinefeld, Werner. 1995. Realität und Konstruktion: Erkenntnistheoretische Grundlagen einer Methodologie der empirischen Sozialforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Munck, Geraldo L., and Richard Snyde. 2007. Debating the Direction of Comparative Politics: An Analysis of Leading Journals. Comparative Political Studies 1 (40):5-31. Nohlen, Dieter. 1994. Vergleichende Methode. In Lexikon der Politik: Politikwissenschaftliche Methoden. Band 2, edited by J. Kriz, D. Nohlen and R.-O. Schultze. München: C.H. Beck. Patzelt, Werner J. 2005. Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen sozialwissenschaftlichen Vergleichens. In Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft, edited by S. Kropp and M. Minkenberg. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative Politics: Theory and Methods. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Pickel, Susanne, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, and Detlef Jahn, eds. 2003. Vergleichende politikwissenschaftliche Methoden: Neue Entwicklungen und Diskussionen. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pickel, Susanne, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, and Detlef Jahn, eds. 2008. Neuere Entwicklungen und Anwendungen auf dem Gebiet der Methoden der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VSVerlag. Plümper, Thomas. 2003. Publikationstätigkeit und Rezeptionserfolg der deutschen Politikwissenschaft in internationalen Journalen, 1990-2002. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 44 (4):529-544. Przeworski, Adam. 1987. Methods of Cross-National Research, 1970-83. An Overview. In Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience, edited by M. Dierkes and H. N. Weiler. Aldershot: Gower. Przeworski, Adam. 2007. Is the Science of Comparative Politics Possible? In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, edited by C. Boix and S. C. Stokes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Przeworski, Adam, and Henry Teune. 1982. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

18

Detlef Jahn

Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rickert, Heinrich. 1921. Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung: Eine logische Einleitung in die historischen Wissenschaften. 4. Auflage ed. Tübingen: Mohr. Sartori, Giovanni. 1991. Comparing and Miscomparing. Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (3):243-257. Smelser, Neil J. 1976. Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences, Prentice-Hall Methods of Social Science Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1967. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behaviorism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Taagepera, Rein. 2007. Predictive versus postdictive Models. European Political Science 2 (6):114-123. Tetlock, Philip, and Aaron Belkin. 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Windelband, Wilhelm. 1894. Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft. Straßburg: Heitz & Mündel.

D. Jahn ( ) Professor am Institut für Politikwissenschaft Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Regierungslehre, Universität Greifswald Baderstraße 6/7 17487 Greifswald email: [email protected]