• Comparative politics represents a shift towards the expanding horizon of political science, emerging from a period of doubt and uncertainty to a higher level of understanding.
• The study has evolved from the skeptical decade of the 1950s to the determined decade of the 1960s, leading to a new perspective on the subject.
• Earlier, highly regarded areas of the discipline have lost some of their importance, while neglected areas have gained significance.
• The study of political reality has become a motivating force, pushing for new techniques and approaches to cover the entire area of politics.
• The focus has shifted from studying government to studying governments, emphasizing decision-making processes across various domains such as United Nations, parish councils, trade unions, papal conclaves, board rooms, and tribes.
• The importance of comparative politics lies in the experimentation with new approaches, definitions, and research tools.
• A significant reason for the shift is the disappointment with the traditional descriptive approach to the subject, leading to intellectual ferment and the search for more effective ways of studying politics.

Comparative Politics: Meaning, Nature and Scope: Emergence of the ‘New Science of Politics’

• Politics is a continuous, timeless, ever-changing, and universal activity, primarily focused on decision-making to address and solve predicaments.
• It arises from a special kind of activity, a human behavior, involving political action, where individuals engage in decisions that affect collective issues.
• Political scientists define political action in varying ways, leading to distinctions such as conservative, traditionalist, or modernist.
• Oakeshott defines political activity as involving individuals in a civil association, proposing changes, persuading others, and acting to promote those changes.
• David Easton views political activity as an action for the authoritative allocation of values.
• Harold Lasswell and Robert Dahl describe political activity as a special case of power exercise.
• Jean Blondel emphasizes decision-making in political activity.
• Oakeshott also highlights that political activity is like sailing a boundless and bottomless sea, with no fixed destination, focusing on maintaining balance.
• In comparative politics, the term “politics” encompasses three connotations: political activity, political process, and political power.
• Political activity involves efforts to create and resolve conflicts, often relating to the interests of the people in the struggle for power.
• The resolution of conflicts can occur through tension-reduction mechanisms, whether permanent or reserve mechanisms in times of crisis.
• Conflict arises from the disparity between the values desired by people and those held by those in power, creating a need for political action.
• Government is responsible for resolving conflicts but must prevent the breakdown of the polity, as politics ceases when secession or civil war occurs.
• Political activity stops when a political rest is achieved, whether through spontaneous unanimity or imposed consensus.
• Political process extends political activity, encompassing agencies involved in decision-making, including non-state entities that influence government decisions.
• Finer asserts that private associations’ success is maximized with state power behind them, making their struggle public, either to influence or become the government.
• Comparative politics also studies the interaction between state and non-state associations, exploring their influence on one another.
• Blondel suggests examining the stages in which government allocates values, from formulation to decision-making and implementation.
• Political power is central in comparative politics and has various definitions, including Carl J. Friedrich’s view as a human relationship and Tawney’s as the ability to modify the conduct of others.
• Lasswell links power to decision-making, where decisions influence others’ policies and actions.
• Politics, therefore, involves the exercise of power, attempting to change others’ conduct to align with one’s interests.
• Power in politics is a spectrum of external influences shaping behavior to achieve specific outcomes.
• The study of power in politics widens comparative politics, including analysis of governing elites, ruling class, and the infrastructure of political systems.
• Politics is often studied through the lens of authority, where democratic systems justify power through consensus, while totalitarian systems rely on coercion.
• A key principle of comparative politics: Where consensus is weak, coercion tends to be strong, and vice versa.
• Politics in comparative politics is now defined empirically, free from normative constraints, and focuses on the exercise of power.
• The study of politics involves understanding how power is obtained, exercised, controlled, and the context in which decisions are made, as described by Curtis.

Growth of Comparative Politics: From Unsophisticated to Increasingly Sophisticated Directions

• The study of comparative politics became significant in the 1950s when American political scientists aimed to transform the field from studying foreign governments to analyzing political systems.
• The development of comparative politics can be categorized into three phases: unsophisticated, sophisticated, and increasingly sophisticated.
• Early contributions came from thinkers like Aristotle, Machiavelli, de Tocqueville, Bryce, Ostrogorski, and Weber, who used the comparative method to understand political organizations and their functions.
• The comparative method aimed to find ideal types and progressive forces of political history through comparisons of different polities.
• John Stuart Mill and Lord James Bryce emphasized the importance of the comparative method, which allowed for identifying causal relationships in political systems.
• Samuel H. Beer, M. Hass, Bernard Ulam, and Roy C. Macridis were part of the sophisticated phase where they applied the comparative method with greater rigor and self-awareness, focusing on political systems rather than just governments.
• Writers in the sophisticated phase introduced various strategies for comparison, such as area studies, configurative approach, and institutional comparisons, and addressed challenges like conceptualization, cross-cultural difficulties, and data availability.
• The increasingly sophisticated phase involved scholars like David Easton, Gabriel A. Almond, Robert A. Dahl, and Sidney Verba, who used complex concepts to analyze political systems in a more systematic manner.
• This phase introduced concepts such as inputs, outputs, feedback, and autonomy in the analysis of political systems.
• The analytical and empirical investigation methods have expanded the field, clearing up previous ambiguities in the study of politics and focusing on both normative and descriptive concerns.
• Comparative politics now includes the study of infrastructure, not just formal governmental structures, by examining patterns of behavior and practices that shape political systems.
• The role of political parties, pressure groups, and social forces has become as important as that of executives and legislatures in understanding modern political systems.
• There is an increasing focus on the politics of developing societies, recognizing the significance of studying developing political systems alongside developed ones, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
• Scholars emphasize the need to build theories and models for the preservation and development of democracy in new nations, given the fragility of their political systems.
• The inter-disciplinary approach in comparative politics incorporates insights from sociology, psychology, economics, and anthropology, enriching the field with more complex analysis tools.
• Topics like political development, modernization, socialization, and leadership are studied with insights from disciplines beyond political science.
• The rise of value-free political theory in comparative politics marks a shift from normative concerns to empirical investigations focused on real-world political systems, where values are studied in an empirical rather than a normative sense.
• The study of comparative politics has broadened, focusing on global political systems, particularly in developing countries and those emerging from decolonization.
• The field has become more diversified and globalized, reflecting the political dynamics in non-western societies and the interaction between state and non-state actors.
• Following the end of the socialist world, the study of comparative politics has become more focused on how to build democracy in regions where it is not indigenous, emphasizing decolonization and democratization.
• Neo-institutionalism, a term coined by Apter, integrates traditional institutionalism with a focus on developmentalism, highlighting the study of growth and the challenges of political change in underdeveloped countries.

Comparative Politics and Comparative Government: Case of Identities and Similarities in Basic Implications

• The terms comparative politics and comparative government are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings.
• Comparative government focuses on a comparative study of political systems, especially their institutions and functions.
• Comparative politics has a broader scope, encompassing not only the study of political systems but also non-state politics, such as political processes and the influence of sociological, psychological, and economic factors.
• Sidney Verba suggests that comparative politics should extend beyond description and focus on theoretical problems, examining political processes and functions beyond formal institutions and including new nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
• Curtis explains that comparative politics looks at regularities, similarities, and differences in political institutions and behavior, requiring empirical data and research techniques like sampling and experimentation.
• Curtis stresses that the goal is not to seek certainty or predictability but to create explanatory hypotheses and acknowledge that political phenomena cannot always be quantified, especially mood changes in politics.
• The term comparative politics is preferred over comparative government due to its broader and more comprehensive scope.
• Blondel identifies two aspects of comparative government: horizontal (study of national governments) and vertical (study of the state and other political associations and groups). He argues that comparative government becomes comparative politics when both aspects are considered.
• Edward Freeman distinguishes between comparative government (focus on political institutions and forms of government) and comparative politics (study of analogies across times and countries, emphasizing essential likeness of institutions).
• A cautious approach is needed in comparative politics to avoid oversimplification and ensure that useful aspects of comparison are not ignored.
• According to Roberts, a narrower conception of comparative politics can lack clarity in identity and criteria for selection and exclusion.
• Eckstein and Apter warn that an overly broad conception of comparative politics could expand it to encompass all of political science.

Comparative Method in Comparative Politics: An Instrument for Making Comparisons in Search for Theory- Building and Testing in Political Science

• The comparative method is essential to the study of comparative politics as it helps in comparing political systems to build and test political theories.
• This method is used in a specific sense, emphasizing both macro and micro aspects of political systems, or the vertical and horizontal dimensions as described by Blondel.
• Unlike classical political theorists like Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Montesquieu, modern comparative politics uses the method to develop general theories about political systems.
• Wood asserts that the purpose of including “comparative” in the field is to treat political systems as units for comparison in the broader pursuit of theory-building and testing in political science.
• The comparative method in comparative politics has three main characteristics: definition of conceptual units, classifications, and hypothesis formulation and testing.
• Conceptual units are defined to compare political systems, and these units go beyond formal structures like the legislature, executive, and judiciary to include elements such as the behavior of legislators, voters, and the role of political parties and pressure groups.
• Students of comparative politics are concerned with the conceptual units that define the whole system, studying smaller elements only to understand the system as a whole.
• Taxonomy plays a key role in comparative politics, aiding in the creation of broad generalizations about complex phenomena by categorizing political systems based on characteristics like federal vs. unitary systems, parliamentary vs. presidential systems, and democratic vs. totalitarian systems.
• Comparative politics often includes typological classifications to make sense of the variety in political systems, ensuring categories are neither too broad nor too narrow for comparison.
• Finer’s dimensions of political systems—participation-exclusion, coercion-persuasion, and order-representativeness—help in differentiating political systems.
• In comparative politics, hypothesis formulation and testing are vital for analyzing how political systems respond to popular demands, handle external pressures, manage internal crises, and produce effective leadership.
• Questions related to the stability, support, and institutional response of political systems need to be addressed through empirical investigation, aiming for verifiable and applicable theories.
• The comparative method in comparative politics requires that general principles are derived while accounting for diverse conditions like economic, social, moral, and legal standards, as well as the temperament and genius of the people.
• A writer or researcher in comparative politics must carefully define the conceptual units and ensure their theories are empirically sound and testable.
• Ultimately, the comparative method is crucial to understanding and improving political systems, demanding careful attention to the diverse contexts in which they function.

Critical Appraisal: Problems and Prospects of Scientific Analysis in Comparative Politics

• The study of comparative politics faces numerous challenges that hinder scientific analysis, including the problem of defining concepts and terms with precision. Sartori’s concept of “conceptual stretching” highlights how leading writers use different concepts based on their expertise, making accurate comparisons difficult.
• Many political terms in comparative politics suffer from ambiguity and are often used as political rhetoric, which complicates the field and creates the fear of neologism.
• Data collection on political systems and related non-state institutions is difficult due to the range and character of background variables, the role of norms, institutions, and behaviour in governments, and challenges in cross-cultural studies. Many important matters are hard to measure accurately, making them difficult for precise comparison.
• Political behaviour is not always rational or based on scientific principles, which makes it harder to study and analyze scientifically.
• A value-free approach in political science can cause problems for those with a normative approach, as terms may carry different meanings. For instance, systems analysis is considered unsystematic by Marxist-Leninist theorists, and the term “development” varies between bourgeois and Marxist interpretations.
• The complexity of political systems and behaviours makes it difficult to apply one-size-fits-all explanations. No single factor like love for power or charisma can explain the diversity of political systems and behaviours.
• The roles of individuals in politics cannot be subject to uniform rules. For example, the political behaviour of the English cannot be directly compared to that of people in Ghana or Indonesia.
• Much of comparative politics focuses on the stability and maintenance of political systems, based on the assumption that power is conservative. However, political systems undergo change, and ignoring this aspect of change creates difficulties in comparative analysis.
• The use of an inter-disciplinary approach has expanded the scope of comparative politics, leading to uncertainty about what the subject should include and exclude.
• These challenges highlight that comparative politics cannot be treated as a purely scientific field without precise concept construction. It lacks the tools for comparative inquiry to make universal political truths.
• Sartori argues that no comparative science of politics is plausible globally unless we have extensive and precise information for meaningful comparison.
• The inter-disciplinary approach, while valuable, can make the study of politics overly complex and diminish its autonomous character, reducing it to a satellite of sociology, where political activity is seen as determined by societal forces.
• Despite these challenges, the study of comparative politics is not impossible, and it explains why developing a general theory is difficult. Recent political scientists have developed theories to compare political systems more precisely, considering not just structures but also infra-structures.
• Blondel suggests that rather than defining political boundaries strictly, it is more useful to think in terms of lines or channels that activate the government. This approach allows for a more flexible and practical study of politics.
• Curtis affirms that the study of comparative politics is central to contemporary political science, underlining its importance despite the challenges it faces.

Comparative politics is the subfield of political science that involves the systematic analysis, comparison, and study of various political systems, institutions, processes, behaviors, and outcomes across different countries or regions. This discipline seeks to identify patterns, similarities, and differences among political entities in order to develop insights, theories, and generalizations about political phenomena and their underlying causes. By examining and comparing different cases, comparative politics aims to provide a deeper understanding of how political systems function and how they respond to challenges within diverse cultural, historical, and social contexts.

The primary goal of comparative politics is to identify patterns, trends, and factors that influence political outcomes in different countries. Researchers in this field often compare different countries or regions to draw insights and develop theories about political phenomena. By comparing different cases, scholars can identify general principles and causal relationships that may shed light on the functioning of political systems and the factors that shape them.

According to John Blondel, comparative politics is “the study of patterns of national governments in the contemporary world”.

M.G. Smith described that “Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change”.

E.A Freeman stated that “Comparative Politics is comparative analysis of the various forms of govt. and diverse political institutions”.

Comparative politics can encompass a wide range of topics, including:

1. 1. Political Institutions: Comparative politics studies the structures of government, including systems such as democracies, autocracies, and hybrid regimes. It examines the roles and powers of various branches of government, electoral systems, and legal frameworks.
   2. Political Culture and Behavior: This area focuses on citizen attitudes, political participation, voting behavior, and political ideologies. It explores how cultural and social factors influence political preferences and actions.
   3. Public Policy: Comparative politics analyzes how different countries develop and implement policies to address challenges in areas such as economics, healthcare, education, and social welfare.
   4. State-Society Relations: This topic explores the interaction between governments and civil society, including social movements, interest groups, and non-governmental organizations.
   5. Conflict and Cooperation: Comparative politics examines the causes of domestic and international conflicts, as well as mechanisms for conflict resolution and cooperation between nations.
   6. Development and Governance: Scholars study how different political systems impact economic development, governance effectiveness, and the distribution of resources.

Evolution

The evolution of comparative politics as a subfield within political science has undergone several key stages over time. While the following overview is not exhaustive, it highlights some of the significant developments and shifts that have shaped the field’s progression:

1. Early Foundations and Area Studies (19th Century – Early 20th Century): Comparative politics has roots dating back to the 19th century, where scholars like Alexis de Tocqueville and Max Weber made comparative observations about political systems. This early stage often focused on studying individual countries or regions in isolation, emphasizing cultural and historical factors.
2. Modernization Theory and Behavioralism (Mid-20th Century): In the mid-20th century, the field began to evolve with the emergence of modernization theory and behavioralism. Scholars sought to identify universal patterns of political development and behavior across different countries, focusing on factors such as economic development, industrialization, and citizen attitudes. Comparative studies were conducted with an aim to discover generalizable principles.
3. Institutionalism and Structured Comparisons (1960s – 1970s): During this period, there was a growing emphasis on examining political institutions and their impact on political behavior and outcomes. Comparative politics increasingly used structured and systematic methods to compare political systems, focusing on variables such as electoral systems, party systems, and executive-legislative relations.
4. Critiques and Cultural Turn (1980s – 1990s): The 1980s and 1990s saw a shift toward critiques of the assumptions underlying comparative politics. Scholars questioned the applicability of Western theories to non-Western contexts and highlighted the importance of cultural, historical, and contextual factors in shaping political outcomes. This period saw the rise of postcolonial and feminist perspectives within the field.
5. New Institutionalism and Rational Choice (Late 20th Century): The late 20th century witnessed the rise of new institutionalism and rational choice approaches within comparative politics. These perspectives focused on formal political institutions and their role in shaping political behavior and outcomes. Rational choice theory emphasized the rational calculations of individuals in making political decisions.
6. Globalization and Complex Interdependence (Late 20th Century – 21st Century): As globalization intensified, comparative politics expanded its focus to include the study of international factors that influence domestic politics. This period saw increased attention to topics such as transnational issues, global governance, and the impact of international organizations on state behavior.
7. Methodological Innovations and Mixed Methods (21st Century): Contemporary comparative politics continues to evolve with the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Scholars often employ mixed-method approaches to gain a more comprehensive understanding of complex political phenomena. Additionally, the field increasingly engages with interdisciplinary approaches, incorporating insights from sociology, anthropology, economics, and other disciplines.

Throughout its evolution, comparative politics has become more inclusive, recognizing the diversity of political systems and the importance of context in shaping political outcomes. The field remains dynamic, adapting to changes in the global political landscape and incorporating new theoretical perspectives and methodological tools.

Comparative governments vs Comparative politics

Comparative governments and comparative politics are closely related subfields within political  science that share similarities but also have distinct focuses and objectives. Here’s a comparison between the two:

1. Scope and Focus:

• Comparative Governments: This subfield primarily focuses on the examination of the structures, functions, and dynamics of various governmental systems. It delves into the specific institutions, branches of government, and decision-making processes within different political systems.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics, on the other hand, takes a broader approach by analyzing not only governmental structures but also the entire political landscape, including institutions, political behavior, public policies, political culture, and more.

2. Level of Analysis:

• Comparative Governments: This subfield often employs a micro-level analysis, zooming in on the details of specific government institutions, such as executive offices, legislatures, and judiciaries.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics operates at a more macro-level, considering a range of factors that influence the functioning of political systems. It includes the interactions between various political institutions and actors.

3. Emphasis:

• Comparative Governments: The main emphasis here is on the structural aspects of government, such as the design of constitutions, forms of executive leadership, types of legislatures, and judicial systems.
• Comparative Politics: This subfield emphasizes the broader study of political systems, their interactions, and their outcomes. It looks at how political institutions, behavior, and culture interact and influence one another.

4. Questions Addressed:

• Comparative Governments: Researchers in this subfield may address questions related to how different forms of government (e.g., presidential vs. parliamentary) affect policy-making, governance, and decision-making.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics researchers address a wide range of questions, including the study of political ideologies, public opinion, social movements, political parties, electoral systems, and the impact of globalization on political systems.

5. Methodology:

• Comparative Governments: Research in this subfield often involves in-depth analysis of specific government structures and institutions using case studies, interviews, and document analysis.
• Comparative Politics: Research methods in comparative politics vary widely and can include both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Researchers may use cross-national statistical analysis, surveys, ethnography, and historical research to explore political phenomena.

6. Interdisciplinary Connections:

• Comparative Governments: While still rooted in political science, comparative governments may have stronger connections to legal studies and constitutional law due to its focus on government structures.
• Comparative Politics: Comparative politics often integrates insights from various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, economics, and international relations, to provide a more holistic understanding of political systems.

In summary, while both comparative governments and comparative politics involve the study of political systems, the former focuses more narrowly on governmental structures and processes, whereas the latter takes a broader approach encompassing a wider range of political phenomena and interactions.

Nature of Comparative politics

The nature of comparative politics is characterized by its interdisciplinary approach, its focus on cross-national analysis, and its exploration of the diverse elements that shape political systems and behaviors. Here are some key aspects that highlight the nature of comparative politics:

1. Interdisciplinary Approach: Comparative politics draws on insights and methodologies from various disciplines, including political science, sociology, anthropology, economics, history, and more. This interdisciplinary approach helps provide a comprehensive understanding of political systems by considering cultural, historical, economic, and social factors.
2. Cross-National Analysis: At its core, comparative politics involves the systematic comparison of political systems, institutions, behaviors, and outcomes across different countries or regions. This cross-national analysis allows researchers to identify patterns, similarities, and differences that shed light on the functioning of political systems and the factors that influence them.
3. Contextual Sensitivity: Comparative politics recognizes the importance of context in shaping political outcomes. It acknowledges that political systems are embedded within specific cultural, historical, and social contexts, and therefore, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate. This sensitivity to context contributes to a more nuanced understanding of political phenomena.
4. Theory Development: Comparative politics aims to develop theories and generalizations about political behavior and outcomes. By systematically comparing different cases, researchers can identify underlying causal mechanisms and principles that explain why certain political phenomena occur. These theories contribute to the broader body of knowledge in political  science.
5. Methodological Pluralism: Comparative politics employs a wide range of research methods to explore political systems. Researchers use both quantitative methods (statistical analysis, surveys) and qualitative methods (case studies, ethnography) to gather data and generate insights. The choice of method often depends on the research question and the nature of the phenomena being studied.
6. Focus on Political Institutions and Behavior: Comparative politics examines not only the formal structures of political institutions (such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries) but also the behavior of political actors, including citizens, political parties, interest groups, and elites. This dual focus provides a comprehensive view of how political systems function.
7. Globalization and Interdependence: The nature of comparative politics has evolved to reflect the increasing interconnectedness of the world. Scholars now examine how international factors, such as globalization, trade, migration, and international organizations, impact domestic political systems and policies.
8. Diversity of Political Systems: Comparative politics recognizes the diversity of political systems around the world. It encompasses the study of democracies, autocracies, hybrid regimes, federal systems, and various other governance structures. This diversity allows for a more inclusive understanding of political realities.
9. Practical Relevance: Comparative politics has practical implications for policymakers, international relations, and global governance. Insights gained from cross-national analysis can inform policy decisions, aid in conflict resolution, and contribute to a deeper understanding of global political dynamics.

In essence, the nature of comparative politics involves exploring the complexities of political systems through a multi-faceted lens, considering context, theory, methodology, and interdisciplinary perspectives to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of political phenomena.

Scope of comparative politics

The scope of comparative politics is broad and encompasses a wide range of topics, issues, and areas of inquiry. It involves the systematic study and analysis of political systems, institutions, behaviors, and outcomes across different countries or regions. Here are some key areas that fall within the scope of comparative politics:

1. Political Institutions: Comparative politics examines various political institutions such as executive branches, legislatures, judiciaries, and local governments. It explores how these institutions are structured, how they interact, and how they shape political processes and outcomes.
2. Forms of Government: The scope includes the study of different forms of government, including democracies, autocracies, monarchies, and hybrid regimes. It investigates how these forms of government function, their strengths, weaknesses, and the impact they have on citizens’ lives.
3. Political Behavior: Comparative politics explores political behavior, including voting patterns, political participation, public opinion, and political ideologies. It seeks to understand why individuals and groups make certain political choices and how these choices impact the political system.
4. Political Parties and Electoral Systems: This area focuses on the role of political parties, their organization, ideologies, and electoral strategies. Comparative politics also examines various electoral systems, such as proportional representation and first-past-the-post, and how they influence representation and governance.
5. Public Policy: The scope includes the study of public policies across different countries, including social welfare, healthcare, education, economic policies, and environmental regulations. Researchers analyze policy formulation, implementation, and the effects of policies on societies.
6. Political Culture and Identity: Comparative politics investigates the cultural and identity-based factors that influence political behavior and attitudes. It explores how cultural norms, traditions, and historical experiences shape citizens’ perceptions of politics and their engagement with the political process.
7. Conflict and Cooperation: This area focuses on domestic and international conflict, negotiation, diplomacy, and conflict resolution. Comparative politics examines the causes of conflicts, how different political systems manage conflicts, and the role of international actors in mediating disputes.
8. Globalization and Transnational Issues: The scope of comparative politics has expanded to include the study of how globalization impacts political systems. This includes analyzing the effects of global trade, migration, communication, and the role of international organizations on domestic politics.
9. State-Society Relations: Comparative politics explores the interactions between governments and civil society, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), social movements, interest groups, and advocacy networks. It examines how these interactions influence policy-making and political change.
10. Development and Governance: The field studies the relationship between political systems and economic development, examining how different governance structures impact economic growth, poverty reduction, and inequality.
11. Institutional Design and Reform: Comparative politics also delves into the design and reform of political institutions. It examines how constitutional design, electoral reforms, and institutional changes can influence political stability and democratic governance.
12. Regime Transitions and Democratization: The scope includes the study of regime changes, transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, and democratic consolidation. It analyzes the factors that facilitate or hinder the establishment and maintenance of democratic political systems.

The scope of comparative politics is not limited to these areas alone; it is a dynamic and evolving field that adapts to changes in the global political landscape and incorporates emerging issues and perspectives. By systematically comparing different cases, comparative politics contributes to our understanding of political systems, their interactions, and the factors that shape their outcomes.

Conclusion

Overall, the evolution of comparative politics reflects its adaptability to changing theoretical paradigms, methodological innovations, and the complex global political landscape. As the field continues to evolve, it remains a crucial avenue for understanding political systems’ dynamics and contributing to the broader discourse on governance, democracy, and international relations.

• The study of comparative politics is both significant and interesting because of the diverse approaches, methods, and techniques used to understand and explain political reality.
• Leading writers in the field hold divergent points of view and adopt different ways of studying politics, which leads to the use of various terms like approaches, methods, techniques, models, paradigms, and strategies, often seen as inter-related or synonymous.
• The existence and utilization of several approaches in the study of politics create a complex framework for analysis and understanding.
• Different approaches to studying politics have had periods of dominance, but their influence often wanes as new approaches emerge to take their place.
• The differences between various approaches are significant, and the debate among their proponents has been intense, with each group striving to prove the superiority of their chosen approach.

Meaning and Nature of ‘Approach’: Similarity and Distinction with Related Themes

• An approach is a way of looking at and explaining a phenomenon, which can range from a broad global perspective to a more focused study of local, regional, national, or international politics.
• Approaches involve the collection, selection of evidence, and the analysis of a hypothesis for academic purposes, and consist of criteria for selecting the problems or questions to consider and the data to include or exclude.
• Approaches and methods are closely inter-related. While an approach involves criteria for selecting problems and data, a method refers to the procedures for obtaining and utilizing that data.
• Methods may involve epistemological assumptions and operations for acquiring and processing data. Modern political science often borrows methods from other disciplines like economics, psychology, sociology, biology, and anthropology to address political study challenges.
• A method may also be referred to as a technique, but a technique is often more routine and mechanical, requiring less imaginative intelligence once mastered.
• An approach is distinguishable from a theory. While an approach determines the way of generalization, explanation, prediction, and prescription (all functions of a theory), it serves as the precursor to a theory.
• Theory is a more abstract or generalized statement summarizing the actions of variables, and it may be macro or micro in scale.
• Approach becomes a theory when it extends beyond simply selecting problems and data, leading to the formation of more generalizable principles.
• Paradigm is a framework of ideas that sets the context of analysis, combining philosophical assumptions and criteria of valid knowledge.
• Theory is a generalized statement summarizing the actions of dependent, independent, or intervening variables within specific conditions or parameters.
• Method organizes a theory for application to data and can be comparative, configurational, historical, simulative, or experimental.
• Technique links method to relevant data, representing various ways of observing and recording empirical information, such as sampling, opinion testing, interviewing, and regression analysis.
• Model is a simplified description of relationships, constructed from a paradigm, theory, method, or technique. Models may be typological, descriptive, formal, mechanical, organismic, or biological.
• Strategy is the way of applying one or more of the above methods and techniques to a research problem, requiring quality and integrity in combining theory, methods, and techniques systematically.
• Research Design is the operational plan for fieldwork or an experiment, converting strategy into a concrete plan for research.
• In comparative politics, many related themes like paradigm, method, model, and strategy are often used synonymously to present an empirical study of politics.
• The purpose of using a new methodology in politics is to adopt new techniques for acquiring knowledge, new criteria for judging the validity of knowledge, and new analytical tools to improve the precision and logical inference in political analysis.

Traditional Approaches: Emphasis on Value-Laden Study of Politics

• Approaches to the study of politics can be broadly classified into normative and empirical categories.
• Normative approaches are value-laden, emphasizing values, goals, and prescriptions in political analysis.
• Empirical approaches are value-neutral, focusing on facts, data, and objective analysis of political phenomena.
• The fact-value relationship is the basis for this classification, with traditional approaches prioritizing values and empirical approaches focusing on facts.
• The fact-value dichotomy determines the distinction between normative and empirical approaches.
• Traditional approaches have a historical-descriptive and prescriptive character, dominated by values and goals, focusing on how political systems should ideally function.
• Normative approaches stress how politics ought to be, aiming to set standards or ideals for political behavior and systems.

Philosophical Approach

• The oldest approach to the study of politics is the philosophical or ethical approach.
• This approach intertwines the study of state, government, and man as a political being with the pursuit of goals, morals, truths, or high principles.
• The philosophical approach assumes a speculative character, focusing on clarifying thought about the nature of the subject and about ends and means.
• The aim is to enhance linguistic clarity and reduce linguistic confusion by making conceptions of reality clear, consistent, coherent, and helpful.
• Thinkers following this approach seek to influence and guide thinking, ensuring that politics is made intelligible.
• Writers like Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Green, Bosanquet, Nettleship, Lindsay, and Leo Strauss elevate political study to a high level of abstraction and link it to higher norms of an ideal political system.
• Normativism dominates in this approach, contrasting with the empiricism found in classical works like those of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu.
• These classical writers integrate political study with ethics, history, psychology, or law to present the picture of an ideal political community.
• The philosophical approach is criticized for being speculative and abstract, moving away from the world of reality.
• It is seen as hypothetical, especially with thinkers like Kant and Hegel who elevate the state to mystical heights, turning politics into a handmaid of ethics or metaphysics.
• Critics argue that the focus shifts from how things are to how they ought to be.
• Leo Strauss and Berlin defend the philosophical approach, asserting that values are an indispensable part of political philosophy and cannot be excluded from the study of politics.
• Strauss emphasizes that the goal of acquiring knowledge of the good life and the good society makes political philosophy emerge.

Historical Approach

• The historical approach focuses on the past or a specific period and sequence of events to explain political institutions, understanding them in terms of their historical development and evolution.
• It emphasizes the importance of knowing what institutions have been and how they came to be, rather than analyzing them solely in their current state.
• Scholars using this approach view politics as a genetic process, focusing on how institutions evolved over time based on human actions, motives, and historical contingencies.
• The historical approach assumes that political theory arises from socio-economic crises and their impact on great thinkers’ minds.
• Historical evidence is crucial in understanding the development of political thought, as the conditions of particular times and places influence the ideas of political philosophers.
• For instance, ancient Greece produced thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, seventeenth-century England led to Hobbes and Locke, and the capitalist system of the 19th century shaped thinkers like Mill and Marx.
• Understanding the time, place, and circumstances in which political theories evolved is essential for comprehending political thought.
• Political philosophers may not directly participate in political events, but they are influenced by them and strive to influence politics through their ideas.
• Sabine notes that great political theories are often produced during political and social crises.
• The historical approach to political questions varies depending on the scholar’s chosen range, for example, Machiavelli used history to exalt Roman records and inspire the restoration of Rome’s glory.
• Oakeshott associated the historical approach with conservatism, seeing politics as the activity of maintaining existing traditions rather than driven by sudden desires or abstract principles.
• Oakeshott emphasized that political activity in any generation primarily springs from existing traditions of behavior, with minimal focus on new changes.
• The historical approach has weaknesses, including superficial resemblances in historical parallels, which can sometimes mislead.
• James Bryce warned that historical parallels could be misleading, and Ernest Barker compared them to a maze with many unpredictable paths rather than a clear direction.
• Scholars using the historical approach may focus on a specific path, potentially ignoring other relevant aspects, and may let personal biases influence their interpretation.
• Despite its weaknesses, the historical approach remains valuable for understanding the evolution of political theory across various periods.
• Works by scholars such as G.H. Sabine, R.G. Gettell, W.A. Dunning, C.C. Maxey, T.I. Cook, R.J. Carlyle, G.E.G. Catlin, and C.E. Vaughan have contributed significantly to this approach.
• The historical approach is key to understanding the development of political thinkers from Plato and Aristotle to St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, and Laski.
• The universal character of political theory can be traced to its deep roots in historical traditions.

Institutional Approach

• The institutional approach to the study of politics focuses on the formal structures of political organizations, such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
• This approach is evident in the writings of political scientists from Aristotle and Polybius in ancient times to Bryce and Finer in modern periods.
• Modern writers, however, have expanded the scope of this approach to include the party system as a significant component, often referred to as the “fourth estate.”
• Contemporary scholars such as Bentley, Truman, Latham, and V.O. Key, Jr. further broaden the scope by including interest groups as part of the infrastructure of a political system.
• The institutional approach is also known as the structural approach because it emphasizes the structures within a political system.
• Key scholars in the institutional/structural approach include Walter Bagehot, F.A. Ogg, W.B. Munro, Herman Finer, H.J. Laski, Richard Neustadt, C.F. Strong, Bernard Crick, James Bryce, Harold Zink, Maurice Duverger, and Giovanni Sartori.
• Their works focus on the formal and informal institutional structures of political systems.
• To substantiate conclusions, a comparative study of major governmental systems, particularly from advanced Western countries, is often employed.
• The approach has been criticized for being too narrow, as it neglects the role of individuals who operate within these formal and informal structures.
• As a result, the behavioural approach has largely overshadowed the institutional approach due to its focus on individual actions and motivations.
• Another critique is that the meaning and range of an institutional system can vary depending on the scholar’s perspective, leading to inconsistencies in its application.
• Scholars who focus on governmental institutions, offices, and agencies may limit their study to organizational charts, which can reduce the study of politics to a narrow, specific focus.
• The institutional approach has also been criticized for ignoring international politics.
• For a long time, the lack of world institutions analogous to the state or government made international politics less relevant for political scientists within this approach.

Legal Approach

• The legal or juridical approach to the study of politics focuses on the relationship between politics and legal processes and institutions.
• It treats the state as the maintainer of an effective and equitable system of law and order.
• Political scientists view law and justice not merely as jurisprudence, but as central to the functioning of the state.
• The approach emphasizes the organisation, jurisdiction, and independence of judicial institutions.
• Scholars like Cicero in ancient times and Dicey in modern periods have viewed the state as primarily a corporation or juridical person.
• In this view, politics is seen as the science of legal norms, distinct from the science of the state as a social organism.
• The approach treats the state as primarily an organisation for the creation and enforcement of law.
• Thinkers such as Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, and Thomas Hobbes contributed to the development of the doctrine of sovereignty.
• Hobbes believed that the head of the state is the highest legal authority, and his commands are law, to be obeyed to avoid punishment or maintain order.
• The works of Bentham, John Austin, Savigny, Sir Henry Maine, and A.V. Dicey also contribute to the legal approach.
• This approach assumes that law prescribes permissible and forbidden actions, helping to predict political behavior, especially in law-abiding societies.
• Jellinek argued that organized society should be treated as an ensemble of public law rights and obligations, founded on logic or reason.
• The legal approach highlights the importance of law in understanding the state, but also acknowledges that extra-legal and social forces influence the state’s actions.
• Critics argue that the legal approach is narrow, as it only addresses one aspect of people’s lives and cannot fully capture the entire political system.
• The analytical jurists are criticized for reducing the political system to a juridical entity, ignoring other significant political forces.
• Political acts, such as the determination of law through legislative power, are better explained using broader political theories, rather than just a legal approach.
• The traditional approaches to political theory, including the legal approach, are often value-laden, dominated by normativism.
• Normativism in these approaches makes political theory abstract, hypothetical, and sometimes metaphysical.
• The focus of traditional approaches is to establish moral criteria of political conduct, asking fundamental questions about the state, individual rights, and the good life.

Modern Approaches: Emphasis on Fact-Laden Study of Politics

• The traditional study of politics, from philosophical, ethical, institutional-structural, historical, and legal perspectives, cannot be considered a “pure science” as suggested by modern behavioralists like David Easton.
• Normativism in traditional approaches is criticized, and there is a call for its replacement with empiricism.
• Modern approaches to political science focus on empirical investigation and the collection of relevant data to understand political phenomena.
• This shift to empiricism arises from the realization that earlier political scientists did not consider the need for integration in their studies.
• The positivism of modern political science was not anticipated by the political scientists of the traditional order.
• The old methods of study and approach were seen as age-worn, prompting a move toward more scientifically rigorous and data-driven methods.
• Modern political science emphasizes objective and factual analysis, marking a departure from the speculative nature of traditional approaches.

Sociological Approach

• The sociological approach to the study of politics has gained significant popularity in recent times.
• Eminent writers like R.M. Maclver, David Easton, and G.A. Almond emphasize that politics should be studied within its social context.
• They recognize that ample data is available in sociology to establish empirical rules for understanding political behavior.
• Influenced by sociologists like Comte, Spencer, Ratzenhofer, Weber, Parsons, and Merton, the approach views the state as more of a social than a purely political institution.
• The social whole is crucial for understanding political behavior, with individuals having a status and playing roles within it.
• The process of transmitting values across generations is termed ‘political socialization’.
• The concept of ‘political culture’ is central, referring to the totality of what individuals learn as members of society, including their ways of thinking, acting, and feeling.
• Political system stability or instability can often be traced to issues in political socialization, which manifest in the political culture.
• The sociological approach is important in the study of political development and political decay.
• As society consists of numerous associations and interest groups, this approach also suggests investigating these groups as part of the political system’s infra-structure.
• Due to its broad scope, the sociological approach includes various sub-varieties, leading some scholars to prefer the term ‘sociological approaches’.

Psychological Approach

• Political Science has become increasingly intertwined with psychology in recent times, particularly through the works of Graham Wallas, Charles Merriam, Harold D. Lasswell, R.A. Dahl, and Eric Fromm.
• In early modern times, Machiavelli and Hobbes emphasized the role of security of life and material possessions as a key motivating force, linking the desire for security with the desire for power.
• Many contemporary political scientists have borrowed concepts from psychologists like Freud, Jung, Eysenck, and McDougall to establish valid rules of political behavior.
• Politics has been studied in terms of the emotions, habits, sentiments, instincts, and ego that make up human personality.
• The concept of ‘power’ has become a central focus in political science, with scholars like W.A. Robson treating political science primarily as the study of power in society.
• Robson argues that political science is concerned with power, its nature, basis, scope, and results, focusing on the struggle for power and influence over others.
• Fredrick M. Watkins expands this, stating that the study of power extends beyond the state or institutions to include all associations exhibiting power dynamics.
• Harold Lasswell defines politics as the study of influence and the influential, equating power with influence.
• This approach is known as the ‘power approach’ to the study of politics.

Economic Approach

• Matters related to the production and distribution of goods are primarily economic but are closely linked to the political process due to the state’s role in regulating them.
• The development of liberalism, socialism, and communism stems from different interpretations of the state’s role in regulating economic matters.
• Notable political scientists such as Mill, Marx, Mitchell, Schumpeter, and Friedman have made significant contributions to political economy.
• Karl Marx is the most prominent figure in political economy, building his political theory on a critique of the capitalist system.
• Marx’s famous assertion: “The mode of production of the material means of existence condition the whole process of social, political, and intellectual life.“
• Engels emphasized that “The ultimate cause of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought not in the minds of men—but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in philosophy but in the economics of the period concerned.“

Quantitative Approach

• Also known as statistical approach, this method uses numerical data to bring precision to the study of political phenomena.
• It emphasizes that descriptive or prescriptive analysis alone is insufficient, and the validity of a proposition can be proven using tables, charts, graphs, etc.
• Examples of areas where this approach is applied include electoral behavior, voting records, government organization, and party politics.
• Prominent writers and agencies in the U.S. that have contributed to this approach include Dr. Gallup, Charles Merriam, Harold Gosnell, Paul Lazarsfield, and Samuell Lubell.
• In Britain, the Nuffield College election surveys analyze the votes shared by each party and their representation in the House of Commons.
• Scholars like R.S. Milne and H.C. Mackenzie have conducted election surveys to study voting patterns across constituencies.
• The approach requires not just specialized expertise, but a habit of quantifying generalizations and testing them through simple numerical analyses of political activities.
• It is essential to strike a balance between overuse of statistics and ignoring them altogether.

Systems Approach

• The systems approach has gained popularity, with a focus on systems defined as “bounded regions in space-time,” involving energy interchange among parts in functional relationships with their environments.
• Influenced by biological sciences, sociologists like Parsons conceptualized social systems, which were later adopted by political scientists like David Easton and G.A. Almond to develop the idea of a political system.
• The general systems theory aims to integrate knowledge, treating all systems as inter-related, reducing duplication of efforts, and viewing parts of a system (sub-systems) as interconnected, not isolated.
• The theory applies to all kinds of systems, from atomic sub-systems to galaxies, promoting cross-cultural and interdisciplinary studies.
• Politics, economics, psychology, ethics, and other disciplines are viewed as sub-systems within the larger social system, each having its own structures and functions.
• Two key derivatives of the systems approach are the structural-functional approach and the input-output approach:
  • The structural-functional approach focuses on the structures and functions of each part of the system. It distinguishes between latent and manifest functions, suggesting that dysfunctional parts should be repaired or replaced.
  • The input-output approach emphasizes external inputs (forces from the environment) and outputs (decisions by those in authority). The feedback process links inputs and outputs, maintaining the system as an ongoing concern.
• Easton’s flow model of the political system illustrates the interaction between inputs, decision-making outputs, and feedback.
• Critics like Alfred Adler argue that the systems approach is too mechanical and cannot fully explain human behavior, which is not governed by the laws of mechanics.

Simulation Approach

• Contemporary political scientists have borrowed from natural sciences, cybernetics, and mathematics, with an emphasis on simulation (image-construction or model-building) in political analysis.
• Political communication approach, popularized by Karl Deutsch, focuses on how one part of a system sends messages or transmits information to other parts, resulting in a feedback process that coordinates efforts towards achieving specific goals.
• In this approach, politics and government are seen as processes of steering and coordinating human efforts to attain set goals.
• The decision-making approach focuses on the characteristics of decision-makers, the influence of groups or individuals who affect decisions, and the situations in which decisions are made.
• Game theory, an allied approach, uses mathematical models to develop strategies that help decision-makers make the best possible decisions in competing or conflicting situations. Simplifications include:
  • Few alternatives to choose from,
  • Known criteria for all parties,
  • Assumption of rational decision-making.
• The subject of game theory has been influenced by simplified decision-making situations, such as poker.
• Critics argue that, like the systems approach, the simulation approach is too mechanistic and abstract, oversimplifying the behavior of decision-makers by assuming they are fully rational.
• Social sciences cannot be reduced to natural sciences, and while mathematics and cybernetics may provide insight, they do not fully capture the complexities of human behavior in political reality.
• Decision-makers are human beings who often act irrationally, making it difficult for the decision-making approach or game theory to explain their behavior fully.

Behavioural Approach

• Behaviouralism emerged as a major trend in political science, particularly in the United States after World War II, focusing on the empirical study of political behaviour.
• This approach emphasized the collection and examination of facts related to the actual behaviour of individuals and groups in society.
• The American Political Science Association’s E. Kirkpatrick described the period as one of intense debate, where political behaviour became both an approach and a reform movement, sparking controversies.
• The behavioural approach is characterized by several key principles:
  • Focus on the behaviour of individuals and social groups rather than events, structures, institutions, or ideologies.
  • Aligning theory and research with fields like social psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology.
  • Emphasis on the mutual interdependence of theory and research, where theoretical questions must be operationalized for empirical testing, and findings should influence political theory.
  • A commitment to rigorous research design and precise methods to analyze political behaviour.
  • David Easton is seen as a central figure in behaviouralism, advocating for the following principles:
    • The belief that regularities exist in political behaviour that can be discovered and expressed in generalizations.
    • Such generalizations must be testable using human behaviour as the basis.
    • A recognition that the methods of acquiring and interpreting data must be examined critically.
    • Measurement and quantification should only be used when meaningful and purposeful.
    • Keeping ethical evaluation and empirical explanation separate.
    • Research should be systematic and grounded in theory.
    • Understanding and explaining political behaviour should come before its application.
    • Integration of knowledge from different social sciences is necessary.
• Criticisms of the behavioural approach include:
  • It assumes facts alone are real, ignoring the importance of universals, which provide meaning to facts.
  • It applies a flawed scientific method, where subjectivity and value-judgment cannot be entirely eliminated, limiting the objectivity of political analysis.
  • The focus on measurement and quantification reduces political science to a form of ‘mad scientism’, neglecting the importance of speculative political theory.
  • By emphasizing the social context, it portrays political science as a subdiscipline of sociology, emphasizing the influence of societal divisions on political institutions.
• Despite the criticisms, behaviouralists did not completely reject traditional approaches, but recognized their limitations, particularly their subjective, descriptive, and prescriptive nature.
• David Easton, a leading figure in behaviouralism, acknowledged the shortcomings of excessive focus on scientific methods and advocated for a shift toward post-behaviouralism.
• The post-behaviouralism movement emerged as a response, affirming the importance of norms and values in political analysis, recognizing the fact-value dichotomy and the possibility of reconciling facts with values in political science.

Marxian Approach

• The Marxian approach is fundamentally different from both traditional and modern political science approaches, although it shares certain similarities with both.
• The state in Marxian theory is seen as an inevitable result of class contradictions and is considered a temporary institution that will eventually give way to a stateless society as the final stage of social development.
• Economics plays a dominant role in the Marxian framework, with disciplines like history, sociology, psychology, and ethics viewed as offshoots of economic theory.
• Politics is viewed as deeply intertwined with the economic structure, especially in terms of the forces and relations of production.
• Marxism stresses the interconnection of economic and political forces, emphasizing that they are difficult to separate in the real world.
• The Marxian approach seeks to go beyond just the formal structures of political systems, focusing on the economic system and class structure that shape political relations.
• As economic systems evolve, they lead to changes in class relations (e.g., masters vs. slaves, feudal lords vs. serfs, capitalists vs. workers).
• The struggle for power is seen as rooted in the conflict between two antagonistic classes, with the eventual resolution being the establishment of a socialist society.
• The approach is deterministic, aiming to change the world, not just interpret it, making it akin to an ideology.
• It presents the state as an instrument of exploitation by one class over another, and the class character of the state will only end with the establishment of a classless society.
• Marxian theory envisions a communist society where individual roles and activities are not fixed, and society collectively regulates production and distribution.
• The Marxian approach applies specifically to the study of Third World politics, especially in the context of imperialistic exploitation that has historically oppressed many Afro-Asian countries.
• Instead of comparing advanced nations with newly independent countries superficially, the Marxian approach emphasizes studying the political systems of poor countries in terms of external influences (inputs) and their resulting political outputs.
• Frantz Fanon and Nikita Khrushchev support liberation wars in colonized or semi-independent regions, advocating for Marxist analysis of colonial power dynamics.
• The Marxian approach is progressive and scientific, rejecting the oppressive status quo and advocating for a new system of cooperation and harmony.
• It views politics as a manifestation of class antagonisms, with the ultimate goal being the resolution of these conflicts and the realization of human values.
• While the approach is empirical, focusing on the role of economic factors in political systems, it also takes on a normative character by advocating for social change.
• The Marxian approach provides a broad-based vision of society, with economic sub-structures and class dynamics at its core.
• The Marxian approach can be appreciated for its focus on economic factors in politics, especially when studying modern political systems using approaches like structural-functionalism, input-output models, political communication, political socialization, and political development.
• International economic forces, such as multinational corporations and transnational agencies, have a significant impact on the politics of developing countries, contributing to neo-imperialism and resulting in revolutions and counter-revolutions.
• The major criticism of the Marxian approach is its transformation into an ideology with rigid perspectives that limit scientific inquiry and flexibility, leading to the pseudo-scientism of degenerated Marxism.

Enmeshment of Traditional and Modern Approaches: David Apter’s Illustration of Certain Leading Themes

• Normativism in traditional approaches emphasizes a value-laden system, while empiricism in modern approaches focuses on a system based on facts.
• Both traditional and modern approaches contain elements of empiricism and normativism, but the main difference lies in the excessive importance given to one element over the other.
• Major approaches in political science may collide or synchronize with various fields, themes, and methodologies, regardless of whether they align with traditionalism or modernism.
• Apter’s scheme offers a framework that avoids rigid categorization of traditionalism and modernism. He argues that each major approach has its own methodological emphases and subject areas:
  • Political Philosophy focuses on establishing moral purposes, the ethical basis of the political community, and the logic behind their priority or validity. This leads to normative political theory and the evolution of the moral basis of the state.
  • Institutionalism assumes ethical priorities as given and works to realize them within the mechanisms of government. It emphasizes law and history, focusing on the evolution of government instruments such as constitutions, bureaucracies, and political parties.
  • Behaviouralism studies both the individual and the aggregate, focusing on experimental methods in group settings, decision-making processes, and organizational aspects. Topics include public opinion, voting, political psychology, and political coalitions.
  • Pluralism combines institutional and behavioural concerns, focusing on social differentiation and participation. It emphasizes democratic participation, community power, decentralization, and modes of liberal and radical participation.
  • Structuralism seeks to uncover the hidden agenda behind political actions and focuses on determining the determinants of behaviour. It emphasizes class analysis, role analysis, exchange theory, and Marxist perspectives. Topics include ideologies, change, and revolution.
  • Developmentalism focuses on political transition, studying the effects of innovation, imperialism, and instability. It examines the impact of multinational corporations and the influence of metropolitan powers on periphery countries.
• Apter’s framework, while allowing for some room for normativism, is dominated by empiricism.
• Apter believes that there is no substitute for substantive data and information, emphasizing that modern scholars often develop an aversion to abstract formulations.
• Deep knowledge and familiarity with a political area or problem reveal its complexities and the inadequacy of abstract formulas. Therefore, descriptive and intuitive methods remain essential in political science.

Concluding Observations

• Several approaches to the study of politics can be broadly categorized into traditional and modern, but there is significant overlap between them.
• Empiricism is present in classical political theorists like Aristotle, Polybius, Marx, and Tocqueville, while normativism has not been discarded by modern theorists, even in Marxism, which has a normative orientation aiming for a society based on human values.
• The label of traditionalism is not a criticism but a recognition that norms still play a crucial role in modern political studies, though not as dominant as before.
• The dichotomy between facts and values should not be overstated; values are not purely abstract or hypothetical. Critics of traditional political theory often neglect how facts support value judgments.
• While value judgments cannot be directly tested by facts, they presuppose beliefs about facts that can be indirectly tested for their alignment with reality.
• Different approaches to the study of politics are not mutually exclusive but interrelated and often overlap. For example, a sociological approach can have psychological aspects, and a simulation approach can resemble a systems approach.
• Many empirical approaches are present in the behavioural approach, which some writers prefer to call behavioural approaches.
• The distinction between traditional and modern approaches is not absolute, and both are relevant for understanding and explaining political reality. The goal is to avoid conclusions that are either too abstract or too mechanistic to be applicable to the dynamic nature of political life.
• Empiricists may remove the freshness from political science by treating politics as a soulless game, ignoring higher life purposes. The obsession with scientism, as warned by David Easton, should be avoided.
• G.E.G. Catlin wisely noted that no political theory is complete without considering the ends of action and the discussion of values.
• H.R. Greaves argued that a value-free analysis would be destructive to political theory.