Page 25 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes of establishing general empirical propositions. It is, in the first place, definitely a method, not just
“a convenient term vaguely symbolizing the focus of one’s research interests.” Nor is it a special
set of substantive concerns in the sense of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt’s definition of the comparative
approach in social research; he states that the term does not “properly designate a specific method
..., but rather a special focus on cross-societal, institutional, or macrosocietal aspects of societies
and social analysis.”
Second, the comparative method is here defined as one of the basic scientific methods, not the
scientific method. It is, therefore, narrower in scope than what Harold D. Lasswell has in mind
when he argues that “for anyone with a scientific approach to political phenomena the idea of an
independent comparative method seems redundant,” because the scientific approach is
“unavoidably comparative.” Like-wise, the definition used here differs from the very similar
broad interpretation given by Gabriel A. Almond, who also equates the comparative with the
scientific method: “It makes no sense to speak of a comparative politics in political science since if
it is a science, it goes without saying that it is comparative in its approach.“
Third, the comparative method is here regarded as a method of discovering empirical relationships
among variables, not as a method of measurement. These two kinds of methods should be clearly
distinguished. It is the latter that Kalleberg has in mind when he discusses the “logic of comparison.”
He defines the comparative method as “a form or measurement”; comparison means “nonmetrical
ordering,” or in other words, ordinal measurement. Similarly, Sartori is thinking in terms of
measurement on nominal, ordinal (or comparative), and cardinal scales when he describes the
conscious thinker as “the man that realizes the limitations of not having a thermometer and still
manages to say a great deal simply by saying hot and cold, warmer and cooler.” This important
step of measuring variables is logically prior to the step of finding relationships among them. It is
the second of these steps to which the term “comparative method” refers in this paper.
Finally, a clear distinction should be made between method and technique. The comparative method
is a broad-gauge, general method, not a narrow, specialized technique. In this vein, Gunnar
Heckscher cautiously refers to “the method (or at least the procedure) of comparison,” and Walter
Goldschmidt prefers the term comparative approach, because “it lacks the preciseness to call it a
method.” The comparative method may also be thought of as a basic research strategy, in contrast
with a mere tactical aid to research. This will become clear in the discussion that follows.

Comparative method simplifies a complex political reality and makes it more manageable.
Comparative politics brings us into contact with political worlds other than our own and
expands our political and cultural horizons.

The Experimental, Statistical, and Comparative Methods
The nature of the comparative method can be understood best if it is compared and contrasted
with the two other fundamental strategies of research; these will be referred to, following Neil J.
Smelser’s example, as the experimental and the statistical methods. All three methods (as well as
certain forms of the case study method) aim at scientific explanation, which consists of two basic
elements: (1) the establishment of general empirical relationships among two or more variables,
while (2) all other variables are controlled, that is, held constant. These two elements are inseparable:
one cannot be sure that a relationship is a true one unless the influence of other variables is
controlled. The ceteris paribus condition is vital to empirical generalizations.
The experimental method, in its simplest form, uses two equivalent groups, one of which (the
experimental group) is exposed to a stimulus while the other (the control group) is not. The two
groups are then compared, and any difference can be attributed to the stimulus. Thus one knows
the relationship between two variables—with the important assurance that no other variables
were involved, because in all respects but one the two groups were alike. Equivalence—that is, the

20 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY