Page 29 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes variables and relates these to each other. As in the case of the method of difference, all other
factors must be kept constant; in Mill’s words, “that we may be warranted in inferring causation
from concomitance of variations, the concomitance itself must be proved by the Method of
Difference.”
Mill’s method of concomitant variations is often claimed to be the first systematic formulation
of the modern comparative method. It should be pointed out, however, that Mill himself
thought that the methods of difference and of concomitant variations could not be applied in
the social sciences because sufficiently similar cases could not be found. He stated that their
application in political science was “completely out of the question” and branded any attempt
to do so as a “gross misconception of the mode of investigation proper to political phenomena.”
Durkheim agreed with Mill’s negative judgment: “The absolute elimination of adventitious
elements is an ideal which can not really be attained; . . . one can never be even approximately
certain that two societies agree or differ in all respects save one.” These objections are founded
on a too exacting scientific standard—what Sartori calls “over-conscious thinking.” It is important
to remember, however, that in looking for comparable cases, this standard should be
approximated as closely as possible.
The area approach appears to lend itself quite well to this way of applying the comparative
method because of the cluster of characteristics that areas tend to have in common and that can,
therefore be used as controls. But opinions on the utility of the area approach differ sharply:
Gunnar Heckscher states that “area studies are of the very essence of comparative government,”
and points out that “the number of variables, while frequently still very large, is at least
reduced in the case of a happy choice of area.” Roy C. Macridis and Richard Cox also argue
that if areas are characterized by political as well as non-political uniformities, “the area concept
will be of great value, since certain political processes will be compared between units within
the area against a common background of similar trait configuration”; they cite Latin America
as an example of an area offering the prospect of “fruitful intra– area comparison.” On the
other hand, Dank-wart A. Rustow declares in a recent article that area study is “almost obsolete,”
and he shows little faith in it as a setting for “manageable comparative study.” He argues that
“mere geographic proximity does not necessarily furnish the best basis of comparison,” and
furthermore that “comparability is a quality that is not inherent in any given set of objects;
rather it is a quality imparted to them by the observer’s perspective.” This is a compelling
argument that should be carefully considered.
It is not true that areas reflect merely geographic proximity; they tend to be similar in many
other basic respects. By means of an inductive process—a factor analysis of 54 social and
cultural variables on 82 countries—Bruce M. Russett discovered socio-culturally similar
groupings of countries, which correspond closely to areas or regions of the world as usually
defined. Comparability is indeed not inherent in any given area, but it is more likely within an
area than in a randomly selected set of countries. It seems unwise, therefore, to give up the area
approach in comparative politics. But two important provisos should be attached to this
conclusion. First, the area approach can contribute to comparative politics if it is an aid to the
comparative method, not if it becomes an end in itself. Otherwise, area study may indeed
become “a form of imprisonment.” It is against this danger that the thrust of Rustow’s argument
is directed. Second, the area approach should not be used indiscriminately, but only where it
offers the possibility of establishing crucial controls. In this respect, some of the smaller areas
may offer more advantages than the larger ones—Scandinavia, for example, which has barely
been exploited in this manner, or the Anglo-American countries, which have received greater
comparative attention (but which do not constitute an area in the literal sense).
An alternative way of maximizing comparability is to analyze a single country diachronically.
Such comparison of the same unit at different times generally offers a better solution to the
control problem than comparison of two or more different but similar units (e.g., within the
same area) at the same time, although the control can never be perfect; the same country is not
really the same at different times. A good example of diachronic comparative analysis is Charles
E. Frye’s study of the empirical relationships among the party system, the interest group

24 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY