Page 30 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Comparative Method and Politics

system, and political stability in Germany under the Weimar and Bonn Republics. Frye argues Notes
that “for the study of these relationships, Weimar and Bonn make a particularly good case
[strictly speaking, two cases] because there are more constants and relatively fewer variables
than in many cross-national studies. Yet the differences could hardly be sharper.”
Unless the national political system itself constitutes the unit of analysis, comparability can
also be enhanced by focusing on intranation instead of internation comparisons. The reason is
again the same: comparative intranation analysis can take advantage of the many similar
national characteristics serving as controls. Smelser illustrates the utility of this strategy with
the example of a hypothetical research project on industrialization in Germany and Italy: “For
many purposes it would be more fruitful to compare northern Italy with southern Italy, and
the Ruhr with Bavaria, than it would be to compare Germany as a whole with Italy as a whole.
These two countries differ not only in level of industrialization, but also in cultural traditions,
type of governmental structure, and so on.” The advantage of intra-unit comparison is that
inter-unit differences can be held constant. “Then, having located what appear to be operative
factors in the intra-unit comparisons, it is possible to move to the inter-unit comparisons to see
if the same differences hold in the large.”
As Juan J. Linz and Amando de Miguel point out, a particularly promising approach may be
the combination of intranation and internation comparisons: “The comparison of those sectors
of two societies that have a greater number of characteristics in common while differing on
some crucial ones may be more fruitful than overall national comparisons.” An illustrative
example of this approach in the political realm is suggested by Raoul Naroll: “If one wishes to
test theories about the difference between the cabinet and the presidential systems of government.
. . one is better advised to compare Manitoba and North Dakota than to compare Great Britain
and the United States, since with respect to all other variables Manitoba and North Dakota are
very much alike, while Great Britain and the United States have many other differences.”
4. Focus the comparative analysis on the “key” variables: Finally, the problem of “many variables”
may be alleviated not only by some of the specific approaches suggested above but also by a
general commitment to theoretical parsimony. Comparative analysis must avoid the danger of
being overwhelmed by large numbers of variables and, as a result, losing the possibility of
discovering controlled relationships, and it must therefore judiciously restrict itself to the really
key variables, omitting those of only marginal importance. The nature of the comparative
method and its special limitations constitute a strong argument against what Lass-well and
Braibanti call “configurative” or “contextual” analysis: “the identification and interpretation of
factors in the whole social order which appear to affect whatever political functions and their
institutional manifestations have been identified and listed for comparison” (Braibanti’s
definition). Lasswell argues that the comparative method as usually applied has been
insufficiently configurative, and calls for the exploration of more variables: the entire context—
past, present, and future—”must be continually scanned.”
Scanning all variables is not the same as including all variables, of course, as long as one is on
one’s guard against an unrealistic and eventually self-defeating perfectionism. Comparative
politics should avoid the trap into which the decision-making approach to the study of
international politics fell, of specifying and calling for the analysis of an exhaustive list of all
variables that have any possible influence on the decision-making process. Parsimony suggests
that Joseph LaPalombara’s call for a “segmented approach” aiming at the formulation of middle-
range propositions concerning partial systems makes a great deal of sense. Similarly, Eckstein’s
urgent call for greater manageability of the field should be carefully heeded: “The most obvious
need in the field at present is simplification—and simplification on a rather grand scale—for
human intelligence and scientific method can scarcely cope with the large numbers of variables,
the heaps of concepts, and the mountains of data that seem at present to be required, and
indeed to exist, in the field.”
It is no accident that the most fruitful applications of the comparative method have been in
anthropological research. In primitive societies, the number of variables is not as bewilderingly
large as in more advanced societies. All relevant factors can therefore be more easily surveyed

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 25