Page 33 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes from a relatively large number of cases and which is analyzed within the theoretical and empirical
context of this set of cases. The deviant case may be likened to the “experimental group” with the
remainder of the cases constituting the “control group.” Just as the analytical power of the
comparative method increases the closer it approximates the statistical and experimental methods,
so the analytical power of the case study method increases the more it approximates the comparative
method in the form of deviant case analysis. Such case analysis requires, of course, that the
position of the deviant case on the variables under consideration, and consequently also its position
relative to the other cases, are clearly defined.
The different types of cases and their unequal potential contributions to theory-building should be
kept in mind in selecting and analyzing a single case. Some of the shortcomings in Eckstein’s
otherwise insightful and thought-provoking case study of Norway may serve as instructive
examples. Eckstein argues that the Norwegian case deviates from David B. Truman’s proposition
concerning “overlapping memberships,” because Norway is a stable democracy in spite of the
country’s deep and nonoverlapping geographic, economic, and cultural cleavages. But he fails to
place the case of Norway in relation to other cases. In fact, although he describes Norway’s
divisions as “astonishingly great, sharp, and persistent,” he explicitly rules out any comparison
with the cleavages in other countries. This exclusion seriously weakens the case study. Furthermore,
instead of trying to refine Truman’s proposition with the help of the deviant findings, Eckstein
simply drops it. In terms of the sixfold typology of case studies discussed above, his analysis of the
Norwegian case is only a theory-infirming one and is not made into a deviant case study.
From then on, the case study becomes a theory-confirming one. Eckstein finds that the Norwegian
case strikingly bears out his own “congruence” theory, which states that governments tend to be
stable if there is considerable resemblance (congruence) between governmental authority patterns
and the authority patterns in society. He demonstrates persuasively that both governmental and
social patterns of authority are strongly democratic in Norway and thus highly congruent. The
problem here is not that the Norwegian facts do not fit the theory, but that they fit the theory too
perfectly. The perfect fit strengthens the theory marginally, but does not contribute to its refinement.
The theory does not hold that complete congruence of authority patterns is required for stable
democracy. In his original statement of the congruence theory, Eckstein himself points out the
necessity of further work on the important questions of how much disparity can be tolerated and
how degrees of congruence and disparity can be measured. Because the Norwegian case turns out
to be a perfect theory-confirming one, it cannot be used to refine the theory in any of these respects.
Therefore, Eckstein was unlucky in his selection of this case as far as the development of his
congruence theory is concerned, and he fails to take full advantage of the case study method in
analyzing the case in terms of Truman’s theory of overlapping memberships.
The comparative method and the case study method have major drawbacks. But precisely because
of the inevitable limitations of these methods, it is the challenging task of the investigator in the
field of comparative politics to apply these methods in such a way as to minimize their weaknesses
and to capitalize on their inherent strengths. Thus, they can be highly useful instruments in
scientific political inquiry.

2.2 Comparative Method in Comparative Politics
The subject of comparative politics is necessarily concerned with the study of political systems for
the obvious reason that here comparative method is used in a special sense — a sense that covers
both macro and micro aspects or, as Blonded says, vertical and horizontal dimensions of political
systems. It should be pointed out again that here comparative method is not used in the same
manner as it was done by classical writers on political science like Aristotle, Machiavelli and
Montesquieu; rather in the sphere of comparative politics, it is used for a particular reason and
also in a particular sense. As Wood says: “The only reason for including the term comparative in
the designation of the field is to emphasis that the responsibility which the field has to the discipline
of political science is to treat the political systems existing in the world as units for comparison in
the general quest of theory-building and testing in political science.”

28 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY