Page 36 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Comparative Method and Politics

Analyses of policy orientation have not gone beyond the examination of reforms of the formal Notes
institutional structure. The study of such problems has paved the way, however, for the
abandonment of the traditional formal categories, for these problems cannot be examined in that
restricted frame. They call for the development of a more precise analysis of human behaviour and
of the relationship between political institutions and social and economic factors. They call for an
approach in which politics is concerned as a process that cannot be understood without reference
to the contextual factors of a political system.”
The new comparative politics does not reject what was done by the writers on this subject in the
past. It desires emphasis on social change and economic development while making a comparative
study of the political institutions of different countries. Institutionalism is thus replaced by neo-
institutionalism. The study should not be merely Euro-centred, it should cover as many countries
of the world as possible and that while discussing the operation of a political system whether
democratic, or totalitarian, or authoritarian of any hue, the factor of social change and economic
growth should also be taken into account. Thus, political development should be studied vis-a-vis
political decay (Huntington), or development should be studied vis-a-vis under-development. (Frank
and Wallerstein).
It is for this reason that neo-institutionalists draw heavily from disciplines like economics, sociology,
psychology and anthropology. It may also be labelled ‘developmentalism’ which desires comparison
of societies with widely different social and political institutions and cultural practices. The central
hypotheses are drawn from how modern institutions had their evolution as from theocracy to
secularism, and from traditional to legal and rational authority. How different cultures and ethnic
groups respond to innovation becomes a concern of the new comparativists who draw material
from the ‘modernity theory’ of Eisenstadt, ‘identity theory’ of Erikson, ‘achievement motivation
theory’ of McLelland, ‘frustration-aggression theory’ of John Dollard, ‘political violence theory’ of
Gurr, ‘political integration theory’ of Geertz, ‘ethnic conflict theory’ of Horowitz, ‘power theory’
of Foucault and ‘society’s central values theory’ of Alain Touraine.
In fine, in the domain of new comparative politics, we take note of emphasis on the
institutionalisation, internalisation and socialisation of norms drawn particularly on learning theory
imported from social psychology and on value theory imported from political anthropology. The
new writers examine in depth the themes of change, development, hegemony and power that
have their impact on the operation of a political system in different countries of the world. “Neo-
institutionalism, then, is less constitutional than the old, and more prone to economic analysis in
so far as it deals with fiscal and monetary policy, banks, markets and globalisation. But it is also
concerned with locating changes in the legislative process, shifts in long-established party politics,
not to speak of new social formations, coalitions and so on, as these impinge on the slate. Like the
old, it is concerned with the state as an instrumentality in its own right, with its own tendencies
and needs, and, as a configuring power, how it determines the nature of civil society.”
Critical Appreciation
The study of comparative government and politics is beset with a number of limitations and
problems that defy the presentation of a scientific analysis. These are:
1. There is the problem of a standard and precise definition of the various important terms and
concepts. The writers make use of different concepts with their different implications according
to their specialised knowledge.
2. Serious difficulties are encountered by a student of this subject in collecting information and
data about the political system and other ‘non-state’ institutions having their definite relation
with the working of a political system.
3. Political behaviour is not necessarily conducted on a rational basis or on scientific principles
thereby rendering a scientific study more difficult.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 31