Introduction. What and How Comparative Politics Compares. 10 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics SECTION 2

Transcription

1 10 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics Introduction SECTION 2 What and How Comparative Politics Compares To compare and contrast is one of the most common human mental exercises, whether in the classroom study of literature or politics or animal behavior or in selecting dorm rooms or listing your favorite movies. In the observation of politics, the use of comparisons is very old, dating in the Western world to at least from Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher. Aristotle categorized Greek city-states in the fourth century b.c. according to their form of political rule: rule by a single individual, rule by a few, or rule by all citizens. He also added a normative dimension (a claim about how societies should be ruled) by distinguishing ( contrasting ) good from corrupt versions of each type, according to whether those with power ruled in the interest of the common welfare of all citizens or only in their own interest. The modern study of comparative politics refines and systematizes the age-old practice of evaluating some feature of X by comparing it to the same feature of Y. Comparative politics is a subfield within the academic discipline of political science as well as a method or approach to the study of politics. 4 The subject matter of comparative politics is the domestic politics of countries or peoples. Within the discipline of political science, comparative politics is one of four areas of specialization. In addition to comparative politics, most political science (or government) departments in U.S. colleges and universities include courses and academic specialists in three other fields: political theory, international relations, and American politics. Because it is widely believed that students living in the United States should study American politics intensively and with special focus, it is usually treated as a separate subfield of political science. The pattern of distinguishing the study of politics at home from the study of politics abroad is also common elsewhere, so students in Canada may be expected to study Canadian politics as a distinct specialty, and Japanese students would be expected to master Japanese politics. However, there is no logical reason that study of the United States should not be included within the field of comparative politics and there is good reason to do so. In fact, many important studies in comparative politics (and an increasing number of courses) have integrated the study of American politics with the study of politics in other countries. 5 Comparative study can place U.S. politics into a much richer perspective and at the same time make it easier to recognize what is distinctive and most interesting about other countries. Special mention should be made of the distinction between comparative politics and international relations. Comparative politics involves comparing domestic political institutions, processes, policies, conflicts, and attitudes in different countries; international relations involves studying the foreign policies of and interactions among countries, the role of international organizations such as the United Nations, and the growing influence of a wide range of global actors from multinational corporations to terrorist networks. In a globalized world, the distinction sometimes becomes questionable, and there is a large gray zone where the two fields overlap. Think of an urgent challenge such as climate change. Most observers would agree that international agreements to limit the use of fossil fuels and the need for concerted action around the world make climate change a proper concern of international relations. It is also true, however, that decisions about energy policy, investments in renewable sources of energy, and government incentives for automobile manufacturers to produce battery-powered cars are made through the prism of country-by-country politics and therefore shaped by the domestic interplay of competing interests. Does the politics of climate change fall within the field of comparative politics or the field of international relations? The answer of course is both. 6 However, it makes sense to maintain the distinction between comparative politics and international relations. Much of the world s political activity continues to occur within state borders, and comparisons of domestic politics, institutions, and processes enable us to understand critical features that distinguish one country s politics from another s. Furthermore, we believe that, despite increased international economic competition and integration (a key aspect of globalization), national states are the fundamental building blocks in

2 SECTION 2 What and How Comparative Politics Compares 11 The Internet and the Study of Comparative Politics The Internet can be a very rich source of information about the politics of countries around the world. Following are some of the types of information you can fi nd on the web. We haven t included URLs since they change so often. But you should be able to fi nd the websites easily through a key word search on Google or another search engine. Current events. Most of the world s major news organizations have excellent websites. Among those we recommend for students of comparative politics are the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Cable News Network (CNN), the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Elections. Results of recent (and often past) elections, data on voter turnout, and descriptions of different types of electoral systems can be found at the International Election Guide (IFES), Elections by country/wikipedia, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Statistics. You can fi nd data that is helpful both for understanding the political, economic, and social situation in individual countries and for comparing countries. Excellent sources of statistics are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank. There are some websites that bring together data from other sources. These allow you not only to access the statistics, but also to chart or map them in a variety of ways. See, for example, Nationmaster.com and Globalis.com. Rankings and ratings. There is a growing number of organizations that provide rankings or ratings of countries along some dimension based on comparative statistical analysis. We provide the following examples of these in the Data Charts that appear at the end of this chapter: the UNDP Human Development Index; the Global Gender Gap; the Environmental Performance Index; the Corruption Perceptions Index; and the Freedom in the World rating. Others you might look at are UNDP s Gender-Related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM); the World Bank s Worldwide Governance Indicators Project; the Global Economic Competitiveness Index; the Globalization Index; the Index of Economic Freedom; the World Audit of Freedom and Democracy; and the Press Freedom Index. A note of caution: Some of these sites may have a certain political point of view that infl uences the way they collect and analyze data. As with any web source, be sure to check out who sponsors the site and what type of organization it is. Official information and documents. Most countries maintain websites in English. The fi rst place to look is the website of the country s embassy in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, or London. The United Nations delegations of many countries also have websites. Governments often have English language versions of their offi cial home pages, including governments with which the United States may not have offi cial relations, such as Cuba and North Korea. The United States Department of State. The State Department s website has background notes on most countries. American embassies around the world provide information on selected topics about the country in which they are based. Maps. The Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at the University of Texas is probably the best currently available online source of worldwide maps at an educational institution. General comparative politics. Several American and British universities host excellent websites that provide links to a multitude of Internet resources on comparative politics (often coupled with international relations), such as Columbia University, Emory University, Keele University, Princeton University, Vanderbilt University, and West Virginia University. structuring political activity. Therefore Introduction to Comparative Politics is built on in-depth case studies of a sample of important countries around the world. The comparative approach principally analyzes similarities and differences among countries by focusing on selected institutions and processes. As students of comparative politics (we call ourselves comparativists), we believe that we cannot make reliable statements about most political situations by looking at only one case. We often hear statements such as: The United States has the

3 12 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics Introduction best health care system in the world. Comparativists immediately wonder what kinds of health care systems exist in other countries, what they cost and how they are financed, how it is decided who can receive medical care, and so on. Besides, what does best mean when it comes to health care systems? Is it the one that provides the widest access? The one that is the most technologically advanced? The one that is the most cost-effective? The one that produces the healthiest population? None of us would announce the best movie or the best car without considering other alternatives or deciding what specific factors enter into our judgment. Comparativists often analyze political institutions or processes by looking at two or more cases that are selected to isolate their common and contrasting features. The analysis involves comparing similar aspects of politics in more than one country. Some comparativists focus on government institutions in different countries, such as the legislature, executive, political parties, or court systems. 7 Others compare specific processes or policies, for example, education or environmental policy. 8 Some comparative political studies take a thematic approach and analyze broad issues, such as the causes and consequences of nationalist movements or revolutions in different countries. 9 Comparative studies may also involve comparisons of an institution, policy, or process through time, in one or several countries. For example, some studies have analyzed a shift in the orientation of economic policy that occurred in many advanced capitalist countries in the 1980s from Keynesianism, an approach that gives priority to government regulation of certain aspects of the economy, to neoliberalism, which emphasizes the importance of market-friendly policies. 10 Level of Analysis Comparisons can be useful for political analysis at several different levels of a country, such as cities, regions, provinces, or states. But we believe that the best way to begin the study of comparative politics is with countries. Countries comprise distinct, politically defined territories that encompass political institutions, cultures, economies, and ethnic and other social identities. Although countries are often highly divided by internal conflicts, and people within their borders may have close ties to those in other countries, countries have historically been among the most important sources of a people s collective political identity, and they are the major arena for organized political action in the modern world. Within a given country, the state is almost always the most powerful cluster of institutions. But just what is the state? The way the term is used in comparative politics is probably unfamiliar to many students. In the United States, it usually refers to the states in the federal system Texas, California, and so on. But in comparative politics, the state refers to the key political institutions responsible for making, implementing, and adjudicating important policies in a country. 11 Thus, we use phrases such as the German state and the Mexican state. In many ways, the state is synonymous with what is often called the government. The most important state institutions are the national executive usually, the president and/or prime minister and the cabinet. In some cases, the executive includes the communist party leadership (such as in China), the head of a military government (as in Nigeria until 1999), or the supreme religious leader (as in the Islamic Republic of Iran). Alongside the executive, the legislature and the judiciary comprise the institutional apex of state power, although the interrelationships and functions of these institutions vary from country to country. Other key state institutions include the military, police, and the administrative bureaucracy. States claim, usually with considerable success, the right to make rules notably, laws, administrative, and court decisions that are binding for people within the country. Even democratic states in which top officials are chosen by procedures that authorize all citizens to participate can survive only if they can preserve enforcement (or coercive) powers both internally and with regard to other states and external groups that may threaten them. A number of countries have highly repressive states whose political survival depends largely on military and police powers. But even in such states, long-term stability requires that the ruling regime have some measure of political legitimacy; that is, a significant segment of the citizenry (in particular, more influential citizens and groups) must believe that the state is entitled to command compliance from those who live under its rule and acts lawfully in pursuit of desirable aims.

4 SECTION 2 What and How Comparative Politics Compares 13 Political legitimacy is greatly affected by the state s ability to deliver the goods to its people through satisfactory economic performance and an acceptable distribution of economic resources. Moreover, in the contemporary period, legitimacy often seems to require that states represent themselves as democratic in some fashion, whether or not they are in fact. Thus, Introduction to Comparative Politics looks closely at both the state s role in governing the economy and the pressures exerted on states to develop and extend democratic participation. Given that the organization of state institutions varies widely, and these differences have a powerful impact on political, economic, and social life, the country studies in this book devote considerable attention to institutional variations along with their political implications. Each country study begins with an analysis of how the institutional organization of the state has evolved historically. The process of state formation fundamentally influences how and why states differ politically. One critical difference among states that will be explored in our country studies involves the extent to which citizens in a country share a common sense of nationhood, that is, a belief that the state s geographic boundaries coincide with citizens common identity, anchored in a sense of shared fates and values. When state boundaries and national identity coincide, the resulting formation is called a nation-state. A major source of political instability occurs when state boundaries and national identity do not coincide. In many countries around the world, nationalist movements within a state s borders challenge existing boundaries and seek to secede to form their own state, sometimes in alliance with movements from neighboring countries with whom they claim to share a common heritage. Such is the case with the Kurds, who have large populations in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, and have long fought to establish an independent nation-state of Kurdistan. When a nationalist movement has distinctive ethnic, religious, and/or linguistic ties opposed to those of other groups in the country, conflicts are likely to be especially intense. Nationalist movements may pursue their separatist goal peacefully within established political institutions. Or, as we discuss in several of the country studies, they may challenge established institutions and engage in illegal activity, including violence against political authorities and civilians. India and Nigeria, for example, have experienced particularly violent episodes of ethnonationalist conflict. Tibet is an example of ethnic conflict within a country, China, that otherwise has a very strong sense of national identity. Causal Theories Because countries are the basic building blocks in politics and because states are the most significant political organizations within countries, these are two critical units for comparative analysis. The comparativist seeks to measure and hopefully explain similarities and differences among countries or states. One influential approach in comparative politics involves developing causal theories hypotheses that can be expressed formally in a causal mode: If X happens, then Y will be the result. Such theories include factors (the independent variables, symbolized by X) that are believed to influence some outcome (the dependent variable, symbolized by Y) that the analyst wants to explain. For example, it is commonly argued that if a country s economic pie shrinks, conflict among groups will intensify. This hypothesis suggests what is called an inverse correlation between variables: as X varies in one direction, Y varies in the opposite direction. As the total national economic product (X) decreases, then political and social conflict over economic shares (Y) increases. This relationship might be tested by statistical analysis of a large number of cases, a project facilitated in recent years by computers and the creation of data banks that include extensive historical and contemporary data. Another way to study this issue would be to focus on one or several country cases and analyze in depth how the relevant relationships have varied historically. Even when explanation does not involve the explicit testing of hypotheses (and often it does not), comparativists try to identify similarities and differences among countries and to discover significant patterns. It is important to recognize the limits on just how scientific political science and thus comparative politics can be. Two important differences exist between the hard (or natural) sciences like physics and chemistry and the social sciences. First, social scientists

5 14 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics Introduction study people who exercise free will. Because people have a margin for free choice, even if one assumes that they choose in a rational manner, their choices, attitudes, and behavior cannot be fully explained. This does not mean that people choose in a totally arbitrary fashion. We choose within the context of material constraint, institutional dictates, and cultural prescriptions. Comparative politics analyzes how such factors shape political preferences and choices in systematic ways. Indeed, one empirical study has concluded that people s political beliefs are, to a certain degree, genetically determined. 12 But there will probably always be a wide gulf between the natural and social sciences because of their different objects of study. A second difference between the natural and social sciences is that in the natural sciences, experimental techniques can be applied to isolate the contribution of distinct factors to a particular outcome. It is possible to change the value or magnitude of a factor for example, the force applied to an object and measure how the outcome has consequently changed. However, like other social scientists, political scientists and comparativists rarely have the opportunity to apply such experimental techniques. Some political scientists have conducted experiments with volunteers in controlled settings. But laboratories provide crude approximations of natural settings since only one or several variables can be manipulated. The real world of politics, by contrast, consists of an endless number of variables, and they cannot easily be isolated or manipulated. (Further, another reason for the gulf between the laboratory and the world outside is that participants in laboratory experiments are less intensely motivated than they are in natural settings.) Another attempt to deal with this problem is by multivariate statistical techniques that seek to identify the specific causal weight of different variables in explaining variations in political outcomes. But it is difficult to measure precisely how, for example, a person s ethnicity, gender, or income influences her or his choice when casting a ballot. Nor can we ever know for sure what exact mix of factors conflicts among elites, popular ideological appeals, the weakness of the state, the organizational capacity of rebel leaders, or the discontent of the masses precipitates a successful revolution. Further, different instances of a given outcome may result from varying causes. For example, different revolutions may result from different configurations of factors. Thus, one cannot develop a single theory to explain the origins of all revolutions. There is a lively debate about whether the social sciences should seek scientific explanations comparable to what prevails in the natural sciences, such as physics. Some scholars claim that political scientists should aim to develop what have been called covering or universal laws to explain political outcomes: that is, political phenomena should be explained in a similar way to how physicists develop universally applicable laws to explain specific features of the physical world. Some critics of this view claim that because the social world is essentially different from the natural world, the social sciences should seek to identify particular patterns, mechanisms, and structures that fulfill similar functions that operate in different settings. But they recognize that this is a more modest goal than fully explaining outcomes. Another group of scholars claims that social science should focus on identifying unique configurations of factors that coexist in a particular case. Proponents of this approach do not seek a definitive explanation or the development of covering laws. 13 And yet a fourth approach advocates what the anthropologist Clifford Geertz has designated as thick description. This approach seeks to convey the rich and subtle texture of any given historical situation, especially the subjective and symbolic meaning of that situation for its participants. 14 Comparativists who favor this approach highlight the importance of understanding each country s distinctive political culture, which can be defined as the attitudes, beliefs, values, and symbols that influence political behavior. An approach largely borrowed from economics, called rational choice theory, has become especially influential and highly controversial in political science, including comparative politics, in recent years. 15 Rational choice theory focuses on how individuals act strategically (that is, rationally) in an attempt to achieve goals that maximize their interests. Such actions involve such varied activities as voting for a particular candidate or rebelling against the government. Proponents of rational choice generally use

6 SECTION 2 What and How Comparative Politics Compares 15 deductive and quantitative methods to construct models and general theories of political behavior that they believe can be applied across all types of political systems and cultures. This approach has been criticized for claiming to explain large-scale and complex social phenomena by reference to individual choices. It has also been criticized for dismissing the importance of variations in historical experience, political culture, identities, institutions, and other factors that are key aspects of most explanations of the political world. Issues involving the appropriate choice of theory, methodology, research approaches, and strategies are a vital aspect of comparative politics. However, students may be relieved to learn that we do not deal with such issues in depth in Introduction to Comparative Politics. We believe that students will be in a better position to consider these questions after gaining a solid grasp of political continuities and contrasts in diverse countries around the world. It is this goal that we put front and center in Introduction to Comparative Politics. Returning to our earlier discussion of the level of analysis, most comparativists probably agree on the value of steering a middle course that avoids either focusing exclusively on one country or blending all countries indiscriminately. If we study only individual countries without any comparative framework, comparative politics would become merely the study of a series of isolated cases. It would be impossible to recognize what is most significant in the collage of political characteristics that we find in the world s many countries. As a result, the understanding of patterns of similarity and difference among countries would be lost, along with an important tool for evaluating what is and what is not unique about a country s political life. If we go to the other extreme and try to make universal claims, we would either have to stretch the truth or ignore significant national differences and patterns of variation. The political world is incredibly complex, shaped by an extraordinary array of factors and an almost endless interplay of variables. Indeed, after a brief period in the 1950s and 1960s when many comparativists tried and failed to develop a grand theory that would apply to all countries, most comparativists now agree on the value of middle-level theory, that is, theories focusing on specific features of the political world, such as institutions, policies, or classes of similar events, such as revolutions or elections. For example, comparativists have analyzed the process in which many countries with authoritarian forms of government, such as military dictatorships and one-party regimes, have developed more participatory and democratic regimes. In studying this process, termed democratic transitions, comparativists do not either treat each national case as unique or try to construct a universal pattern that ignores all differences. Applying middle-level theory, we identify the influence on the new regime s political stability of specific variables such as institutional legacies, political culture, levels of economic development, the nature of the regime before the transition, and the degree of ethnic conflict or homogeneity. Comparativists have identified common patterns in the emergence and consolidation of democratic regimes in southern Europe in the 1970s (Greece, Portugal, and Spain) and have compared them to developments in Latin America, Asia, and Africa since the 1980s, and in Eastern and Central Europe since the revolutions of Note that comparing does not require assuming that particular processes are identical in different regions. Indeed, some scholars have highlighted important differences between democratic transitions in Southern Europe and Latin America, on the one hand, and in Eastern and Central Europe on the other. 16 The study of comparative politics offers many challenges, including the complexity of the subject matter, the fast pace of change in the contemporary world, and the impossibility of manipulating variables or replicating conditions. What can we expect when the whole political world is our laboratory? When we put the method of comparative politics to the test and develop a set of themes derived from middle-level theory, we discover that it is possible to discern patterns that make sense of a vast range of political events and link the experiences of states and citizens throughout the world. Although doubtless we will not achieve definitive explanations, we remain confident that we are able to better understand the daily headlines by reference to middle-range theoretical propositions.

7 16 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics Introduction SECTION 3 Themes for Comparative Analysis We began this introduction by emphasizing the extraordinary importance of the global changes currently taking place. Next, we explained the subject matter of comparative politics and described some of the tools of comparative analysis. This section describes the four themes we use in Introduction to Comparative Politics to organize the information on political institutions and processes in the country chapters. These themes help explain continuities and contrasts among countries. They help us understand what patterns apply to a group of countries and why, and what patterns are specific to a particular country. We also suggest a way that each theme highlights a particular puzzle in comparative politics. Before we introduce the themes, a couple of warnings are necessary. First, our four themes cannot possibly capture the infinitely varied experience of politics throughout the world. Our framework in Introduction to Comparative Politics, built on these core themes, provides a guide to understanding many features of contemporary comparative politics. But we urge students (and rely on instructors!) to challenge and expand on our interpretations. Second, we want to note that a textbook builds from existing theory but does not construct or test new hypotheses. That task is the goal of original scholarly studies. The themes we present are intended to provide a framework to help organize some of the most significant developments in the field of contemporary comparative politics. Theme 1: A World of States The theme we call a world of states reflects the fact that for about 500 years, states have been the primary actors on the world stage. International organizations and private actors like transnational corporations and ordinary citizens, who vote and participate in political parties and social movements may play a crucial role in politics. But it is the rulers of states who send armies to conquer other states and territories. It is the legal codes of states that make it possible for businesses to operate within their borders and beyond. States provide more or less well for the social protection of citizens through the provision in one way or another of health care, old age pensions, aid to dependent children, and assistance to the unemployed. It is states that regulate the movement of people across borders through immigration law. And the policies of even the most influential international organizations reflect to a considerable extent the balance of power among member states. That said, and as we noted above, states have been significantly affected by globalization. An indication of this development is that, within political science, there is increasing overlap between the study of international relations and the study of comparative politics. Courses in international relations nowadays often integrate a concern with how internal political processes affect states behavior, while courses in comparative politics highlight the importance of transnational forces for understanding what goes on within a country s borders. The world-of-states theme in Introduction to Comparative Politics emphasizes the interaction between domestic politics and international forces. We distinguish two important components of this theme. One focuses on a state s relationship to the international arena, while the other focuses on the state s internal development. The external element highlights the impact on a state s domestic political institutions and processes of its relative success or failure in competing economically and politically with other states. What sphere of maneuver is left to states by powerful global economic and geopolitical forces? How do CNN, the Internet, McDonald s, television, and films (whether produced in Hollywood or in Bollywood, that is, Bombay, the city that has been renamed Mumbai and that is the site of India s thriving film industry) shape local cultures and values, influence citizen perceptions of government, and affect political outcomes? States still dwarf other political institutions in the exercise of power that matters, whether with regard to war, peace, and national security, or when it comes to providing educational opportunities, heath care, and pensions (social security). That said, no state, even the most powerful, such as the United States, can shape the world to suit its own designs or achieve its aims

8 SECTION 3 Themes for Comparative Analysis 17 autonomously. Nor is any state unaffected by influences originating outside its borders. A wide array of international organizations and treaties, including the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), challenge the sovereign control of national governments. Transnational corporations, international banks, and currency traders in New York, London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, and Tokyo affect countries and people throughout the world. A country s political borders do not protect its citizens from global warming, environmental pollution, or infectious diseases that come from abroad. More broadly, developments linked to technology transfer, the growth of an international information society, immigration, and cultural diffusion challenge state supremacy and have a varying but significant impact on the domestic politics of virtually all countries. 17 Thanks to the global diffusion of radio, television, and the Internet, people nearly everywhere can become remarkably well informed about international developments. This knowledge may fuel popular demands that governments intervene to stop atrocities in, for example, faraway Kosovo or Rwanda, or rush to aid the victims of natural disasters as happened after a great tsunami struck South and Southeast Asia in late 2004 and a devastating earthquake killed many thousands in China in May In the case of the cyclone in Myanmar, also in May 2008, that produced catastrophic loss of life, the devastation was made far worse by the resistance of that country s authoritarian regime to outside assistance. And heightened global awareness may encourage citizens to hold their own government to internationally recognized standards of human rights and democracy. The recent spread of the so-called color or flower revolutions illustrates how what happens in one state can influence popular movements in other states, particularly in this era of globalized media and communications. Such movements have adopted various symbols to show their unity of purpose: the Rose Revolution (2003) in Georgia (a country located between Russia and Turkey, not the southern U.S. state), the Orange Revolution (2004) in Ukraine, and the Tulip Revolution (2005) in Kyrgyzstan all led to the toppling of dictatorial leaders. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon (2005) didn t force a change of political leadership, but it did cause the withdrawal of unpopular Syrian troops from that country, and the Blue Revolution in Kuwait has emerged as an important movement in support of granting women greater political rights. States may collapse altogether when powerful rivals for power challenge rulers, especially when they are backed by a restive and mobilized citizenry. A similar outcome may occur when leaders of the state violate the rule of law and become predators, preying on the population. Political scientist Robert Rotberg has suggested the term failed states to describe this extreme situation, and cited as examples Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Afghanistan before and under the Taliban. 18 The political situation in such countries has approached the anarchical situation described by the seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. In a state of nature, he warned in the Leviathan, the absence of effective state authority produces a war of every man (and woman) against every man, in which life involves continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Although few states decline to the point of complete failure, all states are experiencing intense pressures from an increasingly complex mix of external influences. (Recall our discussion above of global competition for petroleum.) But international political and economic influences do not have the same impact in all countries, and a few privileged states have the capacity partially to shape the institutional structure and policy of international organizations in which they participate. The more advantages a state possesses, as measured by its level of economic development, military power, and resource base, the more global influence it will likely have and the more it will benefit from globalization. Conversely, countries with fewer advantages are more dependent on other states and international organizations, and less likely to derive benefits from globalization. The second component of the world-of-states theme recognizes the fact that individual states (countries) are still the basic building block in world politics. It analyzes the importance of regime variations among states, in other words, the overall mix of their political

9 18 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics Introduction institutions that distinguishes, for example, democratic from authoritarian regimes. Country chapters emphasize the importance of understanding similarities and contrasts in state formation and institutional design across countries. We identify critical junctures in state formation: that is, key events like colonial conquest, defeat in war, economic crises, or revolutions that had a durable impact on the character of the state. We also study the state s economic management strategies and capacities, diverse patterns of political institutions, such as the contrast between presidential and parliamentary forms in democratic states, the relationship of the state with social groups, and unresolved challenges that the state faces from within and outside its borders. A puzzle: To what extent can even the most powerful states (especially the United States) preserve their autonomy and impose their will on others in a globalized world? Or are all states losing their ability to control important aspects of policy-making and secure the political outcomes they desire? And in what ways are the poorer and less powerful countries particularly vulnerable to the pressures of globalization and disgruntled citizens? Increasingly, the politics and policies of states are shaped by diverse international factors often lumped together under the category of globalization. At the same time, many states face increasingly restive constituencies within their country who challenge the power and legitimacy of central governments. In reading the country case studies in this book, try to assess what impact pressures from both above and below outside and inside have on the role of the state in carrying out its basic functions and in sustaining the political attachment of its citizens. Theme 2: Governing the Economy The success of states in maintaining sovereign authority and control over their people is greatly affected by their ability to ensure that an adequate volume of goods and services is produced to satisfy the needs of their populations. Certainly, inadequate economic performance was an important reason for the rejection of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In contrast, China s stunning success in promoting economic development has been a major factor in explaining why communist rule has survived in that country. Effective economic performance is near the top of every state s political agenda, and how a state governs the economy 19 how it organizes production and the extent and nature of its intervention in the economy is a key element in its overall pattern of governance. It is important to analyze, for example, how countries differ in the balance between agricultural and industrial production in their economies, the strategies that states use to improve economic performance, how successful countries are in competing in international markets, and the relative importance of private market forces versus government direction of the economy. The term political economy refers to how governments affect economic performance and how economic performance in turn affects a country s political processes. We accord great importance to political economy in Introduction to Comparative Politics because we believe that politics in all countries is deeply influenced by the relationship between government and the economy in both domestic and international dimensions. However, the term economic performance may convey the misleading impressions that there is one right way to promote successful economic performance and one single standard by which to measure performance. In fact, both issues are far more complex. There are many wrong ways to manage an economy; there are multiple right ways as well. Economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron pointed out long ago that the major European powers developed distinctive ways to promote industrialism because of the different places they occupied in the sequence of industrializing powers. 20 Britain had the good fortune to be the first country in the world to industrialize. Because of its head start in economic competition, it was possible for the state to adopt a relatively hands-off posture and for a market system of production to develop slowly. This arrangement came to be known by the French term laissez-faire, which literally means let do, and more broadly refers to a free enterprise economy. All later developers, both those located in Europe in the nineteenth century and those located elsewhere in the world since then, have had to catch up.

10 SECTION 3 Themes for Comparative Analysis 19 As a result, they did not have the luxury of adopting the British state s style of low-profile management but were forced to develop varieties of crash programs of economic development. What formula of state economic governance has made for success in this later period? On the one hand, both economic winners and losers display a pattern of extensive state intervention in the economy; thus, it is not the degree of state intervention that distinguishes the economic success stories from those that have fared less well. On the other hand, the winners do not share a single formula that enabled them to excel. For example, a study directed by Peter A. Hall and David Soskice of the world s affluent capitalist economies identifies two quite different patterns of political economy, both of which have been associated with strong economic performance. 21 Studies seeking to explain the Asian economic miracles Japan, South Korea, and more recently China as well as the variable economic performance of other countries highlight the diversity of approaches that have been pursued. 22 There is agreement on a list of state practices that hinder economic development (although it borders on the commonsensical), such as when states tolerate dishonesty and corruption, set tax rates so high as to discourage productive economic activity, and fail to provide public goods like education and transportation facilities that promote a productive economy. However, there is no consensus on the economic policies that states should adopt. Moreover, some factors affecting economic performance are beyond a state s control. For example, economist Paul Collier has found that citizens of landlocked countries are especially apt to be among the bottom billion poorest people in the world. 23 (However, Collier points out that the examples of Switzerland and Austria suggest that being landlocked does not guarantee failure.) The matter becomes even more complex when one considers the appropriate yardstick to measure economic success. Should economic performance be measured solely by how rapidly a country s economy grows? By how equitably it distributes the fruits of economic growth? By the quality of life of its citizenry, as measured by such criteria as life expectancy, level of education, and unemployment rate? What about the environmental impact of economic growth? There is now much greater attention to this question, and more countries are emphasizing sustainable development, which promotes ecologically sound ways to modernize the economy and raise the standard of living. (See How is Development Measured? ) We invite you to consider these questions as you study the political economies of the countries analyzed in this book. A puzzle: What is the relationship between democracy and successful national economic performance? This is a question that students of political economy have long pondered and to which there are no fully satisfactory answers. Although all economies, even the most powerful, experience ups and downs, all durable democracies have been notable economic success stories. On the other hand, several East Asian countries with authoritarian regimes also achieved remarkable records of development. The Republic of Korea (South Korea), Taiwan, and Singapore surged economically in the 1960s and 1970s, and Malaysia and Thailand followed suit in the 1980s and 1990s. (Korea and Taiwan subsequently adopted durable democratic institutions.) China, a repressive communist party-state that has enjoyed the highest growth rate among major economies in the world since the early 1990s, provides a vivid case of development without democracy. In light of the contradictory evidence, Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen has argued, There is no clear relation between economic growth and democracy in either direction. 24 As you read the country studies, try to identify why some states have been more successful than others in governing the economy, that is, fostering successful economic performance. Are there any consistent patterns that apply across countries? Theme 3: The Democratic Idea One of the most important and astounding political developments in recent years has been the rapid spread of democracy throughout much of the world. There is overwhelming evidence of the strong appeal of the democratic idea, by which we mean the claim by citizens that they should, in some way, exercise substantial control over the decisions made by their states and governments.

11 20 CHAPTER 1 Introducing Comparative Politics Introduction Global Connection As we have already noted, we put particular importance on understanding the relationship between the political system and the economy in the study of the politics of any country and in our overall approach to comparative politics. Each of the country case studies describes and analyzes the role of the government in making economic policy. They also take special note of the impact of the global economy on national politics. This book makes frequent reference to two commonly used measures of the overall size or power of a country s economy: Gross domestic product (GDP): a calculation of the total goods and services produced by the country during a given year. Gross national product (GNP): GDP plus income earned abroad by the country s residents. A country s GDP and GNP are different, but not hugely so. In this book, we use GDP calculated according to an increasingly popular method called purchasing power parity (PPP). PPP takes into account the real cost of living in a particular country by calculating how much it would cost in the local currency to buy the same basket of goods in different countries. For example, how many dollars in the United States, pesos in Mexico, or rubles in Russia does it take to buy a certain amount of food or to pay for housing? Many scholars think that PPP provides a relatively reliable (and revealing) tool for comparing the size of an economy among countries. In terms of annual total output according to PPP, the world s ten largest economies are: the United States, China, Japan, India, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Brazil, and Italy. But a better way to measure and compare the level of economic development and the standards of living in different countries is to look at annual GDP per capita (per person), in other words, to look at total How Is Development Measured? economic output divided by total population. Although China has the world s second-largest economy in terms of total output, from the annual GDP per capita perspective China ($5300) falls to 133rd out of 227 countries measured, and India ($2700) falls to 167th place. Qatar and Luxembourg (both over $80,000), with their small populations, rank fi rst and second while the United States is eighth ($45,800). This approach gives us a better idea of which countries in the world are rich (developed) or poor (developing). The comparative data charts at the end of this chapter provide total GDP and GDP per capita as well as other economic, geographic, demographic, and social information for our country case studies. The Comparative Rankings table also provides several ways of evaluating countries in order to compare them along various dimensions of their economic, political, or public policy performance. One of the most important of these is the Human Development Index (HDI), which the United Nations uses to evaluate a country s level of development that considers more than just economic factors. The formula used to calculate a country s HDI takes into account longevity (life expectancy at birth), knowledge (adult literacy and average years of schooling), as well as income (according to PPP). Based on this formula, countries are annually ranked and divided into three broad categories by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP): High, Medium, and Low human development. Out of 177 countries ranked according to HDI in , the top three were Iceland, Norway, and Australia; the bottom three were Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, and Sierra Leone. Look at the comparative data to see how the countries in this book are ranked, and as you read the case studies try to see what connections there may be between a country s state policies, politics, and its human development ranking. According to statistical analysis of numerous measures of political freedom and civil liberties, the think tank Freedom House has calculated that in 1973, there were 43 countries that could be considered free (or democratic), 38 that were partly free, and 69 that should be classified as not free. In 2007, their count was 90 free, 60 partly free, and 43 not free. In terms of population, in 1973, 35 percent of the world s people