School of Social and Political Studies MSc Comparative Public Policy MSc Policy Studies

School of Social and Political Studies MSc Comparative Public Policy MSc Policy Studies Comparative Analysis of Social and Public Policy Autumn Semester 2007 Convener: Ingela Naumann, ingela.naumann@ed.ac.uk Contributors: Andy Aitchison, Jochen Clasen, Daniel Clegg, Frank Castles, Alison Smith Mondays 4-6 pm, Room 2.01, Psychology, 7 George Square THE COURSE STARTS IN WEEK 2 ON MONDAY 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2007 PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT VENUE ON THE 22 ND AND 29 TH OCTOBER!!! Level This course is the compulsory research training course for the MSc degree in Comparative Public Policy, and is available as a course unit for other MSc students (taught and by research) and for PhD students in their first year. Course Objectives and Structure This course introduces students to the main methodological approaches to comparative policy analysis. Its aims are to give students an understanding of key issues involved in comparative social research and to develop their analytical skills in systematic comparison that will add rigour to their research and help achieve valid and well-founded generalizations and evaluations of social and public policy developments in national and international context. The course will run as a series of ten two-hour seminar sessions. Each week, students will be introduced to a different aspect of comparative analysis, which will be discussed on the basis of one or two selected texts. Students are expected to have read and prepared these readings prior to each session. A course reader with the key readings will be available for purchase from the Graduate School office. Each week s readings also include a list of key methodological and empirical research texts that serve as exemplars of the various approaches to comparative policy analysis. Examples will primarily reflect the research interests of staff, though students will be encouraged to bring and develop their own comparative interests. The seminars will mostly be based on a mixture of staff and student presentations and discussions. Some weeks will also include some lab style elements focused on skills acquisition (please note different venue for the lab sessions!!). The final session will be organized as a panel where staff members discuss their comparative approaches and practical experiences with conducting empirical comparative research. 1

Learning Objectives understanding of the role of theory and modelling in comparative analysis knowledge of data sources and their limitations introduction to comparative methods and to issues of inference and generalisation understanding of context, constraints, choice and values in policy development exploration of processes of policy learning and policy transfer engagement with substantive issues in comparative social policy Assessment A short exercise (1000-1500 words) on a set assignment, and a 2500-3000 word essay, discussing an aspect of comparative analysis of the student s choice, will be required. PLEASE NOTE: In weeks 5 and 6 (22. + 29. October) the seminar will take place in the Statistics Lab of the Hugh Robson Building, George Square Course Programme Session Topic Lecturer 1. 24.September Introduction: the logic of comparative inquiry IN 2. 1.October Concepts and comparative analysis DC 3. 8.October Ideal types and typologies useful tools for comparative analysis? IN 4. 15.October Comparative policy evaluation: constructing indices AS 5. 22.October The qualitative lessons of quantitative cross-national research NOTE CHANGE OF PLACE: Hugh Robson Building, Statistics Lab 6. 29.October Cross-national comparison using large samples NOTE CHANGE OF PLACE: Hugh Robson Building, Statistics Lab FC AS 7. 5. November Comparing few countries JC 8. 12.November Comparison in one country AA 9. 19.November Historical comparison IN 10. 26.November Panel discussion on comparative research out in the field IN + team 2

Week 1: The logic of comparative inquiry 24.09.2007 Lecturer: Ingela Naumann Comparison is a key element of social and public policy analysis. This session takes a general look at why comparisons are central in the social sciences and what comparisons are for; what can be compared and what kind of comparisons there are. Set texts: Sartori, G. (1994): Compare Why and How: Comparing, Miscomparing and the Comparative Method, in Dogan, Mattei and A. Kazancigil (eds.): Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance, London: Basil Blackwell. Ragin, C. C. (1987/1989): The Comparative Method. Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley: University of California Press. Chps 1 and 2. Dogan, M. and Pelassy, D. (1990): How to Compare Nations. Strategies in Comparative Politics, Chatham: Chatham House Publishers. George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005): Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: MIT Press., chp 8. Hill, M. (2006): Social Policy in the Modern World. A Comparative Text, Oxford:Blackwell. Chps 1 3. Hantrais, L. and Mangen, S. (1996) (eds): Cross-national research methods in the social sciences, London; Pinter. Hopkins, J. (2002): Comparative methods, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds.): Theory and Methods in Political Science (second edition). Kennett, P. (ed.) (2004): A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kennett, P. (2001): Comparative Social Policy. Theory and Research, Buchingham: Open University Press. Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds) (2004): Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambidge: Cambrige University Press. Landman, T. (2000): Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: an Introduction, London/New York: Routledge. Lichbach, M. and Zuckerman, A. (eds.): Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, B. G. (1998): Comparative Politics. Theory and Methods, New York: New York University Press. Yin, R. K. (2003 and earlier editions): Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Methodological classics still worth reading: Lijphart, A. (1971): Comparative Politics and Comparative Method, American Political Science Review, 65 (3), 682-693. Mill, John Stuart (1872): A System of Logic, London: Longman. Przeworski, A and Teune, H. (1970): The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: Wiley. Skocpol, T. and Somers M. (1980): The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22: 174-197. Tilly, C. (1984): Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York. 3

Classical examples of historical comparisons: Moore, B. (1966): The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Boston: Beacon Press. Skocpol, T. (1979): States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge/New York. Tilly, C. (1975): The Rebellious Century 1830 1930, Cambridge, Mass. Classical examples of political comparisons: Lipset, S. M. and Rokkan, S (1967): Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross- National Perspectives, New York: Free Press. Lijphart, A. (1994): Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty Seven Democracies, 1945-1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Classical examples of social policy comparisons: Flora, P. (ed.) (1986): Growth to the Limits: the Western Welfare States since World War II, Berlin: de Gruyter. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Week 2: Concepts and comparative analysis 01.10.2007 Lecturer: Daniel Clegg - What are concepts and why are they important? - Travelling and stretching - Family and radial categories - The ladder of abstraction - Concepts, ontology and comparative research design Set text: Sartori, G. (1970): Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics, American Political Science Review, 64(4), pp. 1033-1053. Students may want to start with the general discussion in chapter 4 of Peters, G. (1998) Comparative Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave (which also discusses ideal-type analysis, see week 3), but everyone should also try and read a couple of the more advanced texts listed below. Collier D. and Levitsky S. (1997): Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research, World Politics, 49 (3), 430-451. Collier D. and Mahon, J. (1993): Conceptual Stretching Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis, American Political Science Review, 845-855. McDaniel, T. (1978): Meaning and comparative concepts, Theory and Society, Volume 6(1), 93-117. O Kane, R. (1993): The ladder of abstraction: the purpose of comparison and the practice of comparing African coups d Etat, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5(2), 169-193. 4

Rose R. (1991): Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis, Political Studies, 39, 446-462. Sartori Giovanni (1991): Comparing and miscomparing, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3, 243-257. Sartori, G. (1984): Guidelines for Concept Analysis, in Sartori, G. (ed.): Social Science Concepts. A Systematic Analysis, London: Sage Publications, 15-85. Smellser, N. (1968): The Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Economic Activity, chapter 3 in Essays in Sociological Explanation, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 62-75. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Week 3: Ideal types and typologies - useful tools for comparative analysis? 08.10.2007 Lecturer: Ingela Naumann - what is an ideal type - what are ideal types for - examples of different typologies in social and public policy research - do typologies based on ideal types have theoretical and empirical value? Set texts: Weber, M. (1949): Ideal Types, from Objectivity in Social Sciences and Social Policy, in: The Methodology of the Social Sciences, translated and ed. By E. Shils and H Finch, The Free Press of Glencoe, p. 89ff. Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002): Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report, Journal of European Social Policy, 12 (2), 137-158. Examples of welfare state and social policy typologies: Students are encouraged to look at at least two examples of the different social policy typologies from the list below. Titmuss, R.M. (1974): Social Policy, London: Allen & Unwin. Flora, P. and Alber, J. (1981): Modernization, democratization and the development of welfare states in Western Europe, in Peter Flora and Arnold Heidenheimer (eds.): The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 37-80. Shalev, M. (1983): The Social Democratic model and beyond, Comparative Social Research, 6, 315-351. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990): The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity, particularly Chp.1 (see also his newer book: Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, online on: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/019874200 2/toc.html Castles, F. G. and Mitchell, D. (1992): Families of Nations. Pattern of Public Policy in Western Democracies, Aldershot: Dartmouth, chp 3. Lewis, J. (1992): Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes, Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159-173. 5

Sainsbury, D (1994): Women s and Men s Social Rights: Gendering Dimensions of Welfare States, in Diane Sainsbury (ed.): Gendering Welfare States, London: Sage, 150-169. Van Kersbergen, K. (1995): Social Capitalism: a Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State, London: Routledge, particularly chp 2. Ferrera, M. (1996): The southern model of welfare in social Europe, Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17-37. Korpi, W. and Palme, J (1998): The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the Western countries, American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661-687. Anttonen, A. and Sipilä, J. (1996): European social care services: is it possible to identify models?, Journal of European Social Policy, 6 (2), 87-100. Bettio, F. and Plantenga, J. (2004): Comparing Care Regimes in Europe, Feminist Economics, 10 (1), 85-113. Classical examples of typologies: Weber, M.: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft), translated by A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1947. Aristotle: Politics, book 3, chps 6-7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Week 4: Comparative policy evaluation: constructing indices Lecturer: Alison Smith 15.10.2007 This session is intended to be a how to session. It consists of a 1 hr lecture on how to build an index with the aim of cross-national comparison and a 1 hr class session designing an index. - Cross national policy evaluation - Data gathering strategies - Harmonisation of variables - Building indices Set text: Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Report Card 7 http://www.unicef-icdc.org/ It is strongly recommended that you also read the following text: De Vaus, D. 2002: Surveys in Social Research (5th Edition), Chapter 1: The Nature of Surveys; Chapter 4: Developing Indicators for Concepts; Chapter 12: Overview of analysis; Chapter 11: Building Scales (needs to be read after chapter 12). Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Holmes, H. and Whiteford, P., (1993): A comparative study of child support in fifteen countries, Journal of European Social Policy, 3 (4), 255-271. 6

Bruning, G. and Plantenga, J. (1999): Parental leave and equal opportunities experiences in eight European countries, Journal of European Social Policy, 9 (3), 195-209. Gornick, J. C., Meyers M. K. and Ross, K. E. (1997): "Supporting the employment of mothers: Policy variation across fourteen welfare states", Journal of European Social Policy, 7, 45-70. Gornick, J. C. and Meyers, M. K. (2003): Families That Work. Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment, Russel Sage Foundation: New York. Smith, A. J. and Williams, D. (2007): "Father friendly legislation and paternal time across Western Europe", Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 9 (3), 175-192. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Week 5: The qualitative lessons of quantitative cross-national research 22.10.2007 Lecturer: Frank Castles PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF VENUE: HUGH ROBSON BULDING, STATS LAB This seminar will have a dual focus. In the first half, we shall discuss the methodology [pros and cons] of relatively small-n quantitative research in social policy and political science. In the second half, Frank Castles will seek to demonstrate how model specification and case selection can hugely influence ones results in both quantitative and qualitative research. Set texts: Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997): "Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology: A Debate on Methodological Issues", Comparative Social Research, 16, 1-26. Castles, F. G. (1998): Comparative Public Policy, Edward Elgar, Chp. 1. Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970): The Logic of Comparative Social Enquiry, New York: Wiley. Dogan, M. and Kazancigil (1994): Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance. Oxford: Blackwell. Peters, B. Guy, (1998): Comparative Politics, Theory and Methods. Palgrave: Macmillan. Kittel, B. (1999) Sense and Sensitivity in the Pooled Analysis of Political Data, European Journal of Political Research, 35 (2), 225-53. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Week 6: Cross-national comparison using large samples Lecturer: Alison Smith 29.10.2007 PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF VENUE: HUGH ROBSON BULDING, STATS LAB - contrasting macro-social and micro-social data - using country as a categorical variable; - within country analysis; pooling cross-national data; - issues around using survey data Set text: Ebbinghaus, B. (2005): When less is more: Selection problems in Large-N and Small-N cross-national comparisons, International Sociology, 20(2), 135-152. Further discussion of cross-national quantitative research: Breen, R. (2004): The comparative study of social mobility, in Breen, R. (ed) Social Mobility in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2001/4): Social Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press: See chapters 2 and 10. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000): On Sociology: Numbers, narratives, and the integration of research and theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. See in particular chapter 3. Harkness, J. (1999): In pursuit of quality: issues for cross-national survey research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2 (2), 125-140. Van der Lippe, T. and Van Dijk, L. (2002): Comparative research on women s employment, Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 221-41. Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijvier, F. J. R. and Mohler, P. P. (2003): Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, New York: Wiley. Verba, S. (1971): Cross-national survey research: the problem of credibility, in I. Valier (ed) Comparative Methods in Sociology: Essays on Trends and Applications, Berkeley: University of California Press. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial, Vol 3, Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence, edited by J. Harkness (Mannheim: ZUMA 1998), Available for download at http://www.gesis.org/en/publications/magazines/zuma_special/ ZUMA News Special, Vol 2, Eurobarometer - Measurement Instruments for Opinions in Europe, edited by W. E. Saris and M. Kaase (Mannheim: ZUMA 1997), Available for download at http://www.gesis.org/en/publications/magazines/zuma_special/ ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial, Vol 12, Conducting Cross-National and Cross-Cultural Surveys., Papers from the 2005 Meeting of the International Workshop on Comparative Survey Design and Implementation (CSDI), Janet A. Harkness (ed.), For more information see: <http://www.gesis.org/en/publications/magazines/zuma_special/> ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial, Vol 11 Methodological Aspects in Cross-National Research, Jürgen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & Janet A. Harkness (Eds.), Mannheim: ZUMA 2005, 305 Seiten, ISBN 3-924220-29-8, 13 Euro, For more information see: <http://www.gesis.org/en/publications/magazines/zuma_special/> 8

Selected research examples: Blossfeld, H-P and Drobnic, S. (eds), (2001): Careers of Couples in Contemporary Soceities: From Male Breadwinner to Dual Earner Families, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradbury, B. Jenkins, S. P. and Micklewright, J. (eds.) (2001): The Dynamics of Child Poverty in Industrialised Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breen, R. (ed.) (2004): Social Mobility in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robson, K. and Berthoud, R. (2003), Teenage motherhood in Europe, European Sociological Review 19, 451-466. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Week 7: Comparing few countries 05.11.2007 Lecturer: Jochen Clasen - aims of small-n comparisons - Mill's methods of difference - Mill's method of agreement - case (country) selection - constitution of cases - causality and small-n comparisons Set text: Ragin, C. (1997): Turning the tables. How case-oriented research challenges variable oriented research, Comparative Social Research, 16, 27-42. Clasen, J. (2004): Defining comparative social policy, P. Kennett (ed): A handbook of comparative social policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch. 5. Dion, D. (1998): Evidence and inference in the comparative case study, Comparative Politics, 30(2). Ebbinghaus, B. (2005): When less is more. Selection problems in large-n and small- N cross-national comparisons; International Sociology, 20 (2), 133-152. George, A. and Bennet, A. (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences, MIT Press. Hantrais, L. (2004): Crossing cultural boundaries, in P. Kennett (ed): A handbook of comparative social policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch. 14. Mahoney, J. (2000) Strategies of causal inference in small-n analysis, Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 387-424. Mahoney, J. (2004): Strategies of causal assessment in comparative historical analysis, in J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds): Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, Cambidge: Cambrige University Press, ch. 10. Mangen, S. (2004): Fit for purpose? Qualitative methods in comparative social policy, in P. Kennett (ed): A handbook of comparative social policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch. 17. Øyen, E. (2004): Living with imperfect comparisons, in P. Kennett (ed): A handbook of comparative social policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, ch. 15. Ragin, C. (1987): The comparative method, Berkeley: University of California Press, ch. 3. 9

Week 8: 'The fraudulent comparativist?' The role of the single country study in comparative analysis 12.11.2007 Lecturer: Andy Aitchison - Rationales for a single-country study - Single country studies and hypotheses: generation, confirmation, falsification - Case selection and the single country study: likelihood and deviance Set text: *Gerring, J. (2007): Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?, Comparative Political Studies, 40(3), 231-253. Students may find it is worth citing a general text on comparative analysis, for example Landman s (2003) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: an Introduction, for some general pointers on the role of single-country studies in comparative analysis. However students will also be expected to engage with some of the more substantial readings on the topic, below. *Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006): Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455-476. Eckstein, H. (1998): Unfinished business - Reflections on the scope of comparative politics, Comparative Political Studies, 31(4), 505-534. *Flyvbjerg, B. (DATE): Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Garst, W.D. (1998): From factor endowments to class struggle - Pre-World War I Germany and Rogowski's theory of trade and political cleavages, Comparative Political Studies, 31(1), 22-44. Krishna, A. 2006. Poverty and democratic participation reconsidered - Evidence from the local level in India. Comparative Politics, 38(4). *Lees, C. (2006): We are all comparativists now - Why and how single-country scholarship must adapt and incorporate the comparative politics approach, Comparative Political Studies, 39(9), 1084-1108. * Lijphart, A. (1971): Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method, The American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682-693. *Mahoney, J. (2007): Qualitative methodology and comparative politics, Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 122-144. *Munck, G.L. (1998): Canons of research design in qualitative analysis, Studies in Comparative International Development, 33(3), 18-45. *Nissen, S. (1998): The case of case studies: On the methodological discussion in comparative political science, Quality & Quantity, 32(4), 399-418. *Ragin, C.C. (1999): The distinctiveness of case-oriented research, Health Services Research, 34(5, part 2), 1137-1151. Rothstein, B. (1990): Marxism, institutional analysis, and working-class power - the Swedish case, Politics & Society, 18(3), 317-345. Stoecker, R. (1991): Evaluating and rethinking the case-study, Sociological Review, 39(1), 89-112. *texts marked with an asterisk should be available in electronic format; those without the asterisk are available in paper format in the library. 10

Week 9: Historical comparisons 19.11.2007 Ingela Naumann - Different forms of historical comparison: macro vs. micro-approaches - within-case analysis: process tracing, pattern matching, historical narratives - historical context and generalization - analyzing stability and change: path-dependency, critical junctures, institutional layering Set text: Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J. D. (1997): Comparing Historical Sequences a Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis. A Reply to John Goldthorpe s Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology, in: Comparative Social Research, 16, pp. 55-72. Additional Reading: Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds) (2004): Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonald, T. J. (ed.) (1996): The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, Michigan. see various contributions. Pierson, P. (2004): Politics in Time. History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton and Oxford. Pierson, P. (2000): Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics, in: American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267. Skocpol, T. and Somers, M. (1980): The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22, 174-197. Tarrow, S. (1996): Making Social Science Work Across Space and Time, American Science Review, 90, 389-397. Thelen, K. (1999): Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics, Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369-404. Tilly, C. (1984): Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York, chp. 4 on Comparing. Methodological Controversies: Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997): Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology: A Debate on Methodological Issues, Comparative Social Research, 16, 1-26. Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J. D. (1997): Comparing Historicla Sequences A Powerful Tool for Causal Analysis. A Reply to John Goldthorpe s Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology, Comparative Social Research, 16, 43-53. Goldthorpe, J. H. (1997): Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology: A Response to the Commentaries, Comparative Social Research, 16, 121-132. Nichols, E. (1986): Skocpol on Revolution: Comparative Analysis vs. Historical Conjuncture, Comparative Social Research, 9, 163-186. Skocpol, T. (1986): Analyzing Causal Configurations in History: A Rejoinder to Nichols, Comparative Social Research, 9, 187-194. 11

Week 10: Panel session: comparative research out in the field Ingela Naumann + Team 26.11.2007 This session will be based on discussions between teaching staff and students about doing comparative research out in the field. The aim is to give students an idea of what concrete comparative research projects look like, about limitations, intricacies, pitfalls and excitements with empirical comparative research. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COURSE ASSESSMENT: Exercise: Construct a comparative framework for cross-national policy analysis 1. Develop and define a concept for a comparative cross-country analysis (such as child well-being or poverty) and discuss relevant dimensions of it. 2. Operationalize it (construct indicators, discuss availability/use of data sources, issues of validity and reliability). Word limit: 1500 words Submission deadline: 5th November, 3pm, return of exercise 26 th November. Essay: Choose an essay topic from the list below or write an essay on a topic of your own choice that relates to the issues discussed in this course. If you choose a topic on your own it needs to be agreed with the course convener. I suggest that by the end of week 5 you specify a title and produce an outline of the argument which you can discuss with either the course convener or any of the other lecturers on the course. Word limit: 3000 words. Submission deadline: Friday 14 th December, 3pm, Graduate Office. Selection of Essay Topics: 1. Why is careful attention to concepts and categories so important in comparative analysis? 2. Compare two welfare (or other) typologies with respect to their empirical validity and explanatory power. 3. Are indices too simplistic to be effective tools in academic policy analysis? 4. Explanatory power afforded by the use of large samples in cross-national research far exceeds that of alternative approaches to comparative policy analysis. Discuss. 5. Evaluate the contribution of single country studies to comparative research of social and public policy. 6. Discuss advantages and limitations of comparing few countries. 7. Discuss possibilities and problems of measuring change and stability of institutional settings within welfare states (or national systems) over time. 8. Discuss the appropriateness of different statistical techniques (regression, fuzzy-set analysis or any other technique you are familiar with) for crossnational research. 12