1. Comparative Politics Seminar Presentation
February 2012
Comparative Politics: Historical
Development and Overview of the Field
Hannah McFaull

2. Sidney Verba - Comparative Politics: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going?
Howard J. Wiarda – Comparative Politics: Past and Present
Roy C. Macridis – Major Characteristics of the Behaviouralist Approach
Robert A. Dahl – The Behavioural Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument
to a Successful Protest
David Easton – The New Revolution in Political Science
Atul Kohli, et al - The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

3. Comparative politics: where have we been and where are we going?
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

4.  Greater depth within individual countries
 Hybrid disciplines
 Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods
 Comparative politics only truly comparative for the first time?
 Lack of all encompassing theory
 1970s and 80s: the development of range of new approaches including
those derived from neo-Marxism and political economy
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

5. Comparative politics: past and present
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

6. The 1950s
 Comparative Politics not new: Aristotle, Machiavelli and other examples
 European scholar refugees post-WWII
 Sociological and psychological theories and methods
 Driven by foreign policy ideals
 Behaviouralism
 Structural-functionalism
 Pattern variables
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

7. Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

8. The 1960s
 Developmentalism
 Western political systems criteria used to assess non-Western political systems
 Corporatism
 Dependency Theory
 Further fragmentation of the field
 The ‘imperial claim’
 Future optimism?
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

9. Major characteristics of the traditionalist approach
 Non-Comparative
 Focus on northern and western European democracies
 Historical approach
 Legalistic approach
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

10. The behavioural approach in political science
Dissatisfaction with Study of individuals?
state of current field
Scientific standards
Studies into
voting patterns
and electoral
Integration prevented behaviour
alienation from the
other social sciences
Survey and polling; possible
Problem with the a-historical to prove hypotheses about
nature of behaviouralist behaviour
research?
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

11. Post-behaviouralism: a new revolution in political science
Neutrality of
Dissatisfaction political science?
with current field Understanding
– frustration with the values behind
slow pace and research
irrelevancy of
political science
Duty of those with
knowledge to use
Substance over
it for action
technique
Call for the politicisation of the Readdress the imbalance between
political science profession pure and applied research
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

12. The role of theory in comparative politics
 Theory in comparative politics spans a broad spectrum
 Theoretical opportunism as a result of theoretical diversity
 Research driven by real-world problems
 Theory only to frame empirical research?
 Need for causal factors
The field is strong, optimism for the future of comparative politics
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field

13. Discussion questions
Is all empirical political science comparative? Do you agree with the ‘imperial claim’
mentioned in the Wiarda reading?
Is America too big/complex to be used as a single case study in comparative
research? Has the ‘superiority complex’ felt in the mid-twentieth century completely
disappeared or it is ever justifiable?
Is it ever possible to get a full understanding of how a country functions if you don’t
understand what motivates the people in it? Do you agree with the behaviouralist
dissatisfaction with the traditional approach?
If you have superior understanding, or knowledge, are you compelled to use it? Do
you agree with Easton’s call for the politicisation of political scientists and
universities based on a duty of knowledge? Should political science be political?
Both Dahl and Easton’s descriptions of behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism
ascribe the foundations of the approach in dissatisfaction with the current state of
the field. Does the fragmentation of the field following the apex of these
movements mean that these revolutions would no longer possible?
Comparative Politics: Historical Development and Overview of the Field