Comparative Politics
Comparative politics asks how and why political institutions and behaviour differ across cases. The exam tests comparative method, case selection, institutional typologies, democratisation, and state capacity.
Core tools
- The comparative method compares a small number of cases. Most-similar-systems design holds background conditions constant to isolate a likely cause; most-different-systems design looks for a common cause across dissimilar cases.
- Lijphart distinguishes majoritarian and consensus democracy. Majoritarian models concentrate executive power, use disproportional elections, and are often unitary; consensus models share power, use proportional representation, and may be federal.
- Presidential and parliamentary systems differ in executive selection, tenure, and accountability. Each has trade-offs: presidentialism offers fixed terms but can create dual legitimacy; parliamentarism offers flexible removal but can produce unstable coalitions.
- Democratisation is explained by modernisation, elite bargaining, institutions, and international pressure. State capacity is the ability to tax, enforce law, and deliver services.
Worked example
Two parliamentary democracies have similar income levels. Country X uses proportional representation and coalition government; Country Y uses first-past-the-post and single-party government. Turnout is higher in X. Can we conclude PR causes turnout? Using most-similar-systems design, control for compulsory voting, competitiveness, and party mobilisation. If those are similar, PR may raise perceived efficacy and reduce wasted votes. Otherwise the correlation is not causal.
Traps
Avoid conceptual stretching, selecting cases only because they confirm a theory, and comparing unlike units. Do not confuse correlation with causation or assume institutions operate identically in different contexts.