From Theory to Evidence:The Comparative Method

7 March, 2008

Is all social research comparative?

• We seek to describe, understand, explain• Can this be done with a single case?

Research Design(s)

• The Case Study (one shot)– examine phenomena at a single unit or event.

individual, state, society, culture, a conflict, a war. – technically not a design because it does not

involve a comparison

• Comparative method– examine variation in some phenomena as it

occurs across multiple units or events

Case Study

• Purpose is to describe a unit, not to test hypotheses• inductive: start w/ observations, learn from them, and

generate theory or reach “understanding”• Assume each case (nation) is unique • many, many things may affect event/act (lots of

variables); all things have individual uniqueness• interpretive approach: observer does rich observation,

think description of complex social relations, social systems

• emphasize accuracy, nuance, uniqueness of case

Problems with single case study

• No variation (no comparison)• non-generalizable• non-falsifiable (?)• non-causal• selection on the dependent variable• rare cases examined, not non events• non-cumulative

Comparative Method

• Observing and comparing carefully selected cases on the basis of some stimulus being absent or present

• Operates on the same logic as the experimental design

• Limitation is that the ability to control the political environment is so limited so causal inferences are more difficult.

Approach

• goal is to make generalizations across many cases

• Requires that concepts be simplified, stretched

• Parsimony allows for generalization• Take complex social systems and re-name

them “variables”

Problems with Big “N” comparative method

• complex social phenomena hard to measure• Culture• A focus on the easily measured things can lead

researcher to emphasize the importance of trivial forces

• Can lead to emphasis on questions that are trivial• parsimony over accuracy• Poor data• “empirical, but disengaged”

Problems with small “N”

• too many variables, not enough cases, ie. "degrees of freedom problem”

• Countries as the unit of analysis• Often a large potential set of countries is

reduced by missing data• Remaining cases are not representative• Limited variety that imposes constraints on

rigor

Solutions

• Increase the number of cases as much as possible

• Focus the comparative analysis on “comparable cases”

• Focus on the “key” variables, reduce the number of explanations

Example: Social Revolutions

• When, where, why? (T. Scotpol)• Define: Violent (?) and/or rapid (?) change in

social order, internally generated• Measurement issues– How define it? civil war vs revolution – political vs. social

Causal Factors

• working class consciousness (Marx), false consciousness

• peasant solidarity• weak state structure, • illegitimate institutions• fiscal crisis of state• external military threat• economic depression• relative deprivation

How many cases?

• Iran 1979• Russia 1918• France 1780s• China 1940s• US, Mexico, Latin America (political, but not

social revolutions)?

Problems

• too many variables, not enough cases, ie. "degrees of freedom problem”

• How study where events did not happen?• Places that had no revolutions tell us lots

about places that did have them

Comparable case analysis

• China 1910s (or Japan 1910s) to China 1940s• Germany 1840s to France 1780s• Iran 1979 to Iraq 1979

Voter turnout in cross national context

• Why is turnout higher in some places?• Theory: rationalism and institutionalism• institutions affect incentives for parties to

mobilize voters• people respond to changes in context of

election• “costs” of voting lower under some conditions• “benefits” greater under some conditions

Causes• Hypotheses:• PR vs. FPTP -> turnout• constituency level closeness -> turnout• Other factors:• federalism• # of parties• frequency of elections• compulsory voting• weather• aggregate levels of wealth, education

How many cases

• what’s fair to compare?• Established democracies• Fair elections• Just Europe, Asia, Africa, NA, etc.• w/ Africa, corruption = higher TO• w/o Africa, corruption = lower TO

Measurement issues• PR -> many different forms (MMP, STV, closed

list) - binary?• parties -> 2 party system, 3 party system, “multi”

• (what is UK? 2 party system, 3?)• Can effect of PR be teased out from effect of # of

parties?• Where is PR located (if cases largely European)?– Scandinavia - a ‘consensual’ political culture

• Where is FPTP located?– UK, US, Can, NZ (pre 96), Oz, Caribbean, India

How test for cultural effect?

• Hold culture constant: Change institutions in one, two, N nations (NZ)

• Find variation in institutions where culture is constant , ie. US south

Economic growth in comparative perspective

• Why higher in some places?• Theory: Social capital, institutions• Hypotheses:– Nations w/ more social capital -> growth– Nations w/ certain institutions -> growth

autonomous central banks

Other factors

• colonial history• social networks (trust -> trade)• corporatism (left govt * union structure =

growth)

How many cases? what’s fair to compare?

• All nations?• OECD, just Europe, just Asia?• NICs?

The problem of case selection• Asia = Taiwan, China, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia,

Indonesia, Burma, Thailand, PNG, Laos, Cambodia, Viet man, India

• we compare within Asia? Can we compare Asia to Africa? to the Americas? to Europe?

• Europe = “old” vs. new” (post communist)• The Norway issue: Hicks and Swank, Lange and

Garrett– years of Left party control of government– union structure / penetration / % of workforce– ability to set top down agreements on wage hikes

Measurement issues

• Economic growth• Confucian tradition• Protestant work ethic = % Protestant?

Emphasis on Rationality and institutionalism

• How do political & econ. institutions affect & reflect behavior

• rationalism = individuals act consistent w/ their preferences

• ‘utility’ maximizing behavior• try to get more for less• incentives & constraints (institutions resources)• strategic interactions