Comparative politics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of

the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and
between countries. Substantively, this can include questions relating to political
institutions, political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic
development. When applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may be
referred to by other names, such as comparative government (the comparative study
of forms of government).

Definition
[edit]
Comparative politics is the systematic study and comparison of the diverse political
systems in the world. Comparative politics analyzes differences in political regimes,
governance structures, electoral systems, policy outcomes, and public administration
across countries, regions, or time periods. It is comparative in searching to explain why
different political systems have similarities or differences and how developmental
changes came to be between them. It is systematic in that it looks for trends, patterns,
and regularities among these political systems. The research field takes into account
political systems throughout the globe, focusing on themes such
as democratization, globalization, and integration. New theories and approaches have
been used in Political Science in the last 40 years thanks to comparative politics. Some
of these focus on political culture, dependency theory, developmentalism, corporatism,
indigenous theories of change, comparative political economy, state-society relations,
and new institutionalism.[1] Some examples of comparative politics are studying the
differences between presidential and parliamentary
systems, democracies and dictatorships, parliamentary systems in different countries,
multi-party systems such as Canada and two-party systems such as the United States.
Comparative politics must be conducted at a specific point in time, usually the present.
A researcher cannot compare systems from different periods of time; it must be static. [1]

While historically the discipline explored broad questions in political science through
between-country comparisons, contemporary comparative political science primarily
uses subnational comparisons.[2] More recently, there has been a significant increase in
the interest of subnational comparisons and the benefit it has on Comparative Politics.
We would know far less about major credible issues within political science if it weren't
for subnational research. Subnational research contributes important methodological,
theoretical, and substantive ideas to the study of politics.[3] Important developments
often obscured by a national-level focus are easier to decipher through subnational
research. An example could be regions inside countries where the presence of state
institutions have been reduced in effect or value.[3]
The name comparative politics refers to the discipline's historical association with
the comparative method, described in detail below. Arend Lijphart argues that
comparative politics does not have a substantive focus in itself, but rather
a methodological one: it focuses on "the how but does not specify the what of the
analysis."[4] Peter Mair and Richard Rose advance a slightly different definition, arguing
that comparative politics is defined by a combination of a substantive focus on the study
of countries' political systems and a method of identifying and explaining similarities and
differences between these countries using common concepts.[5][6]

Sometimes, especially in the United States, the term "Comparative Politics" is used to
refer to "the politics of foreign countries." This usage of the term is disputed. [7][8]

Comparative politics is essential for understanding the nature and functions of Political
Systems worldwide, political structures around the world vary significantly across
countries due to historical, social, ethical, and racial differences. Even political
organizations that are similar operate differently from one another. For
instance, India and the United States are majority-rule nations; nonetheless, the U.S.
has a liberal vote-based presidential system contrasted with the parliamentary system
used in India. Even the political decision measure is more diverse in the United States
when found in light of the Indian popular government. The United States has a president
as their leader, while India has a prime minister. Relative legislative issues encourage
us to comprehend these central contracts and how the two nations are altogether
different regardless of being majority rule. This field of study is critical for the fields of
international relations and conflict resolution. Near politics encourages international
relations to clarify worldwide legislative issues and the present winning conditions
worldwide. Although both are subfields of political science, comparative politics
examines the causes of international strategy and the effect of worldwide approaches
and frameworks on homegrown political conduct and working.

History of the field

[edit]
Harry H. Eckstein traces the history of the field of comparative politics back to Aristotle,
and sees a string of thinkers from Machiavelli and Montesquieu, to Gaetano
Mosca and Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels, on to James Bryce – with
his Modern Democracies (1921) – and Carl Joachim Friedrich – with his Constitutional
Government and Democracy (1937) – contributing to its history.[9]

Two traditions reaching back to Aristotle and Plato

[edit]
Philippe C. Schmitter argues that the "family tree" of comparative politics has two main
traditions: one, invented by Aristotle, that he calls "sociological constitutionalism"; a
second, that he traced back to Plato, that he calls "legal constitutionalism"". [10]

Schmitter places various scholars under each tradition:

 1. Sociological constitutionalism: Some classic in this tradition are:

"Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant, Alexis de
Tocqueville, Lorenz von Stein, Karl Marx, Moisei Ostrogorski, Max Weber, Emile
Durkheim, Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Herbert Tingsten."
Schmitter argues that, in the twentieth century, this tradition was known by the label
of "historical political sociology" and included scholars such as "Stein Rokkan, T. H.
Marshall, Reinhard Bendix, Otto Kirchheimer, Seymour Martin Lipset, Juan
Linz, Hans Daalder, Mattei Dogan, Shmuel Eisenstadt, Harry H. Eckstein,
and Dankwart Rustow."[11]
 2. Legal constitutionalism: Some classic scholars in this tradition are: "Léon
Duguit, Georges Burdeau, James Bryce, A. Lawrence Lowell, and Woodrow
Wilson." Schmitter argues that in the twentieth century this tradition was continued
by: "Maurice Duverger, Herman Finer, Samuel Finer, Giovanni Sartori, Carl Joachim
Friedrich, Samuel Beer, Jean Blondel, Ferdinand A. Hermens, and Klaus von
Beyme."[11]
Periodization as a field of political science
[edit]
Gerardo L. Munck offers the following periodization for the evolution of modern
comparative politics, as a field of political science - understood as an academic
discipline - in the United States:[12]

 1. The Constitution of Political Science as a Discipline, 1880–1920

 2. The Behavioral Revolution, 1921–1966
 3. The Post-Behavioral Period, 1967–1988
 4. The Second Scientific Revolution 1989–2005
Contemporary patterns, 2000–present
[edit]
Since the turn of the century, several trends in the field can be detected. [13]

 End of the pretense of rational choice theory to hegemonize the field

 Lack of a unifying metatheory
 Greater attention to causal inference, and increased use of experimental methods.
 Continued use of observation methods, including qualitative methods.
 New concern with a "hegemony of methods" as theorizing is not given as much
attention.
 Decline of Rational Choice Theory's Dominance [14]
 Absence of a Unifying Metatheory
 Increased Focus on Causal Inference and Experimental Methods
 Continued Use of Observational and Qualitative Methods
 Concerns About Methodological Dominance
Substantive areas of research
[edit]

United States wealth compared to other regions of

the world.
By some definitions, comparative politics can be traced back to Greek philosophy,
as Plato's Republic and Aristotle's The Politics.

As a modern sub-discipline, comparative politics is constituted by research across a

range of substantive areas, including the study

 Politics of democratic states

 Politics of authoritarian states
 Public goods provision and distributive politics
 Political violence
 Political identity, including ethnic and religious politics
 Democratization and regime change
 Elections and electoral and party systems
 Political economy of development
 Collective action
 Voting behavior
 Origins of the state
 Comparative political institutions
 Methodologies for comparative political research
 Quantitative politics with democracy indices
While many researchers, research regimes, and research institutions are identified
according to the above categories or foci, it is not uncommon to claim geographic or
country specialization as the differentiating category.

The division between comparative politics and international relations is artificial, as

processes within nations shape international processes, and international processes
shape processes within states.[15][16][17] Some scholars have called for an integration of the
fields.[18][19] Comparative Politics does not have similar "isms" as international relations
scholarship.[20]

Super regions, regions of the world

[edit]
Comparative Politics examines various parts of the world. Political scientists reference
super regions and the key countries within them.[21] Understanding which region is being
referenced and what key nations the scientists are conducting research on is an
essential part of comparative politics. however discussing comparative politics is a
difficult topic. The American education system has failed to educate its students on
geography in recent years.[21]

In political studies, identifying continents is crucial, as they encompass super regions

within them, vast territories that share many similarities. For example, Latin America
shares a common culture and language. Within super regions are smaller regions
consisting of groups of individual countries that exhibit more closely related similarities.
[21]

Methodology
[edit]
While the name of the subfield suggests one methodological approach (the comparative
method), political scientists in Comparative Politics use the same diversity of social
scientific methods as scientists elsewhere in the field, including experiments,
[22]
comparative historical analysis,[23] case studies,[24] survey methodology, and
ethnography.[25] Researchers choose a methodological approach in Comparative Politics
driven by two concerns: ontological orientation[26] and the type of question or
phenomenon of interest.[27]

(Mill's) comparative method

[edit]
 Most Similar Systems Design/Mill's Method of Difference: This method consists in
comparing very similar cases which only differ in the dependent variable, on the
 assumption that this would make it easier to find those independent variables which
explain the presence/absence of the dependent variable.[28]
 Most Different Systems Design/Mill's Method of Similarity: This method consists in
comparing very different cases, all of which however have in common the
same dependent variable, so that any other circumstance which is present in all the
cases can be regarded as the independent variable.[28]
Subnational comparative analysis
[edit]
Since the turn of the century, many students of comparative politics have compared
units within a country. Relatedly, there has been a growing discussion of what Richard
O. Snyder calls the "subnational comparative method."[29]

More methodologies and approaches

[edit]
Source:[30]

 Qualitative methods: Case studies, interviews, ethnography.

 Quantitative methods: Statistical analysis, large-N comparisons.
 Mixed methods: Combining both for more holistic insights.
 New methodologies: Computational methods (e.g., big data analytics, network
analysis).
Contemporary trends
[edit]
In recent years, the field of comparative politics has evolved to address new challenges
and developments in global and domestic political landscapes. Scholars have
increasingly focused on the following trends:

Globalization and its political impacts

[edit]
The interconnectedness of nations has transformed political systems and governance
structures. Globalization has led to the diffusion of democratic norms, the rise of
international organizations, and the increasing influence of transnational actors. At the
same time, it has sparked debates over sovereignty and the backlash against global
integration, exemplified by the rise of nationalist movements and populist leaders in
various countries.

Digital technology and political change

[edit]
The rapid proliferation of digital technology has revolutionized political communication,
campaigning, and governance. Social media platforms have become crucial tools for
political mobilization and grassroots activism. However, they have also been exploited
for disinformation campaigns and cyber interference in elections, raising concerns about
the impact of technology on democratic processes.

Rise of authoritarianism
[edit]
While democracy has spread in many regions, there has been a concurrent resurgence
of authoritarianism in others. Authoritarian regimes have employed sophisticated
techniques, such as surveillance technology and media manipulation, to consolidate
power. Comparative politics now examines how such regimes adapt to global pressures
while maintaining domestic control.

Environmental politics
[edit]
Climate change and environmental crises have become central concerns in
comparative politics. Governments worldwide are addressing these issues through
diverse policy approaches, ranging from international agreements like the Paris Accord
to localized initiatives. Comparative studies analyze how Political Systems and cultures
influence the effectiveness of environmental policies.

Identity politics and social movements

[edit]
Issues of identity, including race, gender, and ethnicity, have gained prominence in
political discourse and policy debates. Comparative Politics explores how social
movements advocating for equality and justice shape political outcomes, as well as how
governments respond to these movements.

Role of international organizations

[edit]
Institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and regional bodies such
as the European Union have gained importance in shaping domestic policies.
Comparative politics studies how states interact with these organizations and the
implications for national sovereignty and governance.[31][32]
See also
[edit]
 Comparative historical research
 Comparative Political Studies
 Comparative law
 Critical juncture theory
 Historical institutionalism
 Historical sociology
 International relations
 Modernization theory
 Political science
 Political sociology
 Institutional economics
 Comparison of electoral systems
References