What influence have the rationalist, structuralist and culturalist theoretical approaches had on the study of comparative politics?
Comparative politics is the empirical comparative study of political systems. It involves the classification and comparison of institutions - ‘a rule that has been institutionalised’ (Lane and Ersson, 1999: 23) - in order to determine the nature of political regimes. The study of comparative politics has come to be guided by three major research schools: rational choice theory, culturalist analysis and structuralist approaches; each of which spearhead a distinctive notion over what about institutions affects the nature of the political process. Rationalists are methodological individualists who assert that ‘collectivities have no status apart from the individuals who comprise them’ (Lichbach, 1997: 245). Rational choice theory is guided by the principle that individuals ‘act as maximisers of benefits over costs’ (Bara and Pennington, 1997: 17), and whilst there is scope for the acceptance of the role played by culture and institutional structures in conditioning individual action, it is still primarily maintained that an understanding of social structures is fundamentally driven by ‘the incentives and beliefs of individual actors’ (Bara and Pennington, 1997: 33). However, an overlap between the rationalist and culturalist train of thought has been forged by political scientist Herbert Simon with his theory of ‘bounded rationality’ - individuals cannot always ‘assimilate and digest all the information’ (The Economist) required to maximise their benefit from a particular course of action, and instead ‘resort to habits, traditions and rules of thumb’ (Lichbach, 1997: 34); ‘satisficing’. Culturalists ar...
... middle of paper ...
...er is on how such optimality is reached. Marxism and other theories of ‘historical determinism’ are inherently structuralist, with Marxist teachings being based on the idea that ‘institutional practices reflect the underlying nature of the prevailing ‘mode of production’’ (Bara and Pennington, 1997: 26), and the interests of social actors are limited to being defined in terms of their ‘functional relationships to the structures concerned’ (ibid). Whereas non-Marxist structuralism revolves around ‘the manner in which macro-structural parameters’ (Bara and Pennington, 1997: 28) interact to produce political outcomes, and undermines the significance of individual actors in the course of political events. In terms of a structuralist approach, the main task of a political analyst in the study of comparative politics is identifying what the structural dynamics are.
Elazar’s political culture typology divides state political culture into three dominant categories: moralist, individualist, and traditionalist. Moralists measure government by its commitment to the public good and concern for public welfare.
In Chapter 4 of Political Thinking; the Perennial Questions, Tinder raises the question of whether social order can be maintained without power. The argument of whether humans are estranged or naturally good plays a large part in deciding this question. Tinder hits on two major topics before coming to his ultimate decision. The first is that human nature can be linked to reason as both a cognitive and a moral tool that can be used to live without a specific source of power. In other words, people with a strong sense of morality can suffice without the need of an organized government. It is then argued that the concept of natural occurring interests between a society successfully taps into the fear that social order is spontaneous, disregarding whether people are generally good or bad. The example of free enterprise is given, regarding humans as selfish and materialistic. With this an idea for government to protect property and create stability in currency arose while trying not to encroach on personal freedoms.
Loweistein, K. (1953). The Role Of Ideologies in Political Change. New York: International Social Science Bulletin.
Danziger, James N. Understanding the Political World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science. New Jersey: Pearson, 2013. Print.
This essay defines the theory of “elitism” and “pluralism” and how these two theories compare. First, this essay describes the theory of “elitism”. Then, it provides some historical events that we’ve studied in class that support the theory of “elitism” in the political process. Next, this essay describes the theory of “pluralism”. Then, it provides some historical events that we’ve studied in class that support the theory of “pluralism” in the political process. Finally, this reading response explains how these two theories compare.
From Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor's study of "New Institutionalism". "New Institutionalism" term that now appear with developing predominance in political science. A portion of the ambiguities obscurity wrapping the new institutionalism can be scattered on the off chance that we see that it doesn't shape a brought together substance of cerebration. Hall and Rosemary introduce three theories of "Institutionalism": "Historical Institutionalism", "Rational Choice Institutionalism", and "Sociological Institutionalism". These theories were enhanced in response to the behavioral view that was legitimate amid the 1960's and 1970's and solicitations to clarify the parts of foundations in demonstrating social and political outgrowth. Among the three
In the Communist Manifesto we see early versions of essential Marxist concepts that Marx would elaborate with more scientific rigor in mature writings such as Das Kapital. Perhaps most important of these concepts is the theory of historical materialism, which states that historical change is driven by collective actors attempting to realize their economic aims, resulting in class struggles in which one economic and political order is replaced by another. One of the central tenets of this theory is that social relationships and political alliances form around relations of production. Relations of production depend on a given society’s mode of production, or the specific economic organization of ownership and division of labor. A person’s actions, attitudes, and outlook on society and his politics, loyalties, and sense of collective belonging all derive from his location in the relations of production. History engages people as political actors whose identities are constituted as exploiter or exploited, who form alliances with others likewise identified, and who act based on these
Elazar, Daniel. "Explaining Policy Differences Using Political Culture." Reading. West Texas A&M University. Political Culture Handout. Dr. Dave Rausch, Teel Bivins Professor of Political Science. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. < http://www.wtamu.edu/~jrausch/polcul.html.>
Lijphart, Arend. "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method." American Political Science Review. 65 (1971): 682-693.
Thelen, K. (2001) ‘Varieties of Labour Politics in the Developed Democracies’, in Hall, Peter A.; Soskice, David (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: the Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, pp. 71–103. New York: Oxford University Press
It is discussed how the indifference to politics by many citizens of western society and the fact that ideologies are now no longer needed by those in power to enforce their will are two key truths of western politics.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Hoffman, J. & Graham, P. (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, 2nd Edition: London: Pearson Education Limited.
7th edition. London: Pearson Longman, ed. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Comparative politics is an important aspect of political science in that instead of studying how this country functions, it studies why other countries around the world are the way they are. There must be some medium for finding the differences and similarities between one county and another in order discover what can effect such aspects as economic strength, military strength, and the structure of the regime in power. One reason to compare countries is to help ourselves by allowing us to learn about other countries while escaping the ethnocentric fallacy many of us have. The Unites States may have a good government but is not necessarily a perfect government; certain countries may have aspects of their own government that we could learn from and perhaps improve upon our own system. Another reason to compare countries is to understand how countries evolve, discover patterns, and why they evolve in the way they do. Another very important reason to study comparative politics is to better understand how certain regimes work for purposes of international relations and foreign policy. In order to create policy regarding other countries and in order to give aid to these countries we must know how these countries function so that we can work with the countries instead of blindly trying to change them in a way that we seem fit. This is especially important in the modern age with the evolution of a global cooperation between many countries and the fact that the United States has become the watchdog, big brother, and teacher for many of the less developed countries of the world.