2013 Metodine Priemone Comparative Politics PDF
2013 Metodine Priemone Comparative Politics PDF
2013 Metodine Priemone Comparative Politics PDF
FAC U LT Y OF P OL I T IC A L S C I E NC E A N D DI PL OM AC Y
DE PA RT M E N T OF P OL I T IC A L S C I E NC E
Introduction to
Comparative Politics
DIDACTICAL GUIDELINES
Kaunas, 2013
Reviewed by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jrat Imbrasait
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
An Introduction: What is Comparative Politics? . . . . . . . 6
1. The State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. Political Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. Legislature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4. The Executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5. Political Participation and Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6. Political Parties and Party Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7. Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Foreword
This book was written as a part of a European Union funded project,
the aim of which was to adapt several courses taught at Vytautas
Magnus University for the purpose of teaching these subjects in Eng-
lish. Introduction to comparative politics was one of these courses.
This book draws much of its substantive contents and structure from
some of the best contemporary textbooks in comparative politics,
namely Daniele Caramanis (ed.) Comparative Politics (published
with Oxford University Press), Kenneth Newton and Jan van Deths
Foundations of Comparative Politics (Cambridge University Press),
Rod Hague and Martin Harrops Comparative Government and Poli-
tics (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as others. Not aiming for a distinc-
tively original body of teaching material, we set ourselves the task of
collecting the best of what these seminal textbooks had to offer and
compiling it into one short publication for students at VMU to enjoy.
In doing this, however, a careful regard was put on keeping in line
with the copyrights of the respective authors, as well as covering the
basic subject-matter of the field.
Elections
Conflict Party Systems
Revolution
International Environmental
Politics Interest Groups
Organizations
Legislatures
8
What is Comparative Politics?
to the functioning of the political system. A second key idea was the
need for a scientific approach to theory and methods. Behavioural-
ists were opposed to what they saw as vague, rarefied theory and
atheoretical empirics, and argued for systematic theory and empiri-
cal testing. The behavioural era in comparative politics is sometimes
described as a modern period of its evolution.
Moreover, the only recipient from political science of the Nobel Prize
is Elinor Ostrom, who might well be identified with comparative
politics. All this shows the huge importance of comparative politics
in the discipline of political science.
12
What is Comparative Politics?
Comparative method
In general the comparative method is the oldest and most popular meth-
od of acquiring knowledge. Ph. Schmitter observed that comparison is
an analytical method perhaps, the best available one for advancing
valid and cumulative knowledge about politics (Schmitter 2006: 1).
The foundations of the comparative method were laid down in the
mid-19th century by John Stuart Mill, who described a number of meth-
ods for finding causal factors. In the case of Mills method of agreement
one needs to look for events that occur whenever the phenomenon be-
ing studied occurs. The single event that is found to be common to all
occurrences of the phenomenon is said to be the cause. Mills method
of difference asks to see if changes in a phenomenon occur whenever
a particular event changes. The single event that is found to change
when differences occur in the phenomenon is said to be the cause.
13
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Arend Lijphart was among the first scholars who started a dis-
cussion on the comparative method within political science. In his
famous article Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method he
described the comparative method as one of the basic methods, the
others being: the experimental, statistical, and case study methods
of establishing general empirical propositions. It is, in the first place,
definitely a method, not just a convenient term vaguely symbolizing
the focus of ones research interests. Nor is it a special set of substan-
tive concerns in the sense of Shmuel N. Eisenstadts definition of the
comparative approach in social research; he states that the term does
not properly designate a specific method..., but rather a special focus
on cross-societal, institutional, or macro-societal aspects of societies
and social analysis (quoted from Lijphart 1971: 682).
As Charles Ragin points out, comparative researchers examine
patterns of similarities and differences across a moderate number of
cases. The typical comparative study has anywhere from a handful
to fifty or more cases. The number of cases is limited because one of
the concerns of comparative research is to establish familiarity with
each case included in a study. According to Ragin there are three
main goals of comparative research: 1)exploring diversity, 2)inter-
preting cultural or historical significance, and 3)advancing theory.
Todd Landman noted that there are four main reasons for com-
parison, including contextual description, classification and typolo-
gizing, hypothesis-testing and theory-building and prediction.
Description and classification are the building blocks of comparative
politics. Classification simplifies descriptions of the important objects
of comparative inquiry. Good classification should have well-defined
categories into which empirical evidence can be organized. Categories
that make up a classification scheme can be derived inductively from
careful consideration of available evidence or through a process of de-
duction in which ideal types are generated (Landman 2008: 7).
The most famous effort at classification is found in Aristotles
Politics, in which he establishes six types of rule. Based on the com-
bination of their form of rule (good or corrupt) and the number of
those who rule (one, few, or many), Aristotle derived the following
six forms: monarchy, aristocracy, polity, tyranny, oligarchy, and de-
mocracy (Landman 2008: 7).
14
What is Comparative Politics?
Space dimension
1 4
Time dimension
Few intervals 3
All intervals 2 5
Questions
1. What is comparative politics?
2. Who are the main contributors to contemporary comparative
politics?
3. Explain the difference between hypothesis-testing and prediction.
Further Reading
Caramani, D. (2011) Comparative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hague, R. &Harrop, M. (2004) Comparative Government and
Politics: An Introduction. 6th (ed.). Basingstoke, New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Ragin, Ch. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond
Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: California Uni-
versity Press.
The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
16
What is Comparative Politics?
References
Beyme von, K. (2011) The Evolution of Comparative Politics. // Ca-
ramani, D. Comparative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, p.2336.
Caramani, D. (2011) Comparative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Clark, W.R., Golder, M., Golder S.N. (2009) Principles of Compara-
tive Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Fabbrini, S. & Molutsi P. (2011). Comparative Politics. //Badie, B.,
Berg-Schlosser, D., Morlino, L. International Encyclopedia of Po-
litical Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p.342360.
Freeman, E. (1896) Comparative Politics. London, New York:Mac
millan. Reference Online. Web. 30 Jan. 2012: http://archive.org/
stream/comparativepolit030612mbp#page/n17/mode/2up.
Landman, T. (2008) Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, Lon-
don: Routledge.
Lijphart, A. (1971) Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method
// The American Political Science Review, Vol.65, No.3, p.682693.
Lim, T. (2010). Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to Ap-
proaches and Issues. 2nd (ed.). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Macridis, R.C. (1955) A Survey of the Field of Comparative Govern-
ment. // The Study of Comparative Government. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Newton, K. & van Deth, J. (2010) Foundations of Comparative Poli-
tics: Democracies of the Modern World. 2nd (ed.). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schmitter, P.(2006) Nature and Future of Comparative Politics. Ref-
erence Online. Web. 30 Jan. 2012: http://www.eui.eu/Documents/
DepartmentsCentres/SPS/Profiles/Schmitter/PCSNatureAndFu-
tureOfComparPolAug06.pdf.
Sodaro, M. J. (2008) Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction. 3rd
(ed.). New York [etc.]: McGraw-Hill.
17
1. The State
Definitions of the state
State institutions
Development of the modern state
Organization of the state
Source: http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml#2000
18
The State
Definitions
State is a dominant principle of political organization in the mod-
ern world (the number of states grew from 59 to 193 over the past
60 years (see Table 1); however, there is no single definition of this
concept. According to Bob Jessop it is not clear how we should define
state by its legal form, coercive capacities, institutional composi-
tion or sovereign place in the international system. Is state a subject,
a social relation or a construct that helps to orient political action?
The German sociologist Max Webber (1978:56) tried to distinguish
characteristics of the state, according to him:
operating under the constitution made by we, the people and en-
forced by the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the idea of
sovereignty is diluted and so too is the concept of the state itself.
Plurality. In the words of Poggi (2011:69), the modern political
environment consists in a plurality of territorially discrete, self-em-
powering, self-activating, self-securing states. Each of these presup-
poses the existence of all others, and each is in principle their equal,
since it shares with them (and acknowledges in them) its own char-
acteristics.
Relation with the population. Population is an integral part of
every state. According to Poggi (2011:69), the relationship between
the state and its population is not a purely factual one; the popula-
tion is not perceived as a mere demographic entity but as a people. As
such it entertains a more significant, more intimate, one might say
constitutive, relation with state itself.
If we take a more expansive concept of the state, Gianfranco Pog-
gi suggests adding the role of law. Law may be understood as a set of
rules, commands and prohibitions, which help to prevent antisocial
behaviour and distribute material resources between social groups
and individuals. But in the West, however, law has been put to a
third use in establishing polities, deciding issues of policy, institut-
ing public agencies and offices, activating and controlling their op-
erations. (Poggi 2011:70). In other words the state is bound to the
laws it created.
It is important to make a distinction between state and society.
According to Gianfranco Poggi (2011:71), the state, in principal, is
an ensemble of institutional arrangements and practices which <>
address all and only the political aspects of the management of a
territorially bounded society. The state represents itself through po-
litical activities such as legislation, jurisdiction, military action, etc.
Society, on the other hand, is not necessarily linked to political ac-
tivities. Individuals undertake those activities in their private ca-
pacities, pursuing values and interests of their own, and establish-
ing among themselves relations which are not the concern of public
policy (Poggi 2011:71).
22
The State
State institutions
Institutions are an inseparable element of state. According to Michael
J.Sodaro, political outcomes such as governmental decisions that
determine who gets what are often decisively affected by a coun-
trys institutional framework, and not simply by the direct impact
of influential social groups or nongovernmental organizations. <>
different outcomes may result depending on how a country organiz-
es its executive branch, its legislature, its judiciary, and other institu-
tions, and how these organs function in practice. According to Bob
Jessop, (2006:112) there is a core set of institutions with increasingly
vague boundaries. From the political executive, legislature, judiciary,
army, police, and public administration, the list may extend to edu-
cation, trade unions, mass media, religion and even family. Such lists
typically fail to specify what lends these institutions the quality of
statehood. However, Michael J.Sodaro distinguishes the five most
important governmental institutions the executive, the legislature,
the judiciary, the bureaucracy and the military.
The Executive. The executive is a primary branch of political sys-
tem. Generally the head of executives may it be prime minister or
president, is on the very top in the governmental hierarchy and is the
one who shapes a states policies and is responsible for its outcome.
Itis important to stress the difference between head of state and head
of government. The head of state is a ceremonial position that carries
little or no real decision-making power (Sodaro 2008:129). Basically
itis a symbolic, prestigious but politically neutral post, which repre-
sents a nations unity and is above political battles. The head of gov-
ernment is usually the countrys chief political officer and is respon-
sible for presenting and conducting its principal policies. <> He or
she normally supervises the entire executive branch of the state, in-
cluding its senior ministers (who together comprise the cabinet) and
their respective ministries, as well as a host of executive-level agen-
cies designed to propose and execute government policies. (Sodaro
2008:129) This distinction between head of government and head of
state according to Hague and Harrop (2004:7) shows that state is not
the same as government state defines the political community of
which government is only the executive branch.
23
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Box 1. 2. Difference between the head of state and the head of gov-
ernment
a ceremonial position that carries little or no real decision-
Head of the state
making power
countrys chief political officer responsible for presenting and
Head of the government
conducting principal policies.
All states have some form of legal structure, and the role of judiciary is
rarely limited to such routine tasks as adjudicating civil and criminal
cases. Inevitably the system of justice is intimately bound up with states
political essence. Justice is not always blind; it is often keenly political.
The political importance of the judiciary was especially evident when the
US Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.
When the dispute arose over whether George W. Bush or Al Gore should
be awarded Floridas Electoral College votes, The Court sided with Bush
by a 54 vote.
est law of the state. Some of these courts have the power of judicial
review which is the right to invalidate laws made by the legislature
and executive bodies as unconstitutional. (Sodaro 2008:131)
The Bureaucracy is a necessary part of every government. With-
out a well-developed network of state organs charged with advising
political decision-makers about different policy options and imple-
menting policies once they have been decided upon, governments
could not govern. The modern state invariably includes a vast array
of ministries, departments, agencies, bureaus, and other officious-
ly titled institutions whose purview may range from the domestic
economy to education, health, the environment, international trade,
foreign relations, and so on. The growth of bureaucracy has been
a long-term political phenomenon in most countries, as have more
recent efforts in some countries (including the United States) to trim
their size to less costly proportions. (Sodaro 2008:131).
The Military. According to Michael J.Sodaro (2008:132),military
establishments can have a formidable impact of their own on the
organization of institutional authority. State can be ruled directly by
the military, or military officials may try to influence civil govern-
ment indirectly. This is especially evident in the states which are in
the transitional period to democracy (it was the case in the transition
of Spain, Portugal or Greece). A coup dtat is a forceful takeover of
state power by the military. Studies show that the main causes of a
coup dtat are economic stagnation, breakdown in law and order,
poor governmental performance, etc.
Poggi also adds citizenship as an important institution. Accord-
ing to Hague and Harrop (2004:11), citizenship refers to the rights
and obligations following from membership of a state; it represents a
political and legal status which can, in principle, be shared by people
with different national identities.
Military activity itself requires and produces rules on its own, the very
core of an emerging body of law seeking, more or less successfully, to
regulate aspects of the relations between states. Another significant
part of such law makes conflict over territory less likely by laying down
clear principles of succession into vacant seats of power, which generally
make the exclusive entitlement to rule dependent on legitimate descent.
(Poggi 2011:77).
In the long run the masses acquired the right to participate in gov-
ernmental decision-making. Political parties were founded to link
citizens with elites in assemblies and parliaments. Less visible but
certainly not less significant was the institutionalization of opposi-
tion parties: gradually these political systems accepted the idea that
peaceful opposition to the government was legitimate, and even the
27
Introduction to Comparative Politics
28
The State
After World War II in Europe the warfare state gave way to the
welfare state, with governments accepting direct responsibility for
protecting their citizens from the scourges of illness, unemployment
and old age (Hague and Harrop 2004:20).
Rokkan also names nation building as one of phases in the de-
velopment of the state. Nation building concerns cultural issues
such as a common language, history, religion, etc. The goal of na-
tion building was to create a common identity, a feeling of belonging
and allegiance to the state. This was mainly achieved through the
compulsory education of every child. In order to heighten national
identity, systems of symbols such as a national hymn, national
flag and national heroes were emphasized. By developing this sense
of belonging, elites tried to transform their states into nation states
(Newton, van Deth 2010: 25).
Questions
1. What are the key elements of the state?
2. Why is bureaucracy essential to the modern state?
3. Explain the term sovereignty. What is the difference between
internal and external sovereignty?
4. What is citizenship?
5. What is a failed state?
6. What is the difference between the head of government and
the head of state?
7. What is the role of law in the modern state?
8. What is meant by expansion of rule?
30
The State
Further reading
Elias, N. (2000) The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychoge-
netic Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1stedn 1938.
Poggi, G. (1978) The Development of the Modern state: A Sociological
Introduction. Stanford, Califf.: Stanford University Press.
Tilly, C. (ed.) (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Eu-
rope. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Webber, M. (1994) Politics as a Profession and Vocation (1919), in
Weber: Political Writings, (ed.). p. Lassman and R. Speirs. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Web links
Website of the Thirty Years War which gave rise to the modern states
after the Peace of Westphalia I1648)
www.pipeline.com/~cwa/TYWHome.htm -
Website on the French Revolution
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~andressd/frlinks.htm -
Website about Italian unification, independence and democratization
www.arcaini.com/ITALY/ItalyHistory/ItalianUnification.htm -
Website about the American Civil War.
http://americancivilwar.com/ -
References
Poggi, G. (2011) The nation state // Caramani., D. (ed.) Comparative
Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, p.6883.
Sodaro, M. J. (2008) Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction. 3rd
(ed.). New York [etc.]: McGraw-Hill.
Jessop, B. (2006) The state and state-building// Rhodes, R.A.W.,
Binder, S. A., Rockman, B.A. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Po-
litical Institutions. Oxford University Press. p.111129.
Newton, K. & van Deth, J. (2010) Foundations of Comparative Poli-
tics: Democracies of the Modern World. 2nd (ed.). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hague, R. & Harrop, M. (2004) Comparative Government and Poli-
tics: An Introduction. 6th (ed.). Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
31
2. Political Regimes
Definitions of different types of political regime
Historical development and change of regimes
Typologies of democracy and authoritarian rule
<...> patterns, explicit or not, that determines the forms and channels of
access to principal governmental positions, the characteristics of the ac-
tors that are admitted or excluded from such access, and the resources and
strategies that they can use to gain access. This necessarily involves insti-
tutionalization, i.e., the patterns defining a given regime must be habitu-
ally known, practiced, and accepted, at least by those which these same
patterns define as participants in the process. <...> For the purposes of
summary comparison and generalization, these ensembles of patterns are
given generic labels such as authoritarian and democratic, and occasion-
ally broken down further into subtypes.
until nowadays are mostly systems of a new kind, very different from
ancient monarchies. Some states are still, and some would argue will
permanently be, in a transitional phase between authoritarianism
and democracy. The scope of this chapter, therefore, is to identify
the main attributes of the most prominent types of political regime
without a claim to present an exhaustive list or an overall classifica-
tion of such types.
33
Introduction to Comparative Politics
state power, a universal right to vote for any of the competing parties,
and civil liberties guaranteed to every citizen, then a regime lack-
ing any of these pillars can be considered only partially democratic.
Neither is a polity fully democratic if the popularly and freely elected
government does not effectively control the policy-making and the
main policy decisions are made or influenced by some unelected and
publicly unaccountable body (the military, religious clergy, etc.). Po-
litical scientists have introduced a number of terms to describe such
regimes that David Collier and Steven Levitsky (1997) wittily call
democracies with adjectives. Table 2.1 shows what shortcomings of
democracy some of these terms primarily refer to and the names of
the political scientists who established them.
The bottom line, however, is that any regime which does not secure
both political and civil liberties, as well as electoral control over pol-
icy outcomes is only semi-democratic something between a de-
mocracy and authoritarian rule. As Peter Mair (2011: 8990) notes,
With real-world cases, we see not only a separation between the <...>
pillars of democracy in theory, but also in practice. In other words,
34
Political Regimes
A regime based on an anti-liberal doctrine that glorifies the nation and ad-
Fascist regime vocates a warrior state, led by an all-powerful leader, to whom the masses
show passionate commitment and submission
37
Introduction to Comparative Politics
38
Political Regimes
39
Introduction to Comparative Politics
40
Political Regimes
41
Introduction to Comparative Politics
42
Political Regimes
43
Introduction to Comparative Politics
45
Introduction to Comparative Politics
46
Political Regimes
47
Introduction to Comparative Politics
48
Political Regimes
[t]he question who rules? has long been used <...> to categorize regimes.
<...> In the case of authoritarian regimes an obvious distinction is between
rule by an organization and rule by the leader of an organization. But
often priority has been given to the distinction between rule by two differ-
ent forms of organization: a profesional military and a political party. <...>
The emphasis on either the military or the party as the subject of study
has sometimes resulted in the personal dictatorship by either a military
or party leader being included as part of the study of military regimes or
one-party states.
49
Introduction to Comparative Politics
***
Political regime is arguably the most holistic criterion that defines
the political system of any state. Covering all patterns that deter-
mine the actors, procedures, and resources to access state power, po-
litical regimes ultimately fall under the two main categories known
to political science democracy and authoritarian rule. There are,
however, real-world political systems that manage to incorporate
both democratic and authoritarian institutions. Some of them are
in a transitional phase on the way to either authoritarianism or de-
mocracy. The others, as the post-transition paradigm in compara-
tive politics would have us believe, have reached a stable institutional
condition and are best classified as hybrid semi-democratic regimes.
From a historical point of view, certain types of political regime
have been more prevalent at some points in human history than
others. The authoritarian rule of absolute monarchs, which was the
dominant type of political regime since the advent of the modern
(nation-)state, throughout the last hundred years or so was gradu-
ally supplanted by democracy (at least in the Western world). So far
political science has identified three major waves of worldwide tran-
sitions to democracy and two periods of backsliding to authoritari-
anism. Notably, each reverse wave has eliminated some but not all of
the transitions to democracy of the previous democratization wave
(Huntington, 1991: 25), thus according democracy the upper hand in
the 21st century. Although most of the democratic countries of today
reached all the institutional milestones of democracy simultaneously
(which is especially characteristic of third wave democracies), some
have taken a detour of first liberalizing the political competition for
government office and then caught up with universal suffrage later.
Others (notably one-party regimes) chose the path of including the
masses into the electoral process without real competition among
elite groups and thus it took them a few more decades and the de-
mise of one-party rule to establish real democracy.
For the purpose of comparison and causal explanation both de-
mocracies and authoritarian regimes are further subdivided into
subtypes. Democracies mainly differ in terms of horizontal and/or
vertical concentration of power and such binary divisions as Arendt
Lijpharts majoritarian vs. consensus democracy or John Gerring
et al.s centripetal vs. decentralist democracy are meant to corre-
spond to these differences. Authoritarian regimes are differentiated
according to who actually controls the state apparatus. In practice it
can be either an individual dictator or an organization, whether the
52
Political Regimes
Questions
1. How would you define political regime and how is it different
from the official form of state government (usually indicated
in the constitution)?
2. What are the main pillars that define democracy?
3. What is the difference between a new democracy and a semi-
democracy?
4. What is the difference between a totalitarian regime and an
authoritarian regime in the narrow sense?
5. What examples of first, second and third wave democracies do
you know?
6. What historical paths towards democracy were identified by
Robert Dahl?
7. What overall principle sets apart majoritarian from consensus
democracies according to Arendt Lijphart?
8. How is John Gerring and Strom Thuckers classification of de-
mocracies different from that of Lijphart?
9. What are the problems of using holistic (multivariable) mod-
els of democracies in comparative research?
10. What forms of authoritarian rule have been recognized so far?
Further Reading
On democracies, democratization, and semi-democracies:
Dahl, R. A. (1998) On Democracy. New Haven, London: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and
Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, London: Yale
University Press.
Diamond, L. (1999) Developing Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
53
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Websites
International Forum for Democratic Studies:
http://www.ned.org/research
Freedom House:
http://www.freedomhouse.org
Website covering events in the twenty-eight post-communist coun-
tries:
http://www.tol.org
Amnesty International:
http://www.amnesty.org
References
Brooker, P.(2011) Authoritarian regimes // Caramani., D. (ed.) Com-
parative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
p.102-117.
Mair, P.(2011) Democracies // Caramani., D. (ed.) Comparative Poli-
tics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p.84101.
54
Political Regimes
55
3. Legislature
Definition of legislature
The role of legislature
Structures of legislature
Definition
Even though legislatures are present in almost all political systems
there is no single definition for this institution. Hague and Harrop
(2004:247) define legislature as a multimember representative body
which considers public issues. Its main function is to give assent, on
behalf of a political community that extends beyond the executive au-
thority, to biding measures of public policy. However, it is not so easy
to answer the question what is a legislature? The terms may vary
from assembly, congress to parliament (see Box 3. 1). According
to Amie Keppel (2011:122), all four are defined as a legislative body
or a body of persons having the power to legislate, making efforts
to clearly distinguish between them difficult. And yet, most would
56
Legislature
Box 3. 1. Definitions.
Term Definition
agree that the terms are not interchangeable, and that there are differ-
ent meanings implied by the use of one rather than the others.
Assembly in the broadest definition a group of persons gathered
together, usually for a particular purpose, whether religions, politi-
cal, educational, or social. <> This understanding of legislature is
expansive enough to include a wide array of very different institu-
tions, while still distinguishing between legislature and other types
of assemblies organizes for religious, educational or social purposes.
(Keppel 2011:122). Hague and Harrop distinguish two types of as-
semblies talking assembly and working assembly (see Box 3. 2.).
<> even when the legislature is weak in terms of its other roles, it is
always able to serve as an intermediary between the constituency and
the central government. In this context, legislatures act as a conduit of
information allowing local-level demands to be heard by the central gov-
ernment and the policies and actions of the central government to be ex-
plained to citizens
58
Legislature
59
Introduction to Comparative Politics
powerful tool that can provide even the weakest of legislatures the op-
portunity to influence policy decisions. There are few policy goals that
can be achieved without some level of funding. As a result, the ability
of the legislature to withhold or decrease funding for initiatives sup-
ported by the executive branch can become a useful bargaining tool.
Policy-making. There are a number of ways in which legislators
can affect policy-making. Kreppel distinguishes three main ways
consultation, delay and veto, amendment and initiation.
According to Kreppel (2011:128), the most basic, and generally
least influential, type of legislative is consultation. This power grants
the legislature the authority to present an opinion about a specific leg-
islative proposal, general plan of action, or broad policy programme.
Consultation in no way guarantees that the executive branch will
abide by the opinion of the legislature. Yet, the ability to present an
opinion and to differentiate the views of the legislature from that of
the executive can be important in many contexts.
Delay and veto can be called a negative power of legislature. De-
lay can only slow down the process of legislation, despite this, the
ability to delay passage of a proposal can be an effective bargaining
tool when the executive branch prefers rapid action. Veto power can
block policies from being adopted regardless of the position of the
executive. Thats why, according to Kreppel, it can be effective bar-
gaining tool for the legislature when the executive bargaining tool
for the legislature when the executive branch has a strong interest in
changing the policy status quo. (Keppel 2011:128).
61
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Structures of legislature
Every legislature has its own internal structure. According to Keppel
(2011:129), that allows for an effective division of labour, the develop-
ment of specialized expertise, access to independent sources of infor-
mation, and other basic organizational resources.
Number of chambers. The most obvious and important varia-
tions that exist between legislatures is the number of chambers.
62
Legislature
Not only the number of chambers, but also the relationship between
them is very important. In the unicameral system all of the pow-
ers of the legislative branch are contained within the single chamber.
However, in bicameral systems these powers may be 1) equally shared
(both chambers can exercise all legislative powers), 2)equally divid-
ed (each chamber has specific, but more or less equally important
powers), or 3) unequally distributed (one chamber has significantly
greater powers than the other). The first two cases are considered
symmetric bicameral systems, while the latter are asymmetric bicam-
eral systems. (Keppel 2011:129). Symmetric (also known as strong) bi-
cameralism may lead to serious conflict or even deadlock, that is why
according to Newton and van Deth (2010:79), there are rather few
63
Introduction to Comparative Politics
The order in which proposals move between full plenary and commit-
tees is an indicator of the role of committees in a particular legislature.
According to Kreppel (2011:134), if legislation is fully vetted on the full
floor prior to being sent to committees, committees are unlikely to play
a substantial role in policy-making. <...> In contrast, when bills are re-
viewed and amended within the committees first, the legislature is more
likely to have a more substantial influence on policy outcomes.
Legislatures power
According to Keppel (2011:135), there are two aspects of legislatures
relative autonomy that are important: the independence of the institu-
tion as a whole; and the independence of its members individually.
66
Legislature
67
Introduction to Comparative Politics
***
There is a variety of types of legislature, differing on central function,
power, size, structure, etc. But ultimately there is no best type of
legislature there is no reason to propose that legislature with two
chambers or one chamber, more powerful or less influential should
be considered better than the other. But it is important to under-
stand what kind of legislatures exist, what are the strengths and
weaknesses of each particular model, how are they linked to other
institutions, and how they may affect the whole political system.
Questions
1. What are the core tasks of a legislature in a democratic society?
2. How are the oversight and control functions of legislatures
different in fused powers and separation of powers systems?
3. Why are political parties influential in determining the au-
tonomy of a legislature?
4. Explain the strengths and weaknesses of bicameral and uni-
cameral systems.
5. How can legislators affect the policy-making process?
6. Explain the difference between delegates and trustees.
7. What are the types of parliamentary committees?
8. Why are legislatures generally better able to represent the in-
terests of citizens than the executive branch?
Further reading
Dring, H. (ed.) (1995) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western
Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
68
Legislature
Web links
Inter-Parliamentary Unions websites of national parliaments
www.ipu.org/english/parlweb.htm
Electionworld. orgs Parliaments around the world website
www.electionworld.org/parliaments.htm
C-span.orgs clearing house of televised legislatures and legislature
websites from around the world.
www.c-span.org
Congressional Quarterly Press electronic version of the Political
Handbook of the World.
www.cqpress.com/procuct/Political-Handbook-of-the-World-2000.html
References
Kreppel, A. (2011) Legislatures // Caramani., D. (ed.) Comparative
Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p.121140.
Newton, K. & van Deth, J. (2010) Foundations of Comparative Pol-
itics: Democracies of the Modern World. 2nd edition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hague, R. &Harrop, M. (2004) Comparative Government and Politics: An
Introduction. 6th (ed.). Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carey, J.M. (2006) Legislative organization// Rhodes, R.A.W., Bind-
er, S.A., Rockman, B.A. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Political
Institutions. Oxford University Press. p.431451
69
4. The Executive
Definitions
Evolution of the separation of powers and contemporary types
of government
Government functions and autonomy of action
The political capacity and effectiveness of government
Internal composition and decision-making of government:
theoretical models
<...> even weak governments tend to be the political systems most impor-
tant single political actor. This is a major reason why individuals and po-
litical parties mostly want to be in government. And because government
is so important, positions in the central executive tend to come with other
70
The Executive
goods that make them even more attractive: social prestige, decent income,
public recognition, and privileged access to other powerful and/or famous
people. The chance to govern the country and enjoy these privileges is
meant to motivate the best people to compete for government office. In
democracies, such competition <...> ultimately is tied to elections. Either
the government is directly elected or it is responsible to a parliament that
results from general elections (Mller, 2011: 142).
Even more privileged and powerful are the executives in the authori-
tarian (not to mention totalitarian) regimes. In the words of Hague
and Harrop (2004: 268), the very categories of democracy and au-
thoritarian rule are defined by how the executive operates. Estab-
lished democracies have succeeded in <...> subjecting executive
power to constitutional limits. <...> In an authoritarian regime, by
contrast, constitutional and electoral controls are either unacknowl-
edged or ineffective. The scope of the executive is limited by political
realities but not by the constitution. All in all the powers and opera-
tional modes of the executive branch of government are determined
by how well and in what particular fashion the principle of the sepa-
ration of powers is implemented.
Definitions
A textbook definition of political executive is implied by the term it-
self (exsequi means carry out or implement in Medieval Latin) and
it is essentially tied to the principle of the separation of powers. It is
the branch of government concerned with implementing domestic
and foreign policy, and applying the law (The Palgrave Macmillan
Dictionary of Political Thought, 2007: 232233) adopted by the legisla-
tive branch. However, being the single most powerful actor in mod-
ern political systems the government in fact assumes a much greater
role and has developed functional capacities beyond pure implemen-
tation. Kenneth Newton and Jan van Deth (2010:75) provide the fol-
lowing definition: the executive [is] the branch of government mainly
responsible for initiating governmental actions, making and imple-
menting public policy, and coordinating the activities of the state.
Hague and Harrop (2004:268) offer a similar definition, however,
putting special emphasis on the political mobilization and leader-
71
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Although the few men and women at the apex of executive apparatus
(presidents, members of the cabinet) are usually the best known to
the public and are considered the most powerful, it is beyond their
human capacities to run the whole country on their own. The top gov-
ernment officials inevitably rely on lower-rank executive officers (civil
servants) to put their decisions into practice. Some of them are more
important than others in carrying out the definitive functions of the
executive. Rod A.W.Rhodes and Patrick Dunleavy therefore coined
the term core executive which they define as all those organizations
and structures which primarily serve to pull together and integrate cen-
tral government policies, or act as final arbiters within the executive of
conflicts between different elements of the government machine (Dun-
leavy and Rhodes, 1990: 4). According to Mller (2011: 142),
<...> it is difficult to pin down the precise composition of the core execu-
tive. While the government in the narrow sense constitutes its centre, the
core executive also comprises top civil servants, the key members of min-
isters private cabinets, and a list of actors that varies over time and space.
Realistically, the demarcation line between what constitutes the core and
what belongs to the remaining parts of the executive also depends on the
analysts perspective and judgement.
72
The Executive
The main point, however, is that unlike the legislative branch, the
executive even the core of it by definition, includes not only poli-
ticians elected by popular vote, but also unelected officials holding
their office on the basis of professional performance.
[T]he Framers [of the US Constitution] <...> did not even contemplate an ex-
ecutive responsible to the representative assembly. Indeed, such a <...> type,
which we would now know as parliamentarism, had yet to exist. In Britain,
the cabinet was still the responsibility of the monarch, whose authority, of
course, did not rest upon any connection, direct or indirect, with the elector-
ate. <...> [Thus] the Framers were in effect replicating the essentials of a form
of government that then existed in Britain <...> only with the monarch [i.e.,
the President] popularly legitimated (Shugart and Carey, 1992: 56).
73
Introduction to Comparative Politics
More precisely, Robert Elgie singles out three criteria that the classi-
fication of contemporary government regimes is primarily based on.
[t]he executive branch of government, being at the top of the political pyr-
amid, performs three main functions:
1. Decision-making initiating government action and formulating
public policy;
2. Implementation executives implement (apply) their policies,
which means they must also run the main departments and bu-
reaucracies of state;
3. Coordination coordination and integration of the complex af-
fairs of state.
76
The Executive
4. Size of the public sector. <...> [E]nlargement of the public sector is like-
ly to decrease the partyness of government. Firstly, a large public sector
makes the ruling party more dependent on [outside] experts. <...> Sec-
ondly, the larger the sphare of government activity, the more difficult will
77
Introduction to Comparative Politics
78
The Executive
[i]t is difficult to overstate the scale of this debate in the academic litera-
ture. It <...> refers to three main claims: there has been a centralization of
coordination, a pluralization of advice, and the personalization of party
leadership and elections.
79
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Source: Mller, 2011: 152, 159 (*produced by the World Bank. possible scores lie be-
tween -2.5 and 2.5. Higher scores indicate better outcome of government policies)
81
Introduction to Comparative Politics
parties face is between power (and policy influence) now and electoral
success in the future. <...> The reason this temporal trade-off exists is that
government incumbency typically represents an electoral disadvantage,
which we can call the incumbency effect. <...> Several empirical studies
have shown that governing parties do in fact tend to lose votes in subse-
quent elections (Strm, 1990: 3846).
82
The Executive
83
Introduction to Comparative Politics
The constitutional texts are typically silent about the internal working <...>
of government, <...> much is left to the political actors. Over time conven-
tions may establish themselves. Conventions are normative rules that are
generally respected although they are not backed up by law or other formally
binding rules. <...> Political science has established a number of descriptive
models of government. These models are partly derived from the constitu-
tional order, but try to highlight how the government actually works and
arrives at decisions. The following models thus capture which actor or actors
are typically able to leave their imprint on the outcome of the government
decision-making process to a greater extent than others (Mller, 2011: 144).
84
The Executive
The main actors that can be identified within the (core) executive are
the chief executive (i.e. the president or prime minister), the cabinet
as a collective body, and ministers as representatives of their depart-
mental expertise; although different political scientists may give dif-
ferent names to theoretical models of executive politics, an exhaus-
tive set of models must capture the full range of power relations that
may logically occur amongst this set of actors (Elgie, 1997: 222).
Monocratic government. According to Robert Elgie (1997: 222),
86
The Executive
***
The executive branch of government is the single most important
actor in modern day political systems. Although according to the
separation of powers doctrine the executive is nominally entrusted
with implementation tasks only, modern governments tend to as-
sume as many functions as to determine the very direction a country
will take. This is especially characteristic to polities where cohesive
political parties allow the fusion of executive and legislative powers.
This chapter has been primarily concerned with how and under what
conditions modern governments carry out their functions.
First, the autonomy of government decisions and actions can be
prominently restricted by political parties and state bureaucratic ap-
paratus since the members of the central executive ultimately rely on
their parties for re-election and on bureaucrats for policy resources.
Secondly, the effective functioning of any government and its capacity
to arrive at important decisions depends on the political support from
other political actors, first and foremost the legislature. The executive
is empowered to act in majority or unified government situations
and less politically capable when faced with only minority support or
divided government. Another major factor in terms of governments
capabilities is cabinet coalition status, although empirical data show
that coalition governments are just as stable as single-party cabinets.
The last dimension that describes governments is their internal work-
ing; political scientists normally single out at least three ideal models
of government decision-making monocratic, collective and minis-
terial as well as some mixed modes of working. These modes, how-
ever, are bound to change according to the prevailing political condi-
tions and century-long transition from cabinet to prime ministerial
or ministerial government in parliamentary democracies worldwide
is probably the most prominent long-term trend.
87
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Questions
1. How throughout the course of history did the modern institu-
tion of executive power come into being?
2. What is the core executive?
3. What functions does the executive branch of government usu-
ally carry within modern political systems?
4. What are the main forms of government in democratic re-
gimes and how are they distinguished?
5. Which actors limit the autonomy of government action and
under what conditions is a party government likely to ap-
pear?
6. What features define the presidentialization of politics?
7. Why do minority governments form?
8. What kind of government is theoretically most stable and ef-
fective?
9. What are the main models of executive decision-making?
10. What factors determine the change in government working
mode?
Further Reading
On presidential, parliamentary and semi-presidential governments:
Lijphart, A. (ed.) (1992) Parliamentary versus Presidential Govern-
ment. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Elgie, R. (ed.) (1999) Semi-Presidentialism in Europe. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
On party government:
Blondel, J., Cotta, M. (ed.) (2000) The Nature of Party Government:
A Comparative European Perspective. Basingstoke, New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
On divided, coalition, and minority governments:
Elgie, R. (ed.) (2001) Divided Government in Comparative Perspec-
tive. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mller, W., Strm, K. (eds.). (2000) Coalition Governments in West-
ern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strm, K. (1990) Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cam-
bridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
88
The Executive
Websites
Basic introduction to the presidential system:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/presidential%20system
Basic introduction to parliamentarism:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Parliamentarism
Webpage of Governments on the WWW:
http://www.gksoft.com/govt/
References
Mller, W. (2011) Governments and Bureaucracies // Caramani., D.
(ed.) Comparative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press. p.141161.
Dunleavy, P. & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990) Core Executive Studies in
Britain // Public Administration, Vol. 68, No. 1. p.3-28.
Elgie, R. (1997) Models of Executive Politics: A Framework for the
Study of Executive Power Relations in Parliamentary and Semi-
presidential Regimes // Political Studies, Vol.45, No.2. p.217231.
Elgie, R. (1998) The Classification of Democratic Regime Types: Con-
ceptual Ambiguity and Contestable Assumptions // European
Journal of Political Research, Vol.33, No.2. p.219238.
Elgie, R. (2001) What is Divided Government? // Elgie, R. (ed.) Di-
vided Government in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford
University Press. p.120.
Hague, R. & Harrop, M. (2004) Comparative Government and Poli-
tics: An Introduction. 6th (ed.). Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Katz, R. (1986) Party Government: A Rationalistic Conception //
Castles, F.G. & Wildenmann, R. (eds.). Visions and Realities of
Party Government. Berlin: de Gruyter. p.3171.
89
Introduction to Comparative Politics
More than two thousand years ago Aristotle noted that a citizen is not
a citizen because he lives in a certain place..., but the citizen is a mem-
ber of a community (Aristotelis, 1997: 133134). Moreover, he suggested
that a citizen is someone who shares in the administration of justice
and the holding of public office, i.e. in thepolis, assemblies of citizens
made decisions in bodies whose modern equivalents are law courts
and city councils, and these assemblies rotated membership so that ev-
ery citizen served a specific term. Aristotle ultimately argued that just
government works best when the masses are allowed to participate.
Resources,
E.g. time &
Structure of Mobilizing
Societal skills
the State Agencies
Modernization
E.g. electoral E.g. unions, Political
Levels of
laws, party churches, Activism
socioeconomic
system, parties,
development
constitutional movements,
structures media Motivation,
E. g. political
interest & trust
Source: Norris P., 2002:10.
can Republic and Ghana have comparatively low levels of social trust
(1020 per cent), whereas Canada, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden have high scores (5065 per cent). A satisfac-
tion with democracy also stimulates political activity. In forty-nine
countries surveyed in 19992002, an average of 49 per cent of people
expressed a satisfaction with democracy in their country. The figures
are much higher in democracies, but even so they vary quite a lot.
The lowest placed are Croatia, Ireland, Lithuania, Northern Romania
and Slovakia (all below 30 per cent), and the highest placed are Aus-
tria, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Portugal
(all above 66 per cent). Post-material values encourage political par-
ticipation as well. The highest levels of post-materialist values in the
late 1990s were found in the comparatively wealthy democracies of
Argentina, Austria, Australia, Canada, Italy and the USA (all above
25 per cent), and the lowest in Estonia, Hungary, India, Israel and
Slovakia (all below 5 per cent) (Newton and van Deth, 2005: 146).
Ronald Inglehart in his classical book Culture Shift in Advanced
Industrial Society (1990: 361362) found that:
Worked in political
Voted last national
Worked in another
Boycotted certain
Signed petition
organization or
or government
demonstration
party or action
lawful public
Taken part in
association
products
election
official
group
97
Introduction to Comparative Politics
99
Introduction to Comparative Politics
100
Political Participation and Elections
101
Introduction to Comparative Politics
mula.
There are three main ways to distinguish the types of ballots:
1)ballot complexity, 2)number of rounds of balloting, and 3)types
of alternatives.
Ballot complexity refers to the kind of information that voters
are required to provide. The simplest ballot is one where voters
mark an X for some prespecified number of alternatives, or forup
tosome prespecified number of alternativesfor example,approval
voting, where every voter may indicate that up toMalternatives are
satisfactory, with theMalternatives receiving the most approval
votes being the ones that win; orlimited voting, where each voter
has a fixed number,k, of X ballots to cast, wherekis less than the
number of seats to be filled,M; and the most common case where
voters have but a single X to cast, for example,plurality votingin a
single-seat district. Another important type of X ballot is pureList
PR, where there is a list prepared by each party, and a certain num-
ber of the top candidates on each list are elected, with that number
determined by the proportion of (viable) votes cast for that par-
ty. More complex ballots require voters to rank order alternatives
(Grofman, 2011).
With respect to constituencies, a key distinction is between sin-
gle-member districts (SMDs) and multi-member districts (MMDs).
The specification of constituency boundaries, calledredistrictingin
the United States and boundary delimitation in much of the rest
of the English-speaking world, is an important topic from both a
legal and a theoretical point of view. For example, rules about the
degree of population equality required across constituencies can be
instrumental in permitting or preventing malapportionment, which,
whether deliberate or unintended, can have substantial consequenc-
es for the translation of votes into seats and the representation of
groups that differ in their geographical locations and degree of geo-
graphic concentration, such as blocs of ethnic voters or party sup-
porters (Grofman, 2011).
The third most important component is the electoral formula or
seat allocation formula. No two countries have identical electoral
systems, but there are three main ballot aggregation methods each
with its own variations, i.e. pluralitymajority, proportional repre-
104
Political Participation and Elections
fill the positions regardless of the percentage of the vote they achieve.
This system with the change that voters vote for party lists instead
of individual candidates becomes the party block vote (Newton
and van Deth, 2005: 203).
Majoritarian systems, such as the alternative vote and the two-
round system, try to ensure that the winning candidate receives an
absolute majority (i.e. over 50 per cent). The two-round system tries
to avoid the disproportionality problem of FPTP systems by requir-
ing the winning candidate to get an absolute majority of the votes
(i.e. 50 per cent + 1) in the first round or if not, a second run-off
ballot is held between the two strongest candidates. The advantage
is simplicity; the disadvantage is the need for a second ballot shortly
after the first. France uses this system in presidential elections.
Alternative vote (AV) is a variation on simple plurality. Voters
mark their first and subsequent preferences among the candidates for
their own constituency. If no candidate receives an absolute major-
ity of first-preference votes on the first count, the candidate with the
smallest number of first-choice votes is eliminated, but their second-
choice votes are redistributed among the remaining candidates. This
process continues until one candidate has an absolute majority. The
system is simple to understand, but its results are no more propor-
tional than the FPTP system, and it can produce unpredictable re-
sults. It is used only in Australia (Newton and van Deth, 2005: 203).
Proportional representation (PR) allocates seats according to a
formula that tries to ensure proportionality, or consciously reduce
the disparity between a partys share of the national vote and its
share of the parliamentary seats; if a major party wins 35 per cent of
the votes, it should win approximately 35 per cent of the seats, and a
minor party with 10 per cent of the votes should also gain 10 per cent
of the legislative seats. Proportional representation requires the use
of electoral districts with more than one member as it is not possible
to divide a single seat elected on a single occasion proportionally.
There are two major types of PR system List PR and single trans-
ferable vote (STV). Some researchers, for example Newton and van
Deth, classify the mixed-member proportional system as a form of
the proportional representation. Proportionality is often seen as be-
ing best achieved by the use of party lists, where political parties pres-
106
Political Participation and Elections
Few wasted votes likely in presidential Weaker legislative support for presi-
systems dent more
(List PR)
Less party fragmentation than pure List PR Often need for by-elections
May be easier to agree on than other Can create two classes of representatives
alternatives Strategic voting
Accountability More difficult to arrange absentee vot-
Few wasted votes ing than with List PR
Does not guarantee overall proportionality
Proportionality Complicated system
Mixed Member
108
Political Participation and Elections
In 2004 about half (91, or 46 per cent of the total) of the 199 countries
and territories of the world which have direct elections to the legis-
lature use pluralitymajority systems; another 72 (36 per cent) use
PR-type systems; 30 (15 per cent) use mixed systems; and only six (3
per cent) use one of the other systems (Reynolds et al., 2008: 29).
In terms of the number of countries which use different electoral
systems, List PR systems are the most popular, with 70 out of 199
countries and related territories, giving them 35 per cent of the total,
followed by the 47 cases of FPTP systems (24 per cent of the 199 coun-
tries and territories). If we look at electoral systems in established
democracies, then we find that PR systems are more numerous, with
21 (31 per cent) out of the 68 countries. There are a disproportionate
number of MMP systems among established democracies 6 per cent
of the total, while worldwide MMP systems are found in only 4.5 per
cent of all countries. Both the worlds examples of STV, the Republic
of Ireland and Malta, fall into the category of established democra-
cies. FPTP systems make up approximately 35 per cent of the total
in Africa, the Americas and Oceania. The system is less common in
110
Political Participation and Elections
Europe, Asia and the Middle East (Reynolds et al., 2008: 30, 3233).
Questions
1. How did Aristotle interpret citizenship?
2. How is political participation defined in comparative politics?
3. What are the main modes of political participation?
4. How are electoral systems categorized?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the five most
popular electoral systems?
Further Reading
Cox, G. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the
worlds electoral systems.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gallagher, M.(1991). Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral
systems.Electoral Studies,vol. 10, p.3351.
Grofman, B. (1999).SNTV, STV, and single-member district systems:
Theoretical comparisons and contrasts.In B. Grofman, S.-C. Lee,
111
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Websites
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
(IDEA):
http://www.idea.int
Centre for Voting and Democracy:
http://www.fairvote.org/
Comparative Study of Election Systems:
http://www.umich.edu/~cses/
Database of Parties and Elections:
http://www.parties-and-elections.de
Election resources:
http://www.electionresources.org
Manuel lvarez-Riveras Election Resources:
http://www.electionworld.org
112
Political Participation and Elections
References
Aristotelis (1997) Politika. Vilnius: Pradai.
Barnes, S. H., Kaase, M., Allerback, K. R., Farah, B., Heunks, F., In-
glehart, R., et al. (1979).Political action: Mass participation in five
Western democracies.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Blais, A. (2007).Turnout in Elections.In R. J. Dalton, & H.-D. Klin-
gemann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behaviour. Ox-
ford, UK: Oxford University Press p.621635.
Dalton, R.J. (1988) Citizen Politics in Western Democracies: Public
Opinion and Political Parties in the United States, Great Britain,
West Germany, and France. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers
Dalton R.J. (2008) Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political
Participation. Political Studies, Vol.56, p.7698.
Grofman, B. (2011) Electoral Systems. In International Encyclopedia
of Political Science.Ed. Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and
Leonardo Morlino. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p.75057.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kaase, M. (2011) Participation. In International Encyclopedia of Po-
litical Science.Ed. Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Le-
onardo Morlino. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p.177889.
Linz, J. J., Stepan A. (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and
Consolidation. Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Com-
munist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Milbrath, L. W. (1965).Political participation: How and why do people
get involved in politics?Chicago: Rand McNally.
Morales, L. (2009). Joining Political Organizations: Instituitions, Mo-
bilization, and Participation in Western Democracies. European
Consortium for Political Research Press.
113
Introduction to Comparative Politics
116
Political Parties and Party Systems
But the official mission is also too vague an indicator of the charac-
teristics of party organizations. Moreover, the original official mis-
sion is usually transformed during the process of institutionalization
and also after. Party members need to believe in those goals, and the
capability of mobilization of followers by party leaders depends on
their capacity to demonstrate themselves as defenders of the ideologi-
cal goals. But the role of the official mission will vary. For example,
when parties are in power, there is less need of mobilizing members
and followers and the official mission becomes less important. On the
contrary, when parties are in opposition, there is a greater urgency to
mobilize people. In this case, the official mission, the ideological goals,
will be emphatically affirmed organizations (Panebianco, 2011:1820).
The second aspect is the organizational constitution. The con-
stitution defines the rules of the game: the distribution of formal
authority in the party, the ways of coordination among the official
party roles, the type of task specialization, and the organizational
boundaries or who is a member and who is not.
The third aspect regards the power structure. In every party there is
a dominant coalition, a group of leaders who control the organization.
The physiognomy of the dominant coalition is an essential defining
feature of party organizations. In the case of the internally legitimated
party the dominant coalition comprises only party members.In the
case of externally legitimated parties, it includes the leaders of the ex-
ternal sponsor organizations: for example, the top officials of the Brit-
ish trade unions were, for a long time, members of the Labour Partys
dominant coalition. Furthermore, dominant coalitions can beoligar-
chies(cohesive and stable, without a single prominent leader),monoc-
racies(a single leader, usually of the charismatic type, controlling the
dominant coalition and, as a result, the party), orpoliarchies(divided
and unstable, usually a collection of factions) (Panebianco, 2011: 1821).
The concept most commonly used to classify partisan organization
is the opposition between mass parties and cadre parties. In his clas-
sicPolitical Parties(1951), Maurice Duverger proposed a famous clas-
sification of party organizations. In the Western historical experience,
he identified four fundamental types: 1) the cadre party, 2) the mass
party, 3) the cell party, and 4) the militia party. The first two types
were the most important and diffuse. But Duvergers analysis was not
122
Political Parties and Party Systems
Party systems are sets of parties that compete and cooperate with the
aim of increasing their power in controlling government.
What determine interactions are (1) which parties exist, (2) how many
parties compose a system and how large they are, and (3) the way in
which they maximize votes.
It is appropriate to speak of a party system only in democratic contexts
in which several parties compete for votes in open and plural elections.
125
Introduction to Comparative Politics
and consequences. The major cause was seen in the respective elec-
toral laws: simple plurality rules (first-past-the-post) applied in sin-
gle-member districts tend to produce two-party systems, while two-
round majoritarian and proportional rules favour the creation of
multiparty constellations. The consequences, it was assumed, were
essential as well: a two-party system was believed to create a stable
political system, with moderate centripetal competition, based on
clarity of responsibility and accurate attribution of accountability
127
Introduction to Comparative Politics
were multiparty and the remaining 19 per cent were two- or dominant
one-party systems. Of the 37 non-PR countries, 13 per cent were mul-
tiparty and 50 per cent were two- or dominant one-party systems.
Large numbers of parties are also the result of social and cultural
pluralism. The presence of few social and cultural cleavages leads
to less parties. Several measures are available to determine varying
degrees of party system fragmentation, but the most popular is the
Laakso-Taagepera index of the effective number of parties:
N = 1/pi2
130
Political Parties and Party Systems
132
Political Parties and Party Systems
New parties Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Green Party, Values, Greens and
Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Alliance Parties
Japan, Poland, South Africa,
Sweden, Switzerland
New Zealand
Questions
1. What are political parties?
2. What does effective number of parties mean?
3. What are Stein Rokkans four main social cleavages and which
party families emerged from them?
4. How are party systems categorized?
5. How should the number of parties in a system be counted?
Further Reading
Blondel, J. (1978).Political parties: A genuine case for discontent?Lon-
don: Wilwood House.
Daalder, H. & Mair, P. (Eds.). (1983). Western European party sys-
tems.London: Sage.
Dalton, R. & Wattenberg, M. P.(eds.). (2000).Parties without parti-
sans.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
133
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Websites
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA):
http://www.idea.int
Database of Parties and Elections:
http://www.parties-and-elections.de
Richard Kimbers website on Political Science Resources:
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk
Political Resources on the Net:
http://www.politicalresources.net
Citizendium:
http://en.citizendium.org
134
Political Parties and Party Systems
References
Bryce, J. (1921) Modern Democracies. Vol. 2. New York: The Macmil-
lan Company.
Caramani, D. (2011) Comparative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Eldersveld, S. J. (1982). Political Parties in American Society. New
York: Basic Books.
Karvonen, L. (2011) Party System Fragmentation //Badie, B., Berg-
Schlosser,D., Morlino,L. International Encyclopedia of Political
Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p.182325.
Katz, R. S., Mair, p.(1995) Changing Models of Party Organization
and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party // Party
Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, p.528.
Key, V. O. Jr. (1964) Public Opinion and American Democracy. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf Publisher.
Detterbeck, K. (2005) Cartel Parties in Western Europe // Party Poli-
tics, Vol.11, No2, p.173191.
Kuenzi, M., Lambright, G. (2001). Party System Institutionalization
in 30 African Countries // Party Politics, Vol. 7, No 4, p.437-468.
Markowski, R. Party Systems // Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., Mor-
lino, L. International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE, p.182531.
Newton, K. & van Deth, J. (2010) Foundations of Comparative Poli-
tics: Democracies of the Modern World. 2nd (ed.). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Panebianco, A. (1988) Political parties: organization and power. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Panebianco, A. (2011) Party Organization // Badie, B., Berg-Schloss-
er, D., Morlino, L. International Encyclopedia of Political Science.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p.181823
Carty, R. K. (2004) Parties as Franchise Systems: The Stratarchical
Organizational Imperative // Party Politics, Vol.10, No. 1, p.524.
Roles and Definition of Political Parties. Reference Online. Web. 30 Jan.
2012: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/pc/pca/pca01/pca01a.
Seiler, D. L. Parties // Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., Morlino, L. Inter-
national Encyclopedia of Political Science. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE, p.1792804.
135
7. Public Policy
Historical changes in the policy agenda of the Western state
Conceptual models of policy-making
The cycle of policy-making
Public policies are the main outputs of political systems from a struc-
tural-functionalist perspective. The preceding chapters mostly dealt
with the structures and institutions that ultimately produce public
policies, but the making, content and outcomes of such policies is the
central focus of a relatively distinct subfield of comparative politics,
known as comparative policy analysis, or policy studies. In the words
of Rod Hague and Martin Harrop (2004: 309), [w]hereas orthodox po-
litical science examines the organization of the political factory, policy
analysis examines the products emerging from it. Needless to say that
136
Public Policy
137
Introduction to Comparative Politics
[t]he liberal state, then, is in one respect a minimal state; that is, it is delib-
erately structured not to be itself a threat to the natural right of property
ownership, which is the ultimate justification for the dominant position of
the bourgeoisie within the state.
138
Public Policy
139
Introduction to Comparative Politics
[a]lthough the crisis of the welfare state may have been overplayed, the
final decades of the 20th century did witness a fundamental shift in the
agenda and focus of public policy in many established democracies,
especially in Europe. In social welfare, service delivery was increasing-
ly contracted out to private agencies; in the economy, public industries
were privatized. <...> The key point, though, was that creating private
monopolies as with telephones, gas and electricity required the
creation of new offices of regulation, at least until competition became
established.
The best example of the retreat of the state from direct provision is
the massive scale privatization policy of the UK Government under
Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. However, selling off government as-
sets in major industries was not the only policy course characteristic
to governments of the late 20th century. As Colin Scott (2006: 651)
suggests,
Thus, not only newly privatized industries were regulated, but also such
previously self-regulating public institutions as universities and finan-
cial markets were subjected to governmental supervision. According
to Scott (2006: 652),the central concern of the public policy literature
in understanding this transformation in governance has been with
the emergence of the regulatory state, although the term itself has not
yet been as well defined as, for example, the welfare state.
lic policy literature are 1)the rational, 2)the incremental, and 3)the
process model. As Christoph Knill and Jale Tosun (2011: 375) suggest,
these models are not competitive but rather complementary as they
focus on different aspects of political life, and hence concentrate on
separate characteristics of policies. The main implication of these
models is that they make different assumptions about the impor-
tance of the actors involved <...> and their rationality. The first two
models are briefly presented in this section, whereas the different
stages of the policy-making process are the focus of the last section.
Rational model. The rational model of decision-making origi-
nated in economics and is often associated with the name of Herbert
Simon. The main assumption underlying the model is that actors are
rational, i.e. they always try to achieve their goal with minimum cost.
To apply the model in explaining real-world policy decisions, one
must know what the goal and the options are. If the decision-maker
has more than one goal, in the words of Simon himself (1995: 48),
Policy analysts usually infer that governments not only seek to solve
particular problems in the public realm but also want to get re-
elected (or maximize power); however, to deduce the adequate utility
function of policy-makers may be an overwhelming methodological
puzzle. In terms of policy options, the theory assumes that all the
options are given [or] <...> the alternatives may be searched for, at
a cost. Then the problem for the rational actor is to stop searching
exactly when the marginal cost of continuing would just equal the
expected marginal increase in the value of the best option discovered
to date (Simon, 1995: 48). Although the rational model can be sig-
nificantly upgraded by taking into account social learning (from the
consequences of policy decisions in the past and in other countries)
141
Introduction to Comparative Politics
142
Public Policy
Agenda setting
143
Introduction to Comparative Politics
on the decisions made in the past, and will affect decisions made in
the future (Knill and Tosun 2011: 377).
Bearing in mind these characteristics five main stages of the
policy-making cycle can be distinguished:1) agenda setting, 2) policy
formulation, 3) policy adoption, 4) implementation, and 5) evaluation
(see Figure 7. 1.). All five stages will be briefly presented in this section.
Agenda setting. This is the first stage of policy-making. As Knill
and Tosun (2011: 377) put it, there are many societal problems, but
only a small number will be given official attention by legislators and
executives. Those that are chosen by the decision-makers constitute
the policy agenda. In other words, agenda setting is an identification
of problems that require the intervention of the state. This may be
an important source of political power as it is policy consequential,
i.e. legislative institutions grant an advantage to the first movers as
compared to the second movers (Knill and Tosun, 2011: 377). For
this reason an important part of the political struggle is the attempt
by different groups and interests to put their issues at the top of the
agenda, or at least to push them up the agenda so they have a better
chance of being considered (Newton and van Deth , 2010: 319). On
the other hand, Bachrach and Baratz (1962) note that the opposite
process exclusion of societal problems from the policy agenda is
also a significant source of political power. However, according to
Hague and Harrop (2004: 309), agenda setting cannot be controlled
by one group (at least within democracies), in most cases, the policy
agenda is set by four types of actors: 1)public officials, 2)bureaucracy,
3)mass media, and 4)interest groups (Knill and Tosun, 2011: 377).
Policy formulation. The second stage of the policy-making cycle
is policy formation. According to Newton and van Deth (2010:322),
Having decided upon the priorities of the political agenda, decisions must
then be taken about them. A major decision is usually the end product of a
series of decisions leading up to it, each preceding decision being made by
different individuals and bodies that feed into the process. In democracies,
major policy decisions should be taken by publicly accountable bodies,
normally the elected executive or legislature, or both. Nonetheless, many
other public and private organizations and officials may have an impact
on a particular decision, and they, in their turn, will have to make many
decisions in order to exercise influence.
144
Public Policy
146
Public Policy
mented in several different ways (see Box 7.3), but it does face numer-
ous challenges:
***
This chapter presented a short overview of public policy process,
in historical as well as theoretical terms. Comparative policy stud-
ies are a challenging field of inquiry; policy analysts have come up
with several conceptual models to understand public policy, none
of which, however, can fully explain the complexity of the policy-
making process.
Policy analysts agree that there have been at least three histori-
cal shifts in the policy agenda of the Western state which changed
the notional role of the state itself. The most recent change has ar-
guably involved the rise of regulatory policies that surpassed the
importance of (re)distributive policies, a definitive element of the
welfare regimes of the 20th century. Not all governments worldwide
147
Introduction to Comparative Politics
Questions
1. What public policies do you know and how can you categorize
them?
2. What main ideas (or ideology) helped to maintain the night-
watchman state of the 19th century?
3. What factors caused the crises of the Welfare state at the end
of the 20th century?
4. How is a regulatory regime essentially different from a welfare
regime?
5. What are the main assumptions of the rational model of poli-
cy-making?
6. What are the advantages and shortcomings of the incremental
model?
7. How can you explain the difference between policy formula-
tion and policy adoption?
8. Why is the role of bureaucracy important but controversial in
the policy implementation process?
9. What challenges does the evaluation of policy involve?
Further Reading
Dye, Th. R. (2012) Understanding Public Policy. 14th (ed.). New York:
Pearson/Longman.
Compston, H. (ed.) (2004) Handbook of Public Policy in Europe: Brit-
ain, France and Germany. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sabatier, P. A. (ed.) (2007) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Hill, M. (2009) The Public Policy Process. 5th (ed.). Harlow, London,
New York [etc]: Pearson/Longman.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.
Oxford: Polity Press.
148
Public Policy
Websites
The Policy Agendas Project:
http://www.policyagendas.org
The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy:
http://www.defendingscience.org
The OECD Webpage:
http://www.oecd.org
International Labour Organization:
http://www.ilo.org
World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int
Links to Social Security in all countries:
http://www.ssa.gov/international/links.html
References
Knill, C. & Tosun, J. (2011) Policy-making // Caramani, D. (ed.) Compara-
tive Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p.373388.
Van Kersbergen, K. & Manow, P. (2011) The Welfare State // Cara-
mani., D. (ed.) Comparative Politics. 2nd (ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press. p.389407.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996) After the Golden Age? Welfare State Di-
lemmas in a Global Economy // Esping-Andersen, G. (ed.) Wel-
fare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Econo-
mies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. p.131.
Hague, R. & Harrop, M. (2004) Comparative Government and Poli-
tics: An Introduction. 6th (ed.). Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Newton, K. & van Deth, J. (2010) Foundations of Comparative Poli-
tics: Democracies of the Modern World. 2nd (ed.). New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Opello, W. & Rosow, S. (1999) The Nation-State and Global Order: A
Historical Introduction to Contemporary Politics. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
149
Introduction to Comparative Politics