Comparative politics: Theories and methods

1. Comparative politics:Theories and methods Ana Rico, Associate Professor Department of Health Management and Health Economics ana.rico@medisin.uio.no

2. OUTLINE I. Health politics: Content, motivation and goals of the course II.Political science and comparative politics: problems & methods • Problems of political science research • Small-N and Large-N approaches • Comparative politics: “the fuzzy centre” III. Types of theories: • From early theories: monocausal + (socioeconomic, cultural or institutional) determinism • To multi-causal theories (=“comparative politics”, “political economy”) IV. Causes of policy change (IVs) V. Applications (DVs) • Causes of the expansion of the WS/HC systems in OECD countries • Causes of retrenchment/restructuring/resilience of WS/HC systems VI. Course assignments • Presentation and participation in class (10% + 10%)  1 or 2 per article • Course paper (30%)  Groups 2-4 • Exam (50%)  5 December

3. Health politics: Contents, motivation and goals of the course

4. HEALTH POLITICS: Content and motivation 1. Content and motivation of the course A) Content • Application of political science theories to the health care sector • Based on the comparative-historical method  tries to build the gap between qualitative case-studies and quantitative statistical studies • Focus on how to build and criticise concepts and theoretical arguments B) Motivation • Compare health care (HC) with other sectors of the welfare state (WS) • Understand how the WS was built, and which were the causes of its emergence • The main distinctive feature of Europe? • Outside Europe, a lot of interest on how to replicate it • It can also help to understand how to mantain it or expand it further Some paradoxes... • Health politics has been developed mainly by US scholars • In Europe, recent and often focused on how to cut back public health care • We know a lot about health policies (e.g. Managed competition), but little on how to introduce them (health politics)

5. HEALTH POLITICS: Goals 2. Goals of the course A) Conceptual • Review and classify existing research traditions in political science • Learn how to build and criticise concepts and theoretical arguments in a convincing way • Learn how to build simple causal models out of complex theories and facts • Analyze the political determinants of health policy B) Empirical • Assess the analytical goodness of fit between theory and evidence (validity) • Study the causes of health care (and welfare state) reform  policy change • Focus on how to build universal WS/HC systems, and how to expand them C) Practical • Develop analytical skills as well as (experiential) “clinical eye” from reform processes • Learn a new language: concepts of political science and health system research • Learn how to read & systematize a great deal of information very fast D) Professional • Design and direct processes of political and policy change in health care • Assess and evaluate complex real world situations in health politics & policy • Advice policy-makers (state, interest groups, professional and patient associations, newspapers), convince contenders, and build agreements with/among them

6. Political science: Methods and problems

7. POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS 1. Problems of political science (PS) research 1.1. Lack of agreement across schools of thought • Divided across theoretical (which particular cause they emphasize) and ideological lines: marxism, liberalism, structuralism, culturalism, pluralism, institutionalism, rational choice… • Little communication, often tough competition and rivalry between them  Lack of agreement on how to define & operationalize basic terms E.g. Institutions 1.2. Many variables, few cases • Object of study involves complex macro-social phenomena (e.g. WS) characterized by: • Multidimensional concepts, meaning varies across time & place, difficult to operationalize • A great number of potential causes, not independent among them • Long causal chains and complex causal mechanisms • Feedback effects, endogenous causation and selection bias (Przechevorski in Kohli) • Object of study (e.g. WS) often occurs only in a few cases (e.g. OECD countries) • Difficult to build simple concepts and models that can be tested across cases (reliability), but still resemble real world complexity (validity) • But need to address both: Science of politics (build and test scientific models) and Science for politics (advice politicians based on real world complexity) (T. van der Grinten)

8. POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS  Three methodological approaches to adress such problems • Narrative case-study (N=1) approach • Qualitative, in-depth study of a single case • Internal validity high but ad-hoc explanation, low reliability • No generalisation or theory-based explanation possible • Statistical (large N) analysis • Too many cases to know in-depth what happened in each of them. • Too little variables taken into account, simple or no causal mechanisms • External validity goes at the cost of internal validity • The comparative method: medium-N (N=2 or more) • Seeking a balance between number of cases and number of variables • Seeking a balance between internal validity and external validity • The goal is to build general theories, but based on cases researched in depth • The research design is quasi-experimental • Research techniques can be qualitative or/and quantitative

9. POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS 1. Case(=country)-based: Small-N (=1) studies, e.g. US Welfare State • Old research tradition: historical, in-depth analysis of one case-study • It simplifies by reducing N so that all or most potential causes can be analysed • It allows a detailed analysis of: • Specific characteristics of countries (e.g unique, model causes) • complex causal mechanisms, and • time sequence of events • GOOD INTERNAL VALIDITY (causes represent well real world complexity), BUT • Little external validity (causes cannot be tested/applied to other cases) • It does not allow to discriminate between general and country-specific factors • It is the preferred method of theories based in cultural relativism • It fits well their main assumptions • unique causal mechanisms apply in each case • optimal policy change results from internal, country-based trial and error • Social constructivism and some institutionalist approaches are examples of cultural relativism It can also be used to make general theories – based on the comparative method

10. POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS 2. Variables-based: Large-N studies, e.g. Causes of democracy • New research trends (modelling): study a few variables across a large number of cases • It simplifies by (1) selecting a few variables considered as key causes (2) reducing complexity or variability by making restrictive assumptions (eg all the causes are independent of each other; the causes are independent of the effects; causal sequence does not matter • Cross-national statistical studies are the main example (over 100 countries) • GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY (under tight, often unrealistic assumptions), but • Little internal validity: too many omitted (=extraneous) variables, disregards variables which are difficult to measure (often the most relevant), model is not a fair image of reality, • It is used by many schools that believe we can find general regularities across cases • The most radical is rational choice analysis & game-theory, which works best when the restrictive behavioural assumptions of classic economics apply: • all individuals behave in their own self-interest; • under complete rationality and • perfect information New, sophisticated methods can avoid some of the pitfalls If N decreased, and qualitative info added, similar to the comparative method

11. ß1 ß2 ß3 E ß4 POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS Causal mechanisms in large-N case-studies Causal mechanisms in small-N case-studies Self-interest Assumptions: eg Behaviour Social interaction Norms & values

12. 3. The comparative-historical method • “Thinking without comparison is unthinkable” (Swanson, 1971; quoted by JK Helderman) • Seeks a balance between N and number of variables: • N=1 (+ reference case/s). Case-study treated comparatively • Ideal type (+ rest of cases)  Often example of best practice • Deviant/critical case (+ average case)  Causal mechanisms contradict establised, general theory • N=1 [Sector 1/Sector 2; Time period 1/Time period 2] • N=2, 3, 4. Matched comparisons • N > 4. Requires: • Combination of quantitative/qualitative. QCA, OLS • Secondary qualitative/historical evidence on N>4 cases • Seeks a balance between internal validity and external validity • Goal: build general theories, based on cases researched in depth • The research design is often quasi-experimental (note OLS too) POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS

13. Case 1 A B C X Outcome Y Case 2 A B C Not X Outcome not Y Most-similar cases (method of difference) Main cause (X) is present in one case and missing in the other. Both cases are similar (matched) in all other respects. The main effect Y is present when X present, and absent when X is absent (points to a necessary and sufficient cause).

14. Case 1, T0 A B C Not X Outcome not Y Case 1, T0 A B C X Outcome Y Case-study, before-after design Main cause (X) is present in one case and missing in the other. Both cases are similar (matched) in all other respects. The main effect Y is present when X present, and absent when X is absent (points to a necessary and sufficient cause).

15. Case 1, Sector 1 A B C X=0 Not Y Case 1, Sector 2 A B C X=1 Y=1 Case 1, Sector 3 A B C X=2 Y=2 Most-similar, graduation in cause-effect Main cause (X) is present to different degrees in two cases and missing in the other. The cases are similar (matched) in all other respects. The effect Y is present when X present, and its graduation corresponds to X´s one (additional evidence of necessary and sufficient cause).

16. Case 1 A C E X Y Case 2 A C D Not X Not Y Case 3 A B D X Y Case 4 A B E Not X Not Y Close to most-similar, N=4 Main cause (X) is present in two cases and absent in the other two. The cases are only imperfectly matched, but rest of potential causes do not correspond to the effect (can be necessary or suficcient, but not both). The effect Y is present when X present., absent when is absent (necessary and sufficient cause).

17. Case 1 A C E X Outcome Y Case 2 B D F X Outcome Y Most-different cases (method of agreement) Main cause (X) is present in both cases. They are very different in all other relevant respects. This suggests that the effect Y always occurs when X is present (necessary cause); the rest of factors can be irrelevent or sufficient causes.

18. 3. The comparative-historical method (cont.) • It can be used for explanatory, descriptive and prescriptive analysis: • A. Under a quasi-experimental research design, it can be used for inference (explanatory studies)  Matched comparisons, QCA, OLS • QCA offers some advantages over OLS (Mahoney), eg: It allows for the different categories of a tipology - as the DV (eg: Esping-Andersen and the three worlds of welfare capitalism) being explained by different combinations of causes • B. Less strict, more qualitative comparisons can be used for descriptive and prescriptive purposes, e.g.: • Concept formation and categorization: e.g. Definition and types of WS, the concept of representation (Pitkin) • Operazionalization of complex concepts: e.g. Democratic institutions (Executive/Parliament Dominance, Federal/Unitary, Majoritarian/ConsotiationalProportional, Corporatism/Pluralism)  Liphart POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS

19. 3. The comparative-historical method (cont.) • B. Less strict, more qualitative comparisons used in descriptive and prescriptive purposes, e.g. (CONT.): • Building hypothesis and evidence on: • Complex case-specific interactions between IVs • Effect of historical accidents as sufficient causes • Temporal sequences of causes • Complex causal mechanisms • Mapping and comparing policy alternatives for policy-makers • Studying the key causal mechanisms of a case of best practice in order to imitate it • Uncovering specific temporal sequences of events in the history of a deviant case: to facilitate removal of obstacles to change POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS

20. CAUSAL MECHANISMS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS Sociopol. actors Politicalactors Process, interact. Context Policy Institutions & Resources

21. Types of theories

22. TYPE OF THEORIES & CAUSES OF POLICY III. Types of theories: • From early theories: monocausal + (socioeconomic, cultural or institutional) determinism • Good for advising/influencing policy-makers • Often professional interests/ideology of researchers • Limitations of quasi-experimental, qualitative comparisons • Little information available • To multi-causal theories (=“comparative politics”, “political economy”) IV. Causes of policy change (IVs) • 1.Structural, cultural and convergence theories: SOCIAL CONTEXT (audience) • 2. Actor-centred theories: POLITICAL ACTORS (=players/teams/clubs) • 3. Institutionalist theories: INSTITUTIONS (= rules of the game) • 4. Action-centred theories: INTERACTIONS (=game/league) • 5. Policy-centred theories: PATH DEPEPENDENCE, FEEDBACK, LEARNING CONCEPTUAL COMPLEXITY INCREASES

23. Exercise: Amenta et al. 2004 Types of theories • EUROPE-BASED EXPLANATIONS • Modernization & ec.development • Partisanship theory (SD, CD) • Coalition theories • Institutional theory: centralization/ /fragmentation of the polity • State-centred theory: state capacity and autonomy; state bureaucracy • Path-dependency, policy feedbacks • US-BASED EXPLANATIONs_ • Race • Social movements (citizens. mob.) • Interest group theory: capitalists • Public opinion • Patronage, non-ideological pol. parties • Democratic polity: openess & access • 1.Context theories: • Structural, • Cultural • Convergence theories: • 2. Actor-centred theories: • Interest groups • Political parties • State-centred • State-society: civil society • 3. Institutionalist theories: • 4. Process-centred theories: • 5. Policy-centred theories: • Path dependence, • Policy feedbacks & policy learning POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS

24. Causes of policy change

25. Access & participation • Policy strategies • Coalition-building • Competition and cooperat. • Changing resources • Learning • Conjunctural factors: ec crisis, wars • Socioeconomic structure: • Ownership, income • Education, knowledge • Social capital (status, connections) CAUSES OF POLICY CHANGE: Operationalization in WS/HC research CONTEXT • Sociopolitical structure: • Cleavages and political identities • Values: Culture and subcultures • Interest groups • Profesional assocs. • Poilitical parties • State authorities • Citizens: PO/SM • Mass media • Distrib. of formal pol. power: electoral law, constitution, federalism, corporatism • Contracts and org. structures • Norms of behaviour • Sanctions/incentives POLITICS: InteractionsProcess Preferences Resources POLITICAL ACTORS INSTITUTIONS Individual and collective - Formal and informal • Entitlements & rights • Regulation by law (of power, ownership, financing, behaviour, contracts) • Redistribution: Financing & RA • Production of goods & services POLICY Adapted from Walt and Wilson 1994

26. Assignments

27. Presentation and participation in class (10% + 10%)  • 1 or 2 students per article • 1 or 2 presentations • Summary, partly based on graphic tools • Criticisms: to unclear or overstretched concepts, unconvincing arguments, counterarguments, lack of correspondence between concepts and evidence, insufficient evidence, important omitted variables, others • Course paper (30%)  Groups 2-4 • History of Norwegian WS/HC compared with other case • Recent reforms expanding the HC sector compared with case • Exam (50%)  5 December • Concepts and theories • Text to discuss ASSIGNMENTS

28. ASSIGNMENTS

29. ASSIGNMENTS