Class Notes (839,315)
Canada (511,260)
PO221 (12)
Lecture

PO221 – Lecture notes from first to last lecture

34 Pages
196 Views

Department
Political Science
Course Code
PO221
Professor
Mark Yaniszewski

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 34 pages of the document.
Description
PO221 9/12/2013 3:00:00 PM What you will be doing …. First two nights you will learn how to study comparative politics Then examine the modern state – because state is focus of most comparative research Citizenship and identity are either determined by the state or arise in a distance from the state We look at the modern state and its challenges – look at some of the more interesting debates relating to the state today Majority of case studies will be from the developed countries but we will be contrasting them to how things are done in developing countries Lecture tonight … what does it mean to study something comparatively? How has this evolved over the years – comparative politics has probably changed most out of any over the years Look at key influences within comparative politics General introduction to the comparative method … As a comparativist we are interested in a cause and effect relationship How? Research questions ex how do people vote? Liberal ndp conservative why? Other words interested in voting behavior why people vote the way they vote (dependent variable) Hypothesis idea of how this relationship might work Ex. I think people who belong to labor unions might side with ndp because of their beliefs (a cause effects our dependent variable) Ex. You belong to union? OR live in rural area? OR live in city? As these things change it causes changes in the effect (dependent variable) Now we have a hypothesis – suggesting there is a relationship between this dependent variable Research analysis look for evidence Look at documents/events/talk to people ANYTHING Talk to people who have voted in the past (tell us why you voted ndp ohhhh you’re a union member ah ha) Draw conclusions did the evidence that we collected support our hypothesis that these things all correlate Challenges as researchers Cases With such a small sample size you get a skewed result – didn’t have enough cases to get a viable result Problem with social scientists we don’t have enough cases with which to commit our studies – hits all the time to find enough cases to get meaningful results So to increase results what do we do? TRICKS … To increase number of cases: use data from not just today but several years ago you double your numbers triple them if you go back even further TIME SERIES ANALYSIS/LONGITUDINAL Sometimes you just wont have a lot of data to work with unfortunately Galton’s Problem There are unknown variables that will effect research and change it at certain times ie during football season chicken wing sales will go up with in turn creates an increase in gambling as well during this time This unknown variable is the true independent variable but you wont realize it – this is more hidden and harder to find in a real realistic level Selection bias When we go to do our research and analysis and we pick the evidence that supports the conclusion that we want in turn ignoring the evidence we don’t want Most of the time it doesn’t happen on purpose it is a result of sloppy technique By not doing a random sample you will see what you want to see – you have conducted in it a way that will skew the actual evidence Ecological fallacy When we use aggregate data to define the behavior of an individual Ex. I am sure that if you asked people living in Canada whether they like hockey or not – 70/80% of people probably like hockey Just because we know in a general sense what people in Canada like doesn’t mean that specific individual will agree Over determinism When you have multiple independent variables that could all produce the same effect on the dependent variable but you don’t know which one is really causing that effect Ex. Every year the number of people going to hospitals increases – if we did a study we would find a number of reasons why people are ending up in the hospitals What we should be asking is to what degree are these independent variables effecting the dependent variable Operationalize our data To measure to count to quantify Some things are easy to put into a number ie how many federal elections have we had in the past in Canada? Ok so you look at history and count done But other things are more difficult to count ie how stable is the US political system? Hard to put that into a number … you could compare and give a relative ranking but to say its 7.5 its just a wild guess not concrete Evolution of this sub field we call comparitivism Antecedents / proto-comparativist Aristotle Machiavelli John stuart mill Marx although they have interesting things to say they don’t make a leap to science comparatives traditional comparativits th 1880s/1890s …. 20 century focus on the state and particularly the governing institutions of the state, political bodies focus so much on the state they almost ignore everything else engaging in comparative government but not in other areas that still have political impact tend to have not only a narrow focus (government) also tend to focus narrowly on their cases ie study mostly the American government but that’s pretty much it (US/ western Europe) a theoretical took from many places and made it what they wanted tended to not have an overarching theoretical perspective EVERYTHING IS SEEN THROUGH THE LENSE OF CLASS antecedent and traditional comparativists implied comparison (single case study) comparative analysis focused on only one case – shouldn’t you have more than one case if you are comparing there was an implied comparison but it wasn’t always made explicit PO221 – September 19, 2013 9/12/2013 3:00:00 PM 1. proto comparativists 2. traditional comparativists 3. emergence of a social science of comparative politics 4. current era(1970/1980s) - the real emergence of comp pol. Is really the 1950s (after WWII) - there was a backlash to the traditional approach to compartivism – they tended to focus too much on things like legal documents and government workings – legislation and voting .. – all they seemed to study was the government - new wave of social scientists said the government doesn’t always tell us whats really going on – not enough to just study the government and legal stuff - by only studying the formal mechanisms of power something was being missed – power relationships are not formally structured - lobbying is another way in which power is both used and manipulative – can have an impact on what kind of politics occurs - corruption can also play a role – these things are not part of the formal study that traditionalists studied - new people said we have to look at more than just the legal structures - not just about the Canadian constitution – this emerges in 1950s with the change - not the only change that social science wave wanted to produce – also argued that traditionalists did not only study formal aveneues of power but tended to have very narrow set of cases that they studied – focused on power of western places US Geramany western Europe etc – they were a tiny minority amongst the tradiionalists - ss wave not only wanted to introduce new topics to study but also wanted to study new aveneues for the expression of political power – things like political culture, an idea that certain groups of people tend to do things one way and other groups tend to do things another way – interested in informal political actors – how did “family chlan” politics differ from those in the US - how did different ideologies differ in the balance of power - trad never studied social movements/ women – which also impact power - new wave wanted to look at all those aspects of power – new cases = new avenues of power - third almost revolutionary change that emerged in the soc sci era behaviouralism - behavioualists : tried to bring the study of politics to be similar to how a biologist studied plants - proto comparativists / trad – kinda made it up as they went along - soc sci wanted to use scientific method to study politics  - combined new research techniques ie public opinion surveys – to study why people vote the way they do etc - soc sci also wanted to count political concepts – put those number into computers – then do statistical analyses of the data (number cruncher guys) - turning point in the 80s – not everything has changed – ex current comp pol people do like the idea of studying politics globally – kept this from third group – also liked not just studying the formal avenues of power – BROAD CASES AND AVENEUES OF POWER THIS THEY LIKED FROM THIRD GROUP -first thing that did change is in the current era you cant speak of the dominant approach to the study of politics – there are 3 diff approaches to the study of pol 1. behaviouralism (still alive today) 2. rational choice theory 3. traditionalists (partial revival of this approach) - counter revolution against the behvioualists – massive reaction against them by the 1980s this revolution was in full force WHY? Behaviouralists had very little to say about normative/prescriptive dimension of political analysis – another criticism – their approach is ahistorical – meaning the behviouralists are stuck in a certain time period (the present) cant tell us very much about the past or future  - stuck in the present no sense of time  behavioualists are almost taking a photo whereas we may be more interested in a film - third criticism – best answers for the least interesting questions – generate trivialities – they can answer smaller pol questions but were not as effective at answering the bigger more interesting questions that we care most about NOW THAT BEHVIOURALISTS ARE NOT AS POPULAR THIS OPENED THE DOOR FOR RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY - RCT – argues that we as human beings are essentially rational creatures and bc we are rational we can use that to determine the general laws of politics - also opened the door for a bit of a revival of the traditionalists within comp pol – they brought the focus of comp pol back to the state KEY THINKERS (early comparativists) - Alexis De Tocueville  French historian  Best known for a book called democracy in America  Sailed to America and wondered around the country talking to people and then wrote his findings in the book  He engaged in an implicit comparison of America and France  Concludes that there are faults in the American political systems but also desirable elements in the American political social and economic model  Implicit bc he doesn’t actually mention france in the book  He was writing for an audience back home so they would be familiar with how france did things economically politically and socially  Soc sci call this an absent case study  Modern comparitavists would say his writing is far to descriptive - John Stewart Mill  his book known as a system of logic  method of agreement (most similar system design) o here you try to pick cases which are very similar to each other  method of difference (most dissimilar research design) o here you try to pick cases which are very different from one another  in both methods you start by looking at the independent variables  those are his two most famous methods  third method – joint method  fourth – method of residue – if you have used every other method then it must be explained by whatever is left – Sherlock holmes (however improbable must be the truth)  fifth – method of concomitant variation - what degree do things go up and down together - Karl Marx/Friedrich Engles – answer was always economic  partnership together  communist manifesto famous line – the history of all hither to existing society is the history of class struggles – basically everything can be explained by its relationship to the class struggle ELITE THEORY – boils down to a simple idea that every society is divided internally and there are always elites at the top we have the rulers and those that are ruled the relationship between these groups is conflict prone. Elite theorists argue that the top aren’t exactly the top maybe the elite is the elite because of religious or gender there are other things that can make you elite. Every society has this division so its easy to compare 3 theorists 1. Gaetano Mosca  Italian political scientist – famous for his book the ruling class  Interested in how elites come to power in the first place  Specialized knowledge is a degree of power  Interested in the relationship between the elite and the state o He agrees with marx on this all had a very instrumental understanding of this relationship o The government is a state instrument used by the elite like a hammer  Interested in how the elites stay in power o What kind of strategies could an elite use to stay in power 2. Vilfredo Paneto  he goes beyond mosca with his idea of elite circulation – its true that there is always an elite but also true is that its not always the same elite over time elites become replaced by other elites – this happens because they have to bring new people into the elites 3. Robert Michels  famous for the iron law of oligarchy  explained how elites come to be elites in the first place  he said if you take a group of humans they will inevitably structure themselves in a hierarchal fashion  goes on to argue that the elite will become more conservative over time seek to preserve the status quo  they wont want to change they will want to keep things the way they are bc they are on top  also argues that elites that are too resistant to change that shut out others from joining the elite are in danger of loosing their position (over thrown, taken down etc)  if they don’t evolve they are in danger of being over thrown David Easton - born in Canada - he wanted to have a more scientific approach to the study of comp pol – he wanted to do this by using a measuring device that you can use to compare every society - he wanted to have a universal measuring stick that he could apply to everything - we have politics to decide who gets what – about authoritative elite distributing these resources - these parts of the political system should not be studied in isolation they are a whole - his system theory starts with demands – what people want from the political system  - in different societies people will demand different things – but they all have demands of their political system  - the decisions are the outputs of the political system – this is what they decide to do  feedback after the result  strength of his model - he was one of those people who was trying to break the narrow focus of the traditionalists  his model included both the formal mechanisms of power and informal mechanisms  he emphasized the idea that all these things should be connected and they should be studied as such  his model does have critics – one of the criticisms is it doesn’t account for change – there is also a bias against change – his model favors the status quo  some critics argue that his model is ethnocentric – Easton claimed he was trying to find a universal yard stick – critics said his yard stick had a real American flavor to it – not fair to compare all societies to the US  PO221 September 26 9/12/2013 3:00:00 PM comparative technique: political culture - Gabriel Almond & Sydney Verba  trying to find a measuring stick to define society  they devised political culture – look for patterns in the attitudes and values that people had relative to politics  if they studied these values they could determine how these attitudes shape our political behavior  interested in 3 main dimensions of a person or group of peoples political culture o cognitive = what you knew about the political system and how it works, doesn’t matter if your knowledge is correct or incorrect just matters what your knowledge is o affective = what do you feel about the political system, your emotional response to the political system o evaluative = how do you rationally calculate the system  they tried to implement this for all the societies they compared  after looking at the dimensions they concluded in rough terms that there are 3 broad categories of societies out there o parochial = doesn’t really exist today, refers to groups of people who are not really connected in any kind of a larger political system (almost like a hunter/gatherer nomad) o subject = people that are connected to a larger political system but they are the recipients of orders they have no rights of their own (you are a subject of the king – tells you what to do when and how you do it – only have obligations) o participant = people still have obligations to the larger society, but you have rights  political culture has been criticized from a lot of angles – one of the main criticisms is that it uses to broad a brush to paint various societies – when I reality there are broad characteristics (exaggerated claims)  political culture helps to understand differences in political behavior but other things would matter too it cannot be the only way to understand political outcomes Rational Choice Theory - political science has borrowed this idea from economists - rct says that all individuals have a common thing that they are all rational  what are the interests and preferences of a voter? You will vote to satisfy this preference  criticism: its analysis is more obvious ex post facto as opposed to ex ante (more obvious after the fact as opposed to before the fact)  if you look at the way labor groups have voted in France Britain and US you get totally different outcomes – similar groups in different countries behave differently Neo-Institutionalists - a huge number of scholars had a very instrumental understanding of the state – Marx is perfect example of this - elites used the state as an instrument – the state does what its instructed to do, the state has no autonomy  is this really the case? According to NI the answer is no  those parts of the state do have some freedom of action they don’t do just what they are instructed to do – its true in democracies and non-democracies - Eric Nordlinger – early example of a NI - Theda Skocpol – NI  they said the state does have some autonomy – they are not arguing that the institutions of the state can do whatever they want – they don’t have total freedom of action but they have some wiggle room  relative autonomy (wiggle room) – your prof has relative autonomy – he has a certain amount of freedom as to what he teaches – but he doesn’t have complete freedom to do whatever he wants – this is true of many aspects of the state  in some cases actors within the system have this relative autonomy because it has been deliberately delegated to them ex: head of bank of Canada has been assigned the job of setting Canada’s interest rates – part of the state who has been delegated authority to make decisions  sometimes a crisis will provide the opportunity for parts of the state to expand their autonomy  empire building – this is when in a civil service part of it takes on additional jobs because that gives them access to additional resources – gives them a small power center  corruption could be another form of unauthorized autonomy THE RISE OF THE MODERN STATE Characteristics of the modern state - there is no single definition of the state and its characteristics Territory - the modern state is an entity that exists and dominates and entire territory somewhere in the world - Monaco is the smallest country in the world – half the size of U waterloo but still a state Sovereignty - internal = the state is the final decision making authority within its territory, state could attempt to control all citizens and non-citizens living within the state ex. In Canada you cant own a monkey the state has decided this – the most dramatic manifestation of the states internal sovereignty is a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical violence – force is a part of every aspect of politics at least to a degree - external = not relative to other domestic actors but relative to foreign actors (other states) sovereign nations have the power to decide for themselves what they can and cannot do – in practice there are wide variations as to how effective a nations internal or external sovereignty really is – some states face the problem of other actors always challenging for power – ie compare US to Monaco – very rarely does the US get pushed around and told what to do - if you are in the United Nations then its basically the other members of the club saying you’re a sovereign state – if your not in the UN good chance they don’t consider you to be a state - not always a clear cut concept – when did Canada become a sovereign st country – July 1 1867 – BNA act gave this new country sovereignty over the vast majority of domestic issues – by WWII now sovereign in in the areas of foreign and defense policies before that if Britain went to war we went to war - 1947 = Canadian Citizenship – up until this point we did not have the power to our own citizenship ie we were considered british citizen living in Canada Legitimacy - democratic - divine right of the king = we must obey him because he is the king - revolution = leaders of the revolution who have legitimacy, because they overthrew the old system and have created the new one - ideology PO221 – OCTOBER 3 9/12/2013 3:00:00 PM Modern State - most important of the political entities in the world today - where did it come from? Conventional view - Westphalian state o Thirty years’ war (1618-1648) – major turning point date to remember o At the end there was a peace agreement known as peace of Westphalia – signified the new dominant political view Different concept of sovereignty existed prior to thirty years war Ex: king (lord) – under the king would be a duke – duke has to swear an oath of fealty to the king (constructing a contract) – king gives duke protection and land and in return he must do stuff for the king like go to war with him – under duke could be 2 or 3 knights – and duke cuts a certain deal with them – at the bottom is the peasants - this old system appearances were deceiving  there were other forms of hierarchies within the political system  ecclesiastical – church/religious hierarchies  free towns – small cities that were allowed to act more or less independent  different kinds of structures within this system - the old system was in a much greater state of flux than the modern state - ex: if the duke were to die in some cases his heirs would carry on the legacy – but sometimes if duke died the relationship ended – depended on the nature of the contract - pope and emperor (holy roman empire) also were powerful forces at this time ex: lets say duke has a problem with kings religious beliefs so there is also a relationship with the pope – you could also appeal to the emperor for secular disputes - holy roman empire at the time was one of the largest empires in Europe o throughout most of this period one family the Habsburg were the emperors of the holy roman empire thirty years war - starts in 1618 and it’s a war about religion in Germany - protestant or catholic church – religious conflict - 1619 emperor dies (Matthias I)  didn’t have an heir - now war becomes about who is going to be the next emperor of holy roman empire - would he be catholic or protestant ? - spreads across all of Europe – some care about this issue some intervene for selfish political reasons - some countries intervened because ie king of France didn’t want to take orders from the pope - in the end almost 3 decades of fighting – negotiations that take 7 years finally there is a peace agreement called peace of Westphalia - the agreement marks the emergence of a new political system  political power of pope and holy roman emperor is significantly weakened – doesn’t disappear just weakened – both are forced to accept the idea that the states of Europe are sovereign (this is change #1 decline of transcendent powers)  change #2 weakening of the sub national powers – title as duke is more of an honor thing than a meaningful political power  changes in the way war was fought – were becoming bigger and more expensive – so too expensive for sub national actors to play effectively – only the king can afford it #3 nationalism – with the decline of popes authority and emperor etc. people began to identify themselves as being apart of a nation to a much greater degree than they had ever done before people would have primary loyalty to king and nation – before this people did not think of themselves in national terms  the elites didn’t think of themselves as German or French or w.e it depended who you were loyal to  #4 change – subject becomes citizen – unintended consequence of the changes , people began to view themselves as not just subjects of the king but being citizens who had rights – citizen isn’t property of the king  #5 change – eventually system of states is transported across the world – starts in western Europe then spreads to rest of Europe but WWI spread throughout Europe – Eventually across the globe wherever Europeans have colonies - this is not the only theory that’s out there – there are some alternatives 3 1. Eastern Origins (John M Hobson)  he argues that the conventional view of the emergence of the modern state is wrong didn’t all come from the west – he says most of those features of Westphalia including sovereignty could already be found in the east (asia middle east) these ideas were already starting to emerge 2. Earlier Turning Points (Bruce Bueno de Mesquita)  American academic who rejects the eastern origins thesis also rejects Westphalia origins – was much earlier than Westphalia – in the yr 1122 there was a concordat of worms – this treaty between a number of kings and the pope – he says this is when the power of the popes was first truly broken thus allowing sovereignty to emerge 3. Later Turning Points (Andreas Osiander)  He accepts there were changes in 1122 and in the aftermath of
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit