How to Compare Countries?

Session4th

• Why Jokowi had successful in Indonesian Presidential Election 2014?

• Why the social-demoratic political parties have successful in Latin America?

• Why western countries are more democratic than eastern countries?

Comparative Inferences

Pertanyaan Diskusi Kelompok

Why different methods?

The distinction between different comparative

methods, based upon:

1) The particular research question,

2) The time and resources of the researcher,

3) The method with which the researcher is

comfortable,

4) The epistemological position he or she adopts.

Methods of ComparisonBased on Sartori (1970) and Mair (1996)

COMPARING MANY COUNTRIES

1st method

‘large-n’ Comparison

The large number of countries makes this method of

comparison particularly suited to quantitative analysis

of aggregate data collected on different measures that

vary across many countries (Lijphart 1971).

Example work:

Democracy and Development (Przeworski et al. 2000)

includes 150 countries from 1950 to 1990

Strengths Weaknesses/challenges

Statistical control Invalid measures

Limited selection bias Data availability

Extensive scope Too abstract/high level of

generality

Strong inferences and good

for theory-building

Time-consuming

Identify deviant countries Mathematical and computer

training

‘large-n’ Comparison: An Assessment

COMPARING FEW COUNTRIES

2nd method

‘small-n’ Comparison

• The country is often the unit of

analysis, and the focus tends to be on

the similarities and differences among

countries rather than the analytical

relationships between variables.

• There are two main types of research

design: compare different outcomes

across similar countries, which is

known as the Most Similar Systems

Design (MSSD); and compare similar

outcomes across different countries,

which is known as the Most Different

Systems Design (MDSD).

Strengths Weaknesses/challenges

Control by selecting MSSD

or MDSD

Less secure inferences

Good for theory-building Selection bias:

1. Choice of countries

2. Choice of historical

account

Intensive, less variable-

oriented

Language training

Avoid ‘conceptual

stretching’

Field research

Thick description

Areas studies

Configurative analysis

Macro-history

‘small-n’ Comparison: An Assessment

COMPARING SINGLE COUNTRIES

3rd method

Why different methods?

A single-country study is considered comparative if it

uses concepts that are applicable to other countries,

develops concepts that are applicable to other

countries, and/or seeks to make larger inferences that

stretch beyond the original country used in the study.

Many examples are:

Tocqueville’s (1888) Democracy in America,

Dahl’s (1961) Who Governs?,

Lijphart’s (1968) The Politics of Accommodation (the

Netherlands),

O’Donnell’s (1973) Modernization and Bureaucratic

Authoritarianism (Argentina),

Varshney’s (2002) Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life

(India), etc.

Strengths Weaknesses/challenges

Intensive, ideographic,

path-dependent, and

configurative analysis.

Insecure inferences

Six types:

1. Atheoretical

2. Interpretive

3. Hypothesis-generating

4. Theory-confirming

5. Theory-infirming

6. Deviant countries

Selection bias:

1. Choice of countries

2. Choice of historical

account

Language training

Field research

Case Study Comparison: An Assessment