9781137528360 01 prexviii - Comparative politics • Classifying political systems PREVIEW...

1 Key concepts 1

2 The state 19

3 Democratic rule 37

4 Authoritarian rule 56

5 Theoretical approaches 73

6 Comparing government and politics 90

7 Constitutions and courts 108

8 Legislatures 127

9 Executives 145

10 Bureaucracies 162

11 Sub-national government 181

12 Political culture 200

13 Political participation 216

14 Political communication 233

15 Political parties 251

16 Elections 269

17 Voters 286

18 Interest groups 304

19 Public policy 324

Brief contents

Copyrighted material – 9781137528360


KeY CONCeptS 1

• Key concepts: an overview

• Government and governance

• Politics

• Power

• The state, authority, and legitimacy

• Ideology

• Comparative politics

• Classifying political systems

CONTENTSPREVIEWThe best place to begin the study of any topic is with an exploration of key concepts. Most of the political terms which concern us are embedded in ordi-nary language; government, politics, power and authority are all familiar terms. But – as we will see – this does not mean that they are easily defi ned, or that political scientists are agreed on how best to understand or apply them.

This opening chapter begins with a discussion about the meaning of gov-ernment and governance, which are related terms but quite diff erent in the ideas they convey: the fi rst focuses on institutions while the second focuses on pro-cesses. We then go on to look at politics, whose core features are relatively easy to identify, but whose boundaries are not so clear: does it imply a search for a decision, or a competitive struggle for power? This is followed by a review of the meaning of power, authority, legitimacy and ideology, all of which lie at the heart of our understanding of how government and politics work.

The chapter then examines some of the core purposes of comparative politics; most fundamentally, its study helps us broaden our understanding of politics and government, taking us beyond the limitations inherent in analysing a single political system. We then look at the challenges involved in classifying political systems. Classifi cations help us make better sense of a large, complex and changing political world – if we could just develop a typology with which everyone could agree.

Key concepts1CHAPTER

• The academic study of politics requires few technical terms, but it is useful to identify both a one-sentence defi nition (concepts) and any issues surrounding the term (conceptions).

• The concept of governance is increasingly used in political writing, emphasizing the activity rather than the institutions of governing, offering a distinct focus that builds on, rather than supplanting, the more familiar notion of government.

• A precise defi nition of politics is diffi cult, because the term has multiple nuances. But it is clearly a collective activity, leading to decisions affecting an entire group.

• Power is central to politics. But here, again, conceptions are important. If we see persuasion and manipulation as forms of power, the range of the political expands considerably.

• Ideology has lost its original meaning as the science of ideas, but it remains useful as a way of packaging different views about the role of government and the goals of public policy.

• Typologies are important as a means of imposing order on the variety of the world’s political systems, and helping us develop explanations and rules. Unfortunately, no typology has yet won general support.

KEY ARGUMENTS



2 Chapter 1

Key concepts: an overviewIn working to understand political terms, we can distin-guish between concepts and conceptions. A concept is an idea, term or category such as democracy or power, that is best approached with a definition restricted to its inherent characteristics. In trying to understand the features which a government must possess in order to qualify as a democracy, for example, we can probably agree that some measure of popular control over the rulers is essential; if there were no ways of holding the government to account, there could be no democ-racy. A good definition of democracy as a concept, in this narrow but important sense, should be clear and concise.

For its part, a conception builds on a concept by describing the understandings, perspectives or interpre-tations of a concept. We might, for instance, conceive of democracy as self-government, as direct democ-racy, as representative government or as majority rule. Conceptions build on definitions by moving to a fuller discussion and consideration of alternative positions.

Concept: A term, idea, or category.

Conception: The manner in which something is under-stood or interpreted.

The book begins with a review of several of the most important concepts involved in comparative pol-itics; to be clear on their meanings will provide the foundations for understanding the chapters that fol-low. The terms government and politics are routinely used interchangeably, but are not necessarily applied cor-rectly, and terms such as power come in several different forms. We also need to be clear about the definition of the state, and how it relates to authority, legiti-macy, and ideology. What all these concepts have in common – apart from the fact that they are central to an understanding of the manner in which human society is organized and administered – is that the pre-cise definition of their meanings is routinely contested. The problem of disputed meanings is found not just in political science, but throughout the social sciences, and there is even some dispute about the meaning of the term social science. It is used here in the context of studying and better understanding the organized

relations and interactions of people within society: the institutions they build, the rules they agree, the processes they use, their underlying motives, and the results of their interactions.

Social science: The study of human society and of the structured interactions among people within society. Distinct from the natural sciences, such as physics and biology.

Ultimately, we seek to better understand these concepts so as to enhance our ability to compare. Comparison is one of the most basic of all human activities, lying at the heart of almost every choice we make in our lives. No surprise, then, that it should be at the heart of research in the social sciences. In order to better understand human behaviour, we need to exam-ine different cases, examples, and situations in order to draw general conclusions about what drives people to act the way they do. We can study government and political processes in isolation, but we can never really hope to fully comprehend them, or be sure that we have considered all the explanatory options, without comparison. Only by looking at government and poli-tics across place and time can we build the context to be able to gain a broader and more complete understand-ing. Within this context, comparative politics involves the systematic study of the institutions, character, and performance of government and political processes in different societies.

Government and governanceThis is a book about comparative government and politics, so the logical place to begin our review of concepts is with the term government. Small groups can reach collective decisions without any special procedures; thus the members of a family or sports team can reach an understanding by informal dis-cussion, and these agreements can be self-executing: those who make the decision carry it out themselves. However, such simple mechanisms are impractical for larger units such as cities or states, which must develop standard procedures for making and enforcing collective decisions. By definition, decision-making organizations formed for this purpose comprise the government: the arena for making and enforcing collective decisions.



KeY CONCeptS 3

Government: The institutions and offices through which societies are governed. Also used to describe the group of people who govern (e.g. the Japanese government), a specific administration (e.g. the Putin government), the form of the system of rule (e.g. centralized government), and the nature and direction of the administration of a community (e.g. good government).

In popular use, the term government refers just to the highest level of political appointments: to presidents, prime ministers, legislatures, and others at the apex of power. But in a wider conception, government consists of all organi-zations charged with reaching and executing decisions for the whole community. By this definition, the police, the armed forces, public servants and judges all form part of the government, even though such officials are not neces-sarily appointed by political methods such as elections. In this broader conception, government is the entire com-munity of institutions endowed with public authority.

The classic case for the institution of govern-ment was made in the seventeenth century by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (see Focus 1.1). He judged that government provides us with protection from the harm that we would otherwise inflict on each other in our quest for gain and glory. By grant-ing a monopoly of the sword to a government, we transform anarchy into order, securing peace and its principal bounty: the opportunity for mutually ben-eficial cooperation.

In a democracy, at least, government offers security and predictability to those who live under its jurisdic-tion. In a well-governed society, citizens and businesses can plan for the long term, knowing that laws are stable and consistently applied. Governments also offer the effi-ciency of a standard way of reaching and enforcing deci-sions (Coase, 1960). If every decision had to be preceded by a separate agreement on how to reach and apply it, governing would be tiresome indeed. These efficiency

FOCUS 1.1 Hobbes’s case for government

The case for government was well made by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) in his famous treatise Leviathan, published in 1651. His starting point was the fundamental equality in our ability to inflict harm on others:

For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others.

So arises a clash of ambition and fear of attack:

From this equality of ability, arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their own delectation, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.

Without a ruler to keep us in check, the situation becomes grim:

Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.

People therefore agree (by means unclear) to set up an absolute government to escape from a life that would otherwise be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’:

The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another… is, to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will … This done, the multitude so united is called a COMMONWEALTH.

Source: Hobbes (1651)



4 Chapter 1

gains give people who disagree an incentive to agree on a general mechanism for resolving disagreements.

Of course, establishing a government creates new dangers. The risk of Hobbes’s commonwealth is that it will abuse its own authority, creating more prob-lems than it solves. As John Locke – one of Hobbes’s critics – pointed out, there is no profi t in avoiding

the dangers of foxes if the outcome is simply to be devoured by lions (Locke, 1690). A key aim in study-ing government must therefore be to discover how to secure its undoubted benefi ts, while also limit-ing its inherent dangers. We must keep in mind the question posed by Plato: ‘who is to guard the guards themselves?’

Brief Profile: Although Nigeria has been independent since 1960, it was not until 2015 that it experienced a presidential election in which the incumbent was defeated by an opposition opponent. This makes an important point about the challenges faced by Africa’s largest country by population, and one of the continent’s major regional powers, in developing a stable political form. Nigeria is currently enjoying its longest spell of civilian government since independence, but the military continues to play an important role, the economy is dominated by oil, corruption is rife at every level of society, security concerns and poor infrastructure discourage foreign investment, and a combination of ethnic and religious divisions pose worrying threats to stability. Incursions and numerous attacks since 2002 by the Islamist group Boko Haram, an al-Qaeda ally which controls parts of northern Nigeria, have added to the country’s problems.

Form of government ➩ Federal presidential republic consisting of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory. State formed 1960, and most recent constitution adopted 1999.

Legislature ➩ Bicameral National Assembly: lower House of Representatives (360 members) and upper Senate (109 members), both elected for fixed and renewable four-year terms.

Executive ➩ Presidential. A president elected for a maximum of two four-year terms, supported by a vice president and cabinet of ministers, with one from each of Nigeria’s states.

Judiciary ➩ Federal Supreme Court, with 14 members nominated by the president, and either confirmed by the Senate or approved by a judicial commission.

Electoral system ➩ President elected in national contest, and must win a majority of all votes cast and at least 25 per cent of the vote in at least two-thirds of Nigeria’s states. Possibility of two runoffs. National Assembly elected using single-member plurality.

Parties ➩ Multi-party, led by the centrist People’s Democratic Party and the conservative All Nigeria People’s Party.

NIGERIA

SpOtLIGht

➡

Population (178.5 million)

gross National income ($522 billion)

Per capita gNi ($2,710)

Democracy index rating

Freedom House rating

Human Development index rating

FreePartly freeNot Free

Full DemocracyNot Rated

Hybrid Regime

Authoritarian Flawed Democracy

Very HighNot Rated

Medium

Low High



KeY CONCeptS 5

In democracies, government is influenced by wider forces, such as interest groups, political parties, the media, corporations, and public opinion. In authoritar-ian systems, the government may lack much autonomy, effectively becoming the property of a dominant indi-vidual or clan. One way of referring to the broader array of forces surrounding and influencing government is through the concept of a political system.

Political system: The interactions and organizations (including but not restricted to government) through which a society reaches and successfully enforces collective deci-sions. Interchangeably used with the term regime, but the latter tends to have negative connotations.

This phrase usefully extends our line of sight beyond official institutions, while still implying that political actors interact with each other and with government in a stable fashion, forming a distinct element or function within society (Easton, 1965). So, the ‘Swedish political system’ means more than ‘Swedish government’; it is the space in which the activity of Swedish politics, or at least the bulk of it, takes place.

Another related concept that has undergone a recent revival is governance, which refers to the whole range of actors involved in government. But where the phrase political system suggests a rather static account based on organizations, the idea of governance highlights the process and quality of collective decision-making, with a particular focus on regulation. The emphasis is on the activity of governing, rather than on the institutions of government, so that we can – for example – speak of the governance (rather than the government) of the internet, because no single government department is in charge.

Governance: The process by which decisions, laws and policies are made, with or without the input of formal institutions.

Governance directs our attention away from gov-ernment’s command-and-control function towards the broader task of public regulation, a role which ruling politicians in liberal democracies share with other bodies. For example, a particular sport will be run by its governing body, with the country’s govern-ment intervening only in extreme situations. Hence,

Government and politics in Nigeria Many of the facets of the debate about government, politics, power, and authority are on show in Nigeria, a relatively young country struggling to develop a workable political form and national identity in the face of multiple internal divisions.

Understanding Nigeria is complicated by the lack of durable governmental patterns. Since independence in 1960, Nigerians have lived through three periods of civilian government, five successful and several attempted military coups, a civil war, and nearly 30 years of military rule. The first civilian government (1960– 66) was based on the parliamentary model, but the second and third (1979–83 and 1999–present) were based on the presidential form. Since 2007, Nigeria has twice made the transition from one civilian government to another and the long-term political prognosis has improved. Still, considerable uncertainties remain.

In part, political doubts reflect economic drift. The country’s growing population is expected to double in

the next 25 years, straining an infrastructure that is already woefully inadequate to support a modern economy. Nigeria’s core economic problem is its heavy reliance on oil, which leaves the size and health of the economy – as well as government revenues – dependent on the fluctuating (and currently depressed) price of oil. To make matters worse, much of the oil wealth has been squandered and stolen, and there have been bitter political arguments over how best to spend the balance.

Nigeria’s problems are more than just economic. In social terms, Nigeria is divided by ethnicity, handicapping efforts to build a sense of national identity. It is also separated by religion, with a mainly Muslim north, a non-Muslim south, and controversial pressures from the north to expand the reach of sharia, or Islamic law. Regional disparities are fundamental, with a north that is dry and poor and a south that is better endowed in resources and basic services. Regional tensions have been made worse by oil, most of which lies either in the southeast or off the coast, but with much of the profit distributed to political elites in other parts of the country.

➡



6 Chapter 1

the need for the concept of governance as a supple-ment, rather than a replacement, for the notion of government.

The notion of governance has been prominent in discussions about the European Union. This 28-member regional integration association has several institutions that look much like an EU government – they include an elected European Parliament and a Court of Justice – but which are better regarded as a system of governance (McCormick, 2015). Their job is to develop policies and laws, and to oversee the implementation of those policies and laws, but they can only do as much as the foundational treaties of the EU, and the governments of its member states, allow them to do. They are better seen as servants of the process of European integration than as the leaders of the EU.

Because governance refers to the activity of ruling, it has also become the preferred term when examin-ing the quality and effectiveness of rule. In this context, governance refers not to the institutions of govern-ment but to what they do and to how well they do it. For example, many international agencies suggest that effective governance is crucial to economic develop-ment in new democracies (World Bank, 1997). Presi-dent Obama told Ghana’s parliament in 2009 that ‘development depends upon good governance’ (BBC News, 2009). In this sense of governance, the focus is on government policies and activities, rather than the institutions of rule themselves.

PoliticsIn the debate over the meaning of politics, we can easily list and agree examples of political activ-ity. When the president and Congress in the United States engage in their annual tussle over the budget, for example, they are clearly engaged in politics. When thousands of the residents of Hong Kong joined street protests in 2014 against the limits on self-determi-nation and democracy imposed by the Chinese gov-ernment, they, too, were taking part in politics. The political heartland, as represented by such examples, is clear enough.

Politics: The process by which people negotiate and com-pete in the process of making and executing shared or col-lective decisions.

However, the boundaries of politics are less pre-cise. When one country invades another, is it engaged in politics or merely in war? When a dictatorship sup-presses a demonstration by violence, is it playing or preventing politics? When a court issues a ruling about privacy, should its judgment be read as political or judi-cial? Is politics restricted to governments, or can it also be found in businesses, families, and even university classrooms?

A crisp definition of politics – one which fits just those things we instinctively call ‘political’ – is difficult, because the term is used in so many different ways. But three aspects of politics are clear:

• It is a collective activity, occurring between and among people. A lone castaway on a desert island could not engage in politics, but if there were two castaways on the same island, they could have a politi-cal relationship.

• It involves making decisions on matters affecting two or more people, typically to decide on a course of action, or to resolve disagreements.

• Once reached, political decisions become authorita-tive policy for the group, binding and committing its members.

Politics is necessary because of the social nature of humans. We live in groups that must reach collec-tive decisions about using resources, relating to others, and planning for the future. A country deliberating on whether to go to war, a family discussing where to take its vacation, a university deciding whether its priority lies with teaching or research: these are all examples of groups forming judgements impinging on all their members. Politics is a fundamental activity because a group which fails to reach at least some decisions will soon cease to exist. You might want to remove from office the current set of politicians in your country but you cannot eliminate the political tasks for which they are responsible.

Once reached, decisions must be implemented. Means must be found to ensure the acquiescence and preferably the consent of the group’s members. Once set, taxes must be raised; once adopted, regulations must be imposed; once declared, wars must be fought. Pub-lic authority – and even force if needed – is used to implement collective policy, and citizens who fail to contribute to the common task may be fined or even imprisoned by the authorities. So, politics possesses a



KeY CONCeptS 7

hard edge, reflected in the adverb authoritatively in the famous definition of a political system offered by the political scientist David Easton (1965: 21):

A political system can be designated as the interac-tions through which values are authoritatively allo-cated for a society; that is what distinguishes a political system from other systems lying in its environment.

As a concept, then, politics can be defined as the process of making and executing collective decisions. But this simple definition generates many contrasting conceptions. Idealistically, politics can be viewed as the search for decisions which either pursue the group’s common interest or at least seek peaceful reconciliation of the different interests within any group of substantial size. Alternatively, and perhaps more realistically, politics can be interpreted as a competitive struggle for power and resources between people and groups seeking their own advantage. From this second vantage point, the methods of politics can encompass violence as well as discussion.

The interpretation of politics as a community-serving activity can be traced to the ancient Greeks. For instance, the philosopher Aristotle (384–322 bce) argued that ‘man is by nature a political animal’ (1962 edn: 28). By this, he meant not only that politics is unavoidable, but also that it is the highest human activ-ity, the feature which most sharply separates us from other species. For Aristotle, people can only express their nature as reasoning, virtuous beings by participat-ing in a political community which seeks not only to identify the common interest through discussion, but also to pursue it through actions to which all contrib-ute. Thus, politics can be seen as a form of education which brings shared interests to the fore. In Aristotle’s model constitution, ‘the ideal citizens rule in the inter-ests of all, not because they are forced to by checks and balances, but because they see it as right to do so’ (Nicholson, 2004: 42).

A continuation of Aristotle’s perspective can be found today in those who interpret politics as a peaceful process of open discussion leading to collective deci-sions acceptable to all stakeholders in society. The politi-cal theorist Bernard Crick (2005: 21) exemplifies this position:

Politics … can be defined as the activity by which different interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in

proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community.

For Crick, politics is neither a set of fixed prin-ciples steering government, nor a set of traditions to be preserved. It is instead an activity whose function is ‘preserving a community grown too complicated for either tradition alone or pure arbitrary rule to pre-serve it without the undue use of coercion’ (p. 24). Indeed, Crick regards rule by dictators, or by violence, or in pursuit of fixed ideologies, as being empty of political activity. This restriction arises because poli-tics is ‘that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coer-cion’ (p. 30). The difficulty with Crick’s conception, as with Aristotle’s, is that it provides an ideal of what politics should be, rather than a description of what it actually is.

Politics can also involve narrow concerns tak-ing precedence over collective benefits when those in authority place their own goals above those of the wider community. So, we need a further conception, one which sees power as an intrinsic value and poli-tics as a competition for acquiring and keeping power. From this second perspective, politics is viewed as a competition yielding winners and losers. For example, the political scientist Harold Lasswell (1936) famously defined politics as ‘who gets what, when, how’. Particu-larly in large, complex societies, politics is a competition between groups – ideological, as well as material – either for power itself or for influence over those who wield it. Politics is anything but the disinterested pursuit of the public interest.

Further, the attempt to limit politics to peaceful, open debate seems unduly narrow. At its best, politics is a deliberative search for agreement, but politics as it exists often takes less conciliatory forms. To say that politics does not exist in Kim Jong Un’s North Korea would appear absurd to the millions who live in the dictator’s shadow. A party in pursuit of power engages in politics, whether its strategy is peaceful, violent or both. In the case of war, in particular, it is preferable to agree with the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’ and with Chinese leader Mao Zedong that ‘war is politics with bloodshed’.

Politics, then, has many different facets. It involves shared and competing interests; cooperation and con-flict; reason and force. Each conception is necessary, but



8 Chapter 1

only together are they sufficient. The essence of poli-tics lies in the interaction between conceptions, and we should not narrow our vision by reducing politics to either one. As Laver (1983: 1) puts it: ‘Pure conflict is war. Pure cooperation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.’

PowerAt the heart of politics is the distribution and manipula-tion of power. The word comes from the Latin potere, meaning ‘to be able’, which is why the philosopher Ber-trand Russell (1938) sees power as ‘the production of intended effects’. The greater our ability to determine our own fate, the more power we possess. In this sense, describing Germany as a powerful country means that it has a high level of ability to achieve its objectives, what-ever those may be. Conversely, to lack power is to fall victim to circumstance. Arguably, though, every state has power, even if it is the kind of negative power involved in obliging a reaction from bigger and wealthier states; Somali pirates, Syrian refugees, and illegal migrants from Mexico may seem powerless, but all three groups spark policy responses from the governments of those coun-tries they most immediately affect.

Power: The capacity to bring about intended effects. The term is often used as a synonym for influence, but is also used more narrowly to refer to more forceful modes of influence: notably, getting one’s way by threats.

Notice that the emphasis here is on power to rather than power over – on the ability to achieve goals, rather than the more specific exercise of con-trol over other people or countries. But most analyses of power focus on relationships: on power over oth-ers. Here, the three dimensions of power distinguished by Steven Lukes (2005) are useful (Table 1.1). Lukes helps to address the question of how we can measure a

group’s power, or at least establish whether one group is more powerful than another. As we move through these dimensions, so the conception of power becomes more subtle – but also, perhaps, somewhat stretched beyond its normal use.

The first dimension is straightforward: power should be judged by examining whose views prevail when the actors involved possess conflicting views on what should be done. The greater the correspond-ence between a person’s views and decisions reached, the greater is that person’s influence: more wins indi-cate more power. This decision-making approach, as it is called, was pioneered by the political scientist Rob-ert Dahl (1961a) in his classic study of democracy and power in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. The approach is clear and concrete, based on identifying preferences and observing decisions, and connecting directly with the concept of politics as the resolution of conflict within groups. Even though it has now been supplemented by Lukes’s other dimensions, it remains a sound initial step in studying power.

The second dimension focuses on the capacity to keep issues off the political agenda. Bachrach and Baratz (1962: 948) give the example of a discontented faculty member who rails against university policy in her office but remains silent during faculty meetings, judging that an intervention there would be inef-fective and even damaging to her career. Or perhaps all the major political parties in a particular country advocate free trade, forming what amounts to an elite conspiracy to marginalize trade tariffs and quotas. In these ways, potential ‘issues’ (change university govern-ance; introduce trade controls) become non-issues and the only decisions in these areas are non-decisions – successful attempts to prevent the emergence of top-ics which would threaten the values or interests of decision-makers.

This second dimension broadens our understand-ing of the political, taking us beyond the mere resolution

Table 1.1: Lukes’s three dimensions of power

assessing power Proponent

First Who prevails when preferences conflict? Dahl (1957)

Second Who controls whether preferences are expressed? Bachrach and Baratz (1962)

third Who shapes preferences? Lukes (1974)

Source: Lukes (2005)



KeY CONCeptS 9

of differences and inviting us to address their suppres-sion. In this way, Dahl’s view (1961a: 164) that ‘a politi-cal issue can hardly be said to exist unless and until it commands the attention of a significant segment of the political stratum’ is rejected. Rather, the second dimen-sion recognizes what Schattschneider (1960: 71) called the ‘mobilization of bias’:

All forms of political organization have a bias in favour of the exploitation of some kinds of conflict and the suppression of others because organization is the mobilization of bias. Some issues are organized into politics, while others are organized out.

To deal with this second dimension, Bachrach and Baratz (1962) recommend that students of power should examine which groups gain from existing political pro-cedures, and how powerful individuals limit the political debate to safe issues. Only then should attention turn to the question of whose views prevail on those matters that are up for debate.

The third dimension broadens our conception of power still further (some say, too far). Here, power is extended to cover the formation, rather than merely the expression, of preferences. Where the first and sec-ond dimensions assume conflicting preferences, the third dimension addresses the notion of a manipulated con-sensus. Hence, for example, a government may withhold information about the risks from a chemical leak, pre-venting those affected from taking necessary steps to pro-tect their health. More generally, advertising may direct people’s desires towards consumption and away from non-material aspects of life which could offer deeper, or at least more natural, satisfaction of genuine needs.

The implications of these examples is that the most efficient form of power is to shape people’s informa-tion and preferences, thus preventing the first and sec-ond dimensions from coming into play. Lukes (2005: 24) makes this argument:

Is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their percep-tions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchange-able, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial?

The case for the third dimension of power is clear-est when specific information is denied in a deliberate

attempt to manipulate (Le Cheminant and Parrish, 2011). One example can be found in the selective brief-ings initially provided by the power company respon-sible for operating the Japanese nuclear power station which leaked radiation after the 2011 earthquake.

In general, though, working with power’s third dimension creates difficulties of its own. In the case of advertising, who is to say that the desire for mate-rial goods is a false need? And if a materialist culture is simply an unintended and cumulative consequence of advertising, rather than an explicit aim of specific indi-viduals, do we have an instance of power at all? In any case, does not the third face of power take us too far from the explicit debates and decisions which are at the heart of politics?

The state, authority, and legitimacyWe will consider the state in more detail in Chapter 2, but a brief preview is merited here. The world is divided into nearly 200 states (the exact number, as we will see, is debatable), each containing a population living within a defined territory, and enjoying recog-nition by its residents and by other states of its right to rule that territory. States are also known as coun-tries, but the state is the more political term. The state provides the legal or formal mandate for the work of governments, allowing them to utilize the authority inherent in the state. More immediately for the pur-poses of comparative politics, states are the core guid-ing unit of comparison. We can compare government and politics at multiple levels, from the national to the local, but is the state that will provide us with our most important point of reference as we work through the complexities of comparison. The state is also intimately related to two concepts that lie at the heart of our understanding of government and politics: authority and legitimacy.

Authority is a broader concept than power and in some ways more fundamental to comparative poli-tics. Where power is the capacity to act, authority is the acknowledged right to do so. It exists when subordi-nates accept the capacity of superiors to give legitimate orders, so that while an army general may exercise power over enemy soldiers, his authority is restricted to his own forces. The German sociologist Max Weber (1922: 29) suggested that, in a relationship of authority, the ruled



10 Chapter 1

implement the command as if they had adopted it spon-taneously, for its own sake. For this reason, authority is a more efficient form of control than brute power. Yet, authority remains more than voluntary compliance. To acknowledge the authority of your state does not mean you always agree with its decisions; it means only that you accept its right to make them and your own duty to obey. In this way, authority provides the foundation for the state.

Authority: The right to rule. Authority creates its own power, so long as people accept that the person in authority has the right to make decisions.

Just as there are different sources of power, so too can authority be built on a range of foundations. Almost 100 years ago, Weber distinguished three ways of vali-dating political power: by tradition (the accepted way of doing things), by charisma (intense commitment to the leader and his message) and by appeal to legal–rational norms (based on the rule-governed powers of an office, rather than a person) (Weber, 1922). This classifica-tion remains useful, even though today legal–rational authority is pre-eminent in stable democracies.

Legitimacy builds on, but is broader than, author-ity. When a regime is widely accepted by those sub-ject to it, and by other regimes with which it deals, we describe it as legitimate. Thus, we speak of the authority of an official but the legitimacy of a regime. Although the word legitimacy comes from the Latin legitimare, meaning ‘to declare lawful’, legitimacy is much more than mere legality. Where legality is a technical matter, referring to whether a rule was made correctly by following regu-lar procedures, legitimacy is a more political concept. It refers to whether people accept the authority of the political system. Without this acceptance, the very exist-ence of a state is in question.

Legitimacy: The state or quality of being legitimate. A legitimate system of government is one based on author-ity, and those subject to its rule recognize its right to make decisions.

Legality is a topic for lawyers; political scientists are more interested in issues of legitimacy: how a political system gains, keeps, and sometimes loses pub-lic faith in its right to rule. A flourishing economy, international success, and a popular governing party will boost the legitimacy of a political system, even

though legitimacy is more than any of these things. In fact, one way of thinking about legitimacy is as the credit a political system has built up from its past suc-cesses, a reserve that can be drawn down in bad times. In any event, public opinion – not a law court – is the test of legitimacy. And it is legitimacy, rather than force alone, which provides the most stable foundation for rule.

IdeologyThe concepts reviewed so far have mainly been about politics, but ideas also play a role in politics: political action is motivated by the ideas people hold about it. One way to approach the role of ideas is via the notion of ideology, a term which was coined by the French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy during the 1790s, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, to describe the science of ideas. Its meaning has long since changed, and it now denotes packages of ideas related to differ-ent views about the role of government and the goals of public policy. An ideology is today understood as any system of thought expressing a view on:

• human nature

• the proper organization of, and relationship between, state and society

• the individual’s position within this prescribed order.

Ideology: A system of connected beliefs, a shared view of the world, or a blueprint for how politics, economics and society should be structured.

Which specific political outlooks should be regarded as ideologies is a matter of judgement, but Figure 1.1 offers a selection. In any case, the era of explicit ideology beginning with the French Revolu-tion ended in the twentieth century with the defeat of fascism in 1945 and the collapse of communism at the end of the 1980s. Ideology seemed to have been destroyed by the mass graves it had itself generated. Of course, intellectual currents – such as environ-mental concerns, feminism, and Islamism – continue to circulate. Even so, it is doubtful whether the ideas, values, and priorities of our century constitute ide-ologies in the classical sense. To describe any perspec-tive, position, or priority as an ideology is to extend the term in a manner that bears little relation to its



KeY CONCeptS 11

original interpretation as a coherent, secular system of ideas.

Even though the age of ideology may have passed, we still tend to talk about ideologies, placing them on a spectrum between left and right. The origins of this habit lie in revolutionary France, where – in the legisla-tive assemblies of the era – royalists sat to the right of the presiding officer, in the traditional position of hon-our, while radicals and commoners sat to the left. To be on the right implied support for aristocratic, royal and clerical interests; the left, by contrast, favoured a secular republic and civil liberties.

The words ‘left’ and ‘right’ are still commonly encountered in classifying political parties. Hence the left is associated with equality, human rights, and reform, while the right favours tradition, established authority and pursuit of the national interest. The left supports policies to reduce inequality; the right is more accepting of natural inequalities. The left sympathizes with cul-tural and ethnic diversity; the right is more comfort-able with national unity. (See Table 1.2 for more details.) Surveys suggest that most voters in democracies can situate themselves as being on the left or right, even if many simply equate these labels with a particular party or class (Mair, 2009: 210).

Although the terms left and right have travelled well throughout the democratic world, enabling us to com-pare parties and programmes across countries and time, the specific issues over which these tendencies compete have varied, and the terms are better seen as labels for containers of ideas, rather than as well-defined ideas in themselves. The blurring of the distinction can be seen in Europe, where the left (socialists and communists)

All forms of governmental authority are unnecessary, and society is best structured around voluntary cooperation and free association.

Anarchism

Elimination of the state system and private property will lead to thecreation of a classless, non-exploitative, and self-governing society.

Marxism

Individuals are the best judges of their own interests. Advocates atolerant society which maximizes personal freedom, and favours agovernment which is limited but freely elected.

Liberalism

Traditional institutions and practices work best, the free market isthe most efficient at meeting societal needs, and governmentshould be as decentralized as possible.

Conservatism

The achievement of national unity through an authoritarian state,strong leadership, mass mobilization, and an emphasis onnationalism and militarism.

Fascism

Ideology Typical features

Figure 1.1: Five major ideologies

Table 1.2: Contrasting themes of left and right

left right

PeaceInternationalismDemocracyPlanning and public ownershipTrade protectionSocial securityEducationTrade unions

Armed forcesNational way of lifeAuthority, morality, and the constitutionFree marketFree tradeSocial harmonyLaw and orderFreedom and rights

Note: Based on an analysis of the programmes of left- and right-wing political parties in 50 democracies, 1945–98.

Source: Adapted from Budge (2006: 429)



12 Chapter 1

once favoured nationalization of industries and services, and the right (conservatives) supported a free market, but the widespread acceptance of the market economy has meant that the concepts of left and right have lost some bite.

Comparative politicsThe core goal of comparative politics is to under-stand how political institutions and processes operate by examining their workings across a range of coun-tries. Comparison has many purposes, including the simple description of political systems and institutions, helping us understand the broader context within with they work, helping us develop theories and rules of politics, and showing us how similar problems are approached by different societies. But two particu-lar purposes are worth elaboration: broadening our understanding of the political world, and predicting political outcomes.

Comparative politics: The systematic study of gov-ernment and politics in different countries, designed to better understand them by drawing out their contrasts and similarities.

Broadening understandingThe first strength of a comparative approach is straight - forward: it improves our understanding of government and politics. Through comparison we can pin down the key features of political institutions, processes and action, and better appreciate the dynamics and char-acter of political systems. We can study a specific gov-ernment, legislature, party system, social movement, or national election in isolation, but to do so is to deny us the broader context made possible by comparison. How could we otherwise know if the object of our study was unusual or usual, efficient or inefficient, the best option available or significantly lacking in some way?

When we talk of understanding, it is not only the need to comprehend other political systems, but also to understand our own. We can follow domestic politics closely and think we have a good grasp on how it works, but we cannot fully understand it without comparing it with other systems; this will tell us a great deal about

the nature of our home system. Consider the argument made by Dogan and Pelassy (1990: 8):

Because the comprehension of a single case is linked to the understanding of many cases, because we per-ceive the particular better in the light of generali-ties, international comparison increases tenfold the possibility of explaining political phenomena. The observer who studies just one country could inter-pret as normal what in fact appears to the compara-tivist as abnormal.

Comparison also has the practical benefit of allowing us to learn about places with which we are unfamiliar. This point was well-stated long ago by W. B. Munro (1925: 4) when he wrote that his book on European governments would help readers under-stand ‘daily news from abroad’. This ability to inter-pret overseas events grows in importance as the world becomes more interdependent, as events from overseas have a more direct impact on our lives, and as we find that we can no longer afford to think as did Mr Pod-snap in Charles Dickens’s Our Mutual Friend when he quipped that ‘Foreigners do as they do sir, and that is the end of it’.

Understanding politics in other systems not only helps us interpret the news, but also helps with practical political relationships. For instance, British government ministers have a patchy track record in negotiating with their European Union partners, partly because they assume that the aggressive tone they adopt in the cham-ber of the House of Commons will work as well in Brussels meeting rooms. This assumption reflects igno-rance of the consensual political style found in many continental European democracies.

Predicting political outcomesComparison permits generalizations which have some potential for prediction. Hence a careful study of, say, campaigning and public opinion will help us bet-ter understand the possible outcome of elections. For example, we know from a study of those European countries where proportional representation is used that its use is closely tied to the presence of more political parties winning seats and the creation of coalition gov-ernments. Similarly, if we know that subcontracting the provision of public services to private agencies increases their cost-effectiveness in one country, governments



KeY CONCeptS 13

elsewhere will see that this is an idea at least worth considering.

If the explanation of a phenomenon is sound, and all the relevant factors have been reviewed and consid-ered, then it follows that our explanations should allow us to predict with at least a high degree of accuracy, if not with absolute certainty. But while the study of the natural sciences has generated vast numbers of laws that allow us to predict natural phenomena, the social sciences have not fared so well. They do not gener-ate laws so much as theories, tendencies, likelihoods, adages, or aphorisms. A famous example of the latter is Lord Acton’s that ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (see Chapter 4). While the idea contains much truth, it is not a rule or a law, and thus cannot be used either to explain or to predict with absolute certainty.

In politics, predicting is an art rather than a sci-ence, and a fallible one at that. Even so, the potential for prediction provides a starting point for drawing lessons across countries (Rose, 2005). Rather than resorting to ideology or complete guesswork, we can use compari-son to consider ‘what would happen if…?’ questions. This function of comparative research perhaps under-pinned Bryce’s comment on his early study of modern democracies (1921: iv):

Many years ago, when schemes of political reform were being copiously discussed in England, it occurred to me that something might be done to provide a solid basis for judgement by examining a certain number of popular governments in their actual working, comparing them with one another, and setting forth the various merits and demerits of each.

In fact there are some who argue that political science generally has done a poor job of helping us predict, while others argue that it should not – or cannot – be in the business of predicting to begin with. Karl Popper (1959: 280) long ago asserted that long-term predictions could only be developed in regard to systems that were ‘well-isolated, stationary, and recur-rent’, and human society was not one of them. More recently, an opinion piece in the New York Times (Ste-vens, 2012) raised hackles when it argued that in terms of offering accurate predictions, political science had ‘failed spectacularly and wasted colossal amounts of time and money’. It went on to assert that no political scientist foresaw the break-up of the Soviet Union, the

rise of al-Qaeda or the Arab Spring. It quoted an award-winning study of political experts (Tetlock, 2005) which concluded that ‘chimps randomly throwing darts at the possible outcomes would have done almost as well as the experts’. To be fair, however, comparative politics is still very much a discipline in the process of develop-ment, and we will see many instances throughout this book where understanding of institutions or processes is still in its formative stages.

Classifying political systemsAlthough the many states of the world have systems of government with many core elements in common – an executive, a legislature, courts, a constitution, par-ties, and interest groups, for example – the manner in which these elements work and relate to one another is often different. The results are also different: some states are clearly democratic, some are clearly authori-tarian, and others sit somewhere between these two core points of reference. To complicate matters, these systems of government, and their related policies and priorities, are moving targets: they evolve and change, and often at a rapid pace. In order to make sense of this confusing picture, it is helpful to have a guide through the maze.

A typology is a system of classification that divides states into groups or clusters with common features. With this in hand, we can make broad assumptions about the states in each group, using case studies to pro-vide more detailed focus, and thus work more easily to develop explanations and rules, and to test theories of political phenomena (Yin, 2013: 21). The ideal typology is one that is simple, neat, consistent, logical, and as real and useful to the casual observer as it is to journalists, political leaders, or political scientists. Unfortunately, such an ideal has proved hard to achieve; scholars of comparative politics disagree about the value of typolo-gies, and even those who use them cannot agree on the criteria that should be taken into account, or the groups into which states should be divided. The result is that there is no universally agreed system of political classification.

Typology: A system of classification by which states, institu-tions, processes, political cultures, and so on are divided into groups or types with common sets of attributes.



14 Chapter 1

The first such system devised – and one of the earliest examples of comparative politics at work – was Aristotle’s classification of the 158 city-states of ancient Greece. Between approximately 500 and 338 bce, these communities were small settlements showing much variety in their forms of rule. Such diversity provided an ideal laboratory for Aristotle to consider which type of political system provided what he looked for in a government: stability and effectiveness.

Aristotle based his scheme on two dimensions. The first was the number of people involved in the task of governing: one, few or many. This dimension captured the breadth of participation in a political sys-tem. His second dimension, more difficult to apply but no less important, was whether rulers governed in the common interest (‘the genuine form’) or in their own interest (‘the perverted form’). For Aristotle, the sig-nificance of this second aspect was that a political sys-tem would be more stable and effective when its rulers governed in the long-term interests of the community. Cross-classifying the number of rulers with the nature of rule yielded the six types of government shown in Figure 1.2.

Another example of an attempt to build a typology was The Spirit of the Laws, a treatise on political theory written by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, and first published in 1748. Montesquieu identified three kinds of political system: republican systems in which the people or some of the people have supreme power, monarchical systems in which one person ruled on the basis of fixed and established laws, and despotic systems in which a single person ruled on the basis of their own priorities and perspectives.

Both typologies remain interesting as historical examples, but they reflected political realities that have long since changed. A more recent example that was current through much of the Cold War (late 1940s–early 1990s) was the Three Worlds system. This was less a formal classificatory template developed by political

scientists than a response to geopolitical realities, divid-ing the world into three groups of countries based on ideological goals and political alliances:

• First World: wealthy, democratic industrialized states, most of which were partners in the Western alliance against communism.

• Second World: communist systems, including most of those states ranged against the Western alliance.

• Third World: poorer, less democratic, and less devel-oped states, some of which took sides in the Cold War, but some of which did not.

Three Worlds system: A political typology that divided the world along ideological lines, with states labelled accord-ing to the side they took in the Cold War.

The system was simple and evocative, providing neat labels that could be slipped with ease into media headlines and everyday conversation: even today the term Third World conjures up powerful images of poverty, underde-velopment, corruption, and political instability. But it was always more descriptive than analytical in the Aristotelean spirit, and was dangerously simplistic: the First and Sec-ond Worlds had the most internal logic and consistency, but to consider almost all the emerging states of Africa, Asia, and Latin America as a single Third World was ask-ing too much: some were democratic while others were authoritarian; some were wealthy while others were poor; and some were industrialized while others were agrarian. The end of the Cold War meant the end of this particular typology.

While nothing has replaced it (in the sense of having won general support), there have been many candidates. Two in particular – the Democracy Index maintained by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and the Freedom in the World index maintained by Freedom House – are among the most often quoted, and will be used for guidance in this book (see Focus 1.2). They are

Rule by

Form Genuine

Perverted

One

Kingship

Tyranny

Few

Aristocracy

Oligarchy

Many

Polity

Democracy

Figure 1.2: Aristotle’s classification of governments Source: Aristotle (1962 edn, book 3, ch. 5)



KeY CONCeptS 15

FOCUS 1.2 Two options for classifying political systems

With political scientists unable to develop and agree a single detailed classification of political systems, it has been left to the non-academic world to step into the breach. The two most compelling typologies are the following:

• The UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU, related to The Economist, a British weekly news magazine) maintains a Democracy Index based on sixty different ratings, giving states a score out of 10 (Norway ranks highest with 9.93 and North Korea lowest with 1.08), and dividing them into four groups: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. It achieves its rankings by considering such factors as the protection of basic political freedoms, the fairness of elections, the security of voters, election turnout rates, the freedom of political parties to operate, the independence of the judiciary and the media, and arrangements for the transfer of power. See Focus 3.2 and 4.1 for more details.

• The Freedom in the World index has been published annually since 1972 by Freedom House, a US-based research institute. It divides states into groups rated Free, Partly Free, or Not Free based on their records with political rights (including the ability of people to participate in the political process) and civil liberties (including freedom of expression, the independence of the judiciary, personal autonomy, and economic rights). Several countries – including Syria and North Korea – are ranked Worst of the Worst.

Table 1.3 combines the results of these typologies, focusing on the 16 cases used in this book, while also including examples of countries with the highest and lowest scores on each index.

Table 1.3: Comparative political ratings

Democracy index Freedom in the World

Score Category Political rights Civil liberties Freedom rating

Norway 9.93 Full democracy 1 1 Free

Sweden* 9.73 Full democracy 1 1 Free

New Zealand 9.26 Full democracy 1 1 Free

Canada 9.08 Full democracy 1 1 Free

Germany* 8.64 Full democracy 1 1 Free

UK* 8.31 Full democracy 1 1 Free

USA* 8.11 Full democracy 1 1 Free

Japan* 8.08 Full democracy 1 1 Free

France* 8.04 Full democracy 1 1 Free

South Africa* 7.82 Flawed democracy 2 2 Free

Brazil* 7.38 Flawed democracy 2 2 Free

India* 7.92 Flawed democracy 2 3 Free

Mexico* 6.68 Flawed democracy 3 3 Partly Free

Bangladesh 5.78 Hybrid 4 4 Partly Free

Kenya 5.13 Hybrid 4 4 Partly Free

Turkey 5.12 Hybrid 3 4 Partly Free

Venezuela 5.07 Hybrid 5 5 Partly Free

Nigeria* 3.76 Authoritarian 4 5 Partly Free

Thailand 5.39 Hybrid 6 5 Not Free

(Continued )



16 Chapter 1

not perfect, questions can be asked about the method-ologies upon which they are based, we should take into consideration the agendas and values of the EIU and Freedom House, and we should beware the danger of taking classifications and rankings too literally; govern-ment and politics are too complex to be reduced to a single table. Nonetheless, these rankings give us a useful point of reference and a guide through an otherwise confusing world.

We will go further and also use some economic and social data to help us find our way through the maze. The relationship between politics and economics in particular is so intimate that there is an entire field of study – political economy – devoted to its examina-tion. This involves looking not just at the structure and wealth of economies, but also at the influences on eco-nomic performance: good government is more likely to produce a successful economy, and bad government less so.

Political economy: The relationship between political activity and economic performance.

The core measure is economic output. There are various ways of measuring this, the most popular today being gross national income (GNI) (see Table 1.4). This is the sum of the value of the domestic and for-eign economic output of the residents of a country in a given year, and is usually converted to US dol-lars to allow comparison. Although the accuracy of

Table 1.4: Comparing economic size

gNi Per capita

(billion uS$) (uS$)

European Union 18,460 35,673

United States 17,601 55,200

China 10,069 7,380

Japan 5,339 42,000

Germany 3,853 47,640

France 2,851 43,080

UK 2,754 42,690

Brazil 2,375 11,760

India 2,035 1,610

Russia 1,930 13,210

Canada 1,836 51,690

Australia 1,519 64,680

Mexico 1,235 9,980

Sweden 596 61,600

Iran 527 6,820

Nigeria 526 2,950

South Africa 367 6,800

Egypt 273 3,280

New Zealand 174 39,300

Tuvalu 57 5,840

Burundi 3 270

Source: World Bank at http://data.worldbank.org. Data are for 2014.

FOCUS 1.2 Two options for classifying political systems (Continued)

Table 1.3: (Continued )

Democracy index Freedom in the World

Score Category Political rights Civil liberties Freedom rating

Egypt* 3.16 Authoritarian 6 5 Not Free

Russia* 3.39 Authoritarian 6 6 Not Free

China* 3.00 Authoritarian 7 6 Not Free

Iran* 1.98 Authoritarian 6 6 Not Free

Saudi Arabia 1.82 Authoritarian 7 7 Worst of the worst

North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian 7 7 Worst of the worst

Sources: Democracy Index (2014); Freedom in the World Index (2015). The latter rates states on a scale of 1–7.

* Cases used in the book. European Union is not rated.



KeY CONCeptS 17

the data varies by country, and the conversion to dol-lars raises additional questions about the appropriate exchange rate, such measures are routinely used by governments and international organizations in meas-uring economic size. While GNI provides a measure of the absolute size of national economies, it does not take into account population size. For a more revealing comparison, we use per capita GNI, which gives us a better idea of the relative economic development of different states.

Gross national income: The total domestic and foreign output by residents of a country in a given year.

Finally, we must not forget the importance of gaug-ing the performance of political systems by looking at their relative performance in terms of providing their citizens with a good quality of life, as measured by the provision of basic needs. There are different ways of understanding ‘basic needs’, but at a minimum they would include adequate nutrition, education, and health care, and in this regard the most often-used compara-tive measure of social conditions is offered through the Human Development Index maintained by the UN Development Programme. Using a combination of life expectancy, adult literacy, educational enrolment, and per capita GNI, it rates human development for most of the states in the world as either very high, high, medium, or low. On the 2013 index, most democracies were in the top 30, while the poorest states ranked at the bottom of the table, with Niger in last place at 187 (see Table 1.5).

Table 1.5: Human Development Index

ranking Score Category

Norway 1 0.944 Very high

Australia 2 0.933 Very high

US 5 0.914 Very high

Germany 6 0.911 Very high

New Zealand 7 0.910 Very high

Canada 8 0.902 Very high

Sweden 12 0.898 Very high

UK 14 0.892 Very high

Japan 17 0.890 Very high

France 20 0.884 Very high

Cuba 44 0.815 Very high

Russia 57 0.778 High

Turkey 69 0.759 High

Mexico 71 0.756 High

Iran 75 0.749 High

Brazil 79 0.744 High

China 91 0.719 High

Egypt 110 0.682 Medium

South Africa 118 0.658 Medium

India 135 0.586 Medium

Pakistan 146 0.537 Low

Nigeria 152 0.504 Low

Niger 187 0.337 Low

Source: United Nations Development Programme (2015), http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics.

Not rated: North Korea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Somalia, South Sudan, Tuvalu.



18 Chapter 1

FUrther reaDING

Crick, Bernard (2005) In Defence of Politics, 5th edn. A forceful exposition of the nature of politics that fi nds the essence of the subject in the peace-ful reconciliation of interests.

Finer, S. E. (1997) The History of Government from the Earliest Times, three vols. Off ers a monumental and, in many ways, unequalled history of govern-ment.

Heywood, Andrew (2012) Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 5th edn. An informative and wide-ranging textbook that successfully introduces infl uential political creeds and doctrines.

Lukes, Steven (2005) Power: A Radical View, 2nd edn. This book introduces power’s third face, off ering a powerful and engaging critique of conven-tional interpretations.

Stilwell, Frank (2011) Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas, 3rd edn. A survey of political economy and its links with social concerns.

Woodward, Kath (2014) Social Sciences: The Big Is-sues, 3rd edn. A useful general survey of the social sciences and the kinds of issues they include.

KeY CONCeptS

AuthorityComparative politicsConceptConceptionGovernanceGovernmentGross national incomeIdeology

LegitimacyPolitical economyPolitical systemPoliticsPowerSocial scienceThree Worlds systemTypology

DISCUSSION QUeStIONS

• What is the purpose of government?

• What is politics? Where does it begin and end?

• Who has power, who does not, and how do we know?

• Does it necessarily follow that to be a democracy is to be legitimate, and to be legitimate is to be a democracy?

• Are the ideological distinctions in modern political systems as important and as clear as they once were?

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Democracy Index and Freedom in the World schemes as means of classifying political systems?



Concept defi nitions are shown in bold.

Aabsolute monarchies 62–3accountability 124, 134, 136, 151,

153, 175Acton, Lord 70Afghanistan 68Africa see also individual countries

coup d’etats 66–7internet access 237personal rule 159political parties 65, 266ruling presidents 63state formation 25, 26, 75sub-Saharan Africa 59, 178

Algeria 300anarchism 11Arab Spring 51–2, 57, 60, 61, 62,

68, 159, 248–9Argentina 278Aristotle 7, 14, 40Asia 14, 25, 28, 38, 75, 140,

177, 225, 237, 247 see also individual countries

assassination 221assembly see legislatureAthens, Ancient 38–41, 42Australia

bureaucracy 176constitution 114elections 272federalism 187gross national income (GNI) 16head of state 156Human Development Index 17legislature 131, 137metropolitan governance 193political culture 201political parties 256referendums 280trade unions 315

Austria 25, 156, 261, 282authoritarian states 39, 57 see also

China; hybrid regimes; Russiaabsolute monarchy 62–3authoritarian rule 59–69, 59clientelism 229–31, 229constitutions 109, 123–4corruption 61, 69–71, 69

courts 124–5elections 282–4electoral authoritarianism 300elite political culture 206executives 59–61, 62–3, 147–8,

158–9, 158–60, 338interest groups 320–2legislature 142–3military 61, 65–8party systems 254–5, 263–7patronage 61personal rule 158–9, 158political communication 234,

241–2, 247–9political culture 212–14political participation 228–31political parties 64–5, 252public policy 338–40rent-seeking 338–9, 339, 340rule of law 109social movements 231sub-national government 196–8theocracies 68–9, 69totalitarianism 70, 70transition to democracy 51–2, 53voters 299–302

authority 9–10, 10

BBagehot, Walter 155behaviouralism 82Belgium 102, 155, 187Brazil

bureaucracy 165comparative political ranking 15electoral system 146, 278, 301executive 146, 147federalism 146, 187gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17judiciary 131, 146legislature 135, 146political participation 229political parties 146, 256–7Spotlight 146–7

BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) 28 see also individual countries

bureaucracy 163accountability 175administrative capacity 178

affi rmative action 171–3, 173authoritarian states 177–9bureaucratic authoritarianism 177crony capitalism 178departmental recruitment 171,

173departments 166–8, 166divisions 168–9, 168e-government 165, 176–7, 176evolution 163–6interest groups and 311–12new public management 174–6,

174non-departmental public bodies

169–70ombudsman 175organization 166–71outsourcing 165, 169, 170recruitment 163, 171–3regulatory agency 169–71, 169spoils system 164–5, 165unifi ed recruitment 171, 172–3Weber’s model of 164, 174–5

bureaucratic authoritarianism 177Burke, Edmund 129, 134, 234Burma 28, 68, 123, 150, 320Burundi 16

Ccabinet 150cabinet government 151cadre (elite) parties 252, 253Canada

bureaucracy 164, 165, 173comparative political ranking 15constitution 114elections 271–2, 273executive 151federalism 187, 188gross national income (GNI) 16head of state 156Human Development Index 17KOF Globalization Index 102legislature 135–6, 312separatist movement 31trade unions 315women in the labour force 174

career politicians 139–41cartel parties 262catch-all parties 253checks and balances 45

Index



360 Index

Chile 278China

ancient Chinese empire 20as authoritarian state 61, 67as communist state 64–5comparative political ranking 16constitution and courts 120, 124economic development 61, 64elections 282–3electoral system 66elite political culture 206executive 66, 160form of government 66gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17interest groups 320–1judiciary 66legislature 66, 135, 143mass media 248meritocracy 163multinational corporations 34party systems 255political communication 248–9political participation 229political parties 66public policy 340social organizations 321Spotlight 66–7sub-national government 185,

197Christian democracy 154, 253,

257, 276, 291Churchill, Winston 38, 51, 160,

269, 292cities, governance 193citizens’ juries 223citizens/citizenship 22–3, 22, 24

Athenian citizens 39–41uninformed 223

civic culture 201–3, 203civil law 122civil liberties 44civil service see bureaucracycivil society 305clientelism 229coalition governments 12, 152,

153–4, 153Cold War 14, 39, 51, 52, 68, 75,

210collective action 6, 85collective decision-making 2, 6,

7, 217Colombia 278colonialism 21, 25, 29 see also

de-colonialization; post- colonial states

committee-based legislature 130, 137–9, 137

common law 121–2, 122

communism 26communist states 50, 63

bureaucracy 178elections 282institutions 79interest groups 320party systems 255political participation 229voters 300

comparative approaches 12–13comparative method 91comparative politics 2 see also

theoretical approacheschallenges of 99–100classifying political systems 13–17defined 12goals and purposes 12–13and prediction 12–13

concepts 2conservatism 11constitutional monarchy 155constitutional courts 115–18 see

also judiciaryconstitutions 109–13, 114, 123–4

see also individual countriescodified constitution 110uncodified constitutions

109–10, 110, 112, 113, 119consumer politics 220conventional political participation

217, 220corporatism 310corruption 69–71, 69, 77cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 236council system 195–6coup d’etats 65–6, 67–8courts 113–18, 123–4 see also

judiciaryauthoritarian states 124–5constitutional courts 115–18supreme courts 115, 118–19, 120

crony capitalism 178Cuba 17, 60, 64, 98, 135, 225cult of personality 63culture 201–2 see also political

culture

DDahl, Robert 8, 9decision-making approach 8Declaration of the Rights of Man

and the Citizen 24de-colonialization 20, 25, 29, 82

see also post-colonial statesdecrees 142, 143, 156, 160, 179de-facto states 27–8democracy see also liberal

democracyAthenian 38–41, 42

constitutions 109defined 38degrees of 42direct 38–41, 38–9e-democracy 41features 38, 40, 45flawed 15, 44–5, 51, 54and the French revolution 24government within 3–4military intervention and

imposition of 52and modernization 46–9numbers of 39participatory 41representative democracy 40,

41–3, 41–2role of institutions 78rule of law 109and sovereignty 21–2use of terms left and right

11–12waves of democratization

49–51, 49, 301weaknesses 51

Democracy Index 14–16, 44–5, 51, 56

democratization 38, 49–54, 49, 301

Denmark 70, 165, 256, 261, 315 see also Scandinavia

despotism 60developmental state 178diaspora 30–1direct democracy see democracyDoing Business Index 337dominant party systems 255–6due process 109Duverger’s law 254

Eeconomic development

in authoritarian states 61economic performance and voter

choice 292–5emerging economies 34modernization and democracy

48–9, 48role of governance 4

Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) 14–16

educationwithin bureaucracy 167, 168, 183democracy and modernization

48elite political culture 205–6and political participation 218,

287, 289, 290, 291, 292politics as 7and post-materialist values 209



Index 361

and role of states 17, 24, 35as slow-moving cause 106

e-government 165, 176–7, 176Egypt

comparative political ranking 16constitution and courts 123elections 278, 283, 316executive 316form of government 316gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17as hybrid regime 60interest groups 317judiciary 316legislature 135, 142–3, 316political culture 213political participation 229political parties 65, 316post-Arab Spring 159Spotlight 316–17

Elazar, Daniel 202election campaigns 278–80elections 43

alternative vote (AV) 271, 272authoritarian states 282–4distribution requirements 277electoral fraud 69–70first-order elections 270franchise 273hybrid regimes 58, 283–4initiatives 281–2, 282legislature 270–6majority systems 271, 272mandate 279mixed systems 271, 275–6party lists 273plurality system 271–2, 271presidential 276–8proportional representation 12,

271, 272–5, 272recalls 282referendums 280–1, 280regional government 186second-order elections 270short campaigns 278–9, 279

electoral authoritarianism 300electoral colleges 136, 149, 155,

275, 277electoral formula 270electoral systems 270 see also

individual countrieselectoral volatility 301–2, 301elite political culture 205–6, 205end of history 51England see United Kingdom (UK)Europe

corporatism 310elections 270elite political culture 205

major parties 258post-materialism 207voter behaviour 288voter turnout 298

European Union (EU)bureaucracy 166confederation 190electoral system 32executives 32expansion and democracies 39form of government 32Greek debt crisis 78–9, 105gross national income (GNI) 16interest groups 315–16judiciary 32legislature 32, 135multilevel governance (MLG) 183political parties 32political trust 204, 205referendums 280–1regional development program

186regional integration 4, 33regulatory agencies 170–1Spotlight 32–3system of governance 4

executives see also individual countries

authoritarian states 146–7, 158–60

coalition governments 153–4, 153

as formal institution 78head of government 147head of state 147, 155majority government 153parliamentary 147, 148, 150–4,

150, 157personal rule 158presidential 148–50, 157semi-presidential 147, 154–8,

154separation of powers 149term limits 148women as 227–8

FFailed States Index 35failing states 26, 35fascism 11federal systems 182, 186–92 see

also individual countriesasymmetric federalism 188confederations 190cooperative federalism 188dual federalism 188quasi-federations 189–90

federations 186Fiji 68

Finland 151, 176, 261, 278, 315 see also Scandinavia

focus groups 222–3, 223fourth estate 234France

bureaucracy 165, 166, 171comparative political ranking 15e-government 176elections 194, 272, 277, 278, 301executive 157–8, 194gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17judiciary 194KOF Globalization Index 102legislature 135, 136, 194military intervention and

imposition of democracy 52political parties 194post-materialism 209semi-presidential system 78,

157–8, 194, 195social movements 319Spotlight 194–5sub-national government 185,

186Freedom House 14, 15freedom of speech 44French revolution 10, 11, 22, 24, 31

Ggendered institutions 225, 225 see

also womengenocide 87Germany

bureaucracy 165, 168, 171coalition governments 154comparative political ranking 15concept of the state 22constitution (Basic Law) 113,

114, 151democracy 50elections 276electoral system 208executive (chancellor) 151, 152,

156, 208Federal Constitutional Court

(FCC) 116, 117–18, 120federalism 187, 188, 189, 208gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17judiciary 208KOF Globalization Index 102legislature 135, 137, 208partisan dealignment 289political culture 209political parties 208, 257–8Spotlight 208–9trade unions 307–8, 315women in the labour force 174



362 Index

global cities 192globalization 31–2, 34, 102–3,

241–3governance 4, 5–6, 5

metropolitan governance 193multilevel governance (MLG)

182–3, 182government

Aristotle’s classification of 14checks and balances 45defined 2–5as distinct from the state 21limited government 43, 44, 148self-government 2, 30, 38, 40, 41sizes of 166

Greece 78–9, 105gross national income (GNI)

16–17, 16Guinea 68

HHaiti 59, 111, 267head of government 147head of state 147Hobbes, Thomas 3, 4, 233Hong Kong 6, 21, 115, 117, 193,

337Human Development Index 17human rights 123Hungary 154, 301Huntington, Samuel 49–51, 58,

210–12hybrid regimes

as authoritarian state 57–9, 58, 60, 142

elections 58, 283–4interest groups 321legislature 58political communication 234, 249

IIceland 31, 111, 133, 315ideologies

defined 10–11, 201five major ideologies 11left to right spectrum of 11–12

immigration 22–3, 31India

comparative political ranking 15constitution 112, 114council system 195–6democracy 47, 50elections 272electoral system 46electoral volatility 301executives 46federalism 46, 187, 188as flawed democracy 44–5gross national income (GNI) 16

head of state 155, 156Human Development Index 17judiciary 46legislature 46, 135, 137as multinational state 22, 31Nehru-Gandhi dynasty 140political participation 229political parties 46, 255, 258Spotlight 46–7, 301state incomes 28structural violence 44–5Supreme Court 118, 120

Indonesia 277institutionalism 76institutions 76institutionalization 76interest groups see also political

participationauthoritarian states 320–2compared to social movements

and political parties 318defined 305degrees of influence 314–17density 315dynamics of 308–11issue networks 311lobbying 312–14, 313peak association 307, 310–11promotional groups 306–7, 307protective groups 305–6, 306,

307spheres of influence 311–14think-tanks 308types of 305–8

intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) 31–2, 33, 337

internet see also social mediaand the Arab Spring 248–9citizen monitoring 33and deconcentration 184the echo chamber 41e-democracy 41e-government 165, 176–7, 176interest groups 311internet access 236–7, 238mass communication and social

movements 319political communication 234,

235, 238–9, 241–2, 246, 248, 249

political participation and 219, 221, 222

interpretive approach 85–8, 86Iran

comparative political ranking 16constitutional theocracy 68–9elections 283electoral system 296executives 296

form of government 296gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17judiciary 296legal system 124legislature 135, 296media 61political parties 296presidential elections 278voters 297

Iraq 30, 52, 60, 71, 211, 224, 302, 319

Ireland 102, 114, 137iron law of oligarchy 258iron triangles 309, 310Islam 122–3, 122, 211–12Islamic republics 68–9, 69, 212–13,

248Israel 118, 273, 275issue networks 311issue voting 292Italy 120, 132, 156, 185, 205, 261,

315

JJamaica 156Japan

bureaucracy 165, 166, 173, 178comparative political ranking 15e-government 176elections 275, 301electoral system 172elite political culture 206executive 152, 172form of government 172gross national income (GNI) 16head of state 156Human Development Index 17iron triangle 309judiciary 172legislature 135, 140, 172as nation-state 31pluralism 309political parties 172, 255Spotlight 172–3trade unions 315women in the labour force 174

judicial activism 118–19, 118judicial restraint 118judicial review 114–15, 114judiciary 78, 82, 114–21 see also

individual countriesabstract review 115appellate jurisdiction 115concrete review 115constitutional courts 115–18supreme courts 115, 118–19,

120juristocracy 114



Index 363

KKenya 15, 229, 236, 277, 319Keynes, John Maynard 24KOF Globalization Index 102Kosovo 22Kurds 30, 31Kuwait 62–3

LLaos 63–4Latin America see also individual

countriesbureaucratic authoritarianism

177, 179constitution and courts 115,

122, 149democratization 38, 49, 50elections 272federalism 191interest groups 320military rule 62, 65, 67political communication 249political participation 227, 249presidential system 94, 103, 157proportional representation

271, 272referendum initiatives 282state formation 25unitary systems 184

law 121–3, 130–1 see also constitutions; judiciary

legislation 130–1legislature 128 see also individual

countriesauthoritarian states 57, 142–3committees 130, 131, 137–9, 137and constitutional amendments

113, 114debating legislature 130, 131elections 270–6functions 78, 128–33hybrid regimes 58members 139–41parliamentary systems 132plenary sessions 130population and size of legislature

97–8separation of powers 149size of 135strong bicameralism 134, 135term limits 141unicameral and bicameral 131,

133–6, 133, 137weak bicameralism 134women in 225–7

legitimacy 10, 21liberal democracy 44 see also

democracycivic culture 203

elite political culture 205executives 147form of 40, 43–7, 48political communication 234political participation 217–18promotional groups 307women’s political participation

224liberalism 11, 43–4, 44, 213Libya 51, 59–60limited government 43, 44, 148list system (PR) 227, 260, 271, 273lobbying 312–14, 313local government 192–6Locke, John 4, 23, 43, 128logic of appropriateness 80logic of consequences 80Lukes, Steven 8–9Luxembourg 26

MMachiavelli, Niccolò 81Malaysia 156, 213Mao Zedong 7, 66Marx, Karl 81, 164Marxism 11mass media

media structures 245–6, 245newspapers 235, 238, 241,

244–6, 247, 248, 249self-selection 238television 245–6

mayor-council system 195–6McWorld thesis 102, 210meritocracy 163methodology 91metropolitan governance 193Mexico

bureaucracy 165, 166comparative political ranking

15constitution 111–12democracy 54electoral system 264electoral volatility 301executive 264federalism 187, 264gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17interest groups 320judiciary 264law-making 131legislature 135, 137, 141, 264political participation 229political parties 264–5presidential elections 276, 278Spotlight 264–5trade unions 315

microstates 26–7

Middle East see also individual countries

absolute monarchies 62–3, 159Arab Spring 51–2, 57, 60, 61,

62, 159, 248–9party systems 254–5personal rule 159

migrants, international 22–3, 31military

in authoritarian states 61, 65–8coup d’etat 65–6, 67–8military governments 62, 65–8,

160Mill, John Stuart 30, 44, 75, 130,

223ministerial government 152modern 47modernization 48monarchies

absolute 62–3constitutional monarchy 155European 62and modern bureaucracies 163–4

multilevel governance (MLG) 182–3, 182

multinational corporations 34multinational state 31multi-party systems 254, 256–7

Nnationalism 30nations 29nation-states 31natural rights 23, 23, 43Netherlands

bureaucracy 171e-government 176electoral volatility 301executive 152KOF Globalization Index 102local government 192mass media 245–6political parties 261trade unions 315

new institutionalism 79–80, 80new public management 174–6,

174New Zealand

bureaucracy 166, 175comparative political ranking 15corruption 70e-government 176gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17legislature 131–2local government 192trade unions 315uncodified constitution 109–10,

113, 119



364 Index

newspapers 235, 238, 241, 244–6, 247, 248, 249

niche parties 257Niger 17, 68Nigeria

bureaucracy 166, 177comparative political ranking 15constitution 114electoral system 4executive 4, 160federalism 4, 187government and politics 5gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17judiciary 4, 120legislature 4, 135lootocrats 61military government 67political culture 213–14political participation 229political parties 4, 265–6presidential elections 277Spotlight 4–5sub-national government 196–7voters 300–1

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 34

North Koreaauthoritarianism 15, 16, 60as communist state 69corruption 71cult of personality 64human rights 123totalitarianism 7, 70, 254

Norway see also Scandinaviabureaucracy 165comparative political ranking 15Human Development Index 17local government 192political parties 261trade unions 315

OObama, Barack 4, 241, 295oligarchies 14, 139, 179, 258, 284Oman 62ombudsman 175opinion polls 222Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD) 28, 174

outsourcing 165, 169, 170, 192–4

PPaine, Thomas (The Rights of Man)

42Pakistan 17, 229parliamentary government 150–4,

150, 157parties see political parties

party systems 253–8, 254, 263–7patronage 61Peace of Westphalia 23personal rule 158–9, 158Peru 278, 301Philippines 276, 278pluralism 183, 308Poland 185, 315policy analysis 325policy entrepreneurs 330political authority 27–8political classes 139–40, 140political communication 234

authoritarian states 241–2, 247–9mass media 234–40, 235media outlets 244–7social media 236–7transmission model 237, 238–40trends in 240–4

political culture 201authoritarian states 212–14civic culture 201–3, 203democracies 203elite 205–6, 205political capital 205–6political trust 204–5

political economy 16political families 140–1political generations 207political institutions 35, 79political leaders see also executives

cult of personality 63ruling presidents 62–3and voter choice 295–6

political participation see also interest groups

authoritarian states 228–31conventional 217, 220deliberative opinion polls 223forms of 217–21mobilized participation 228opinion polls 222political exclusion 219public opinion 10, 221–4, 221,

314sample surveys 222social movements 317–19unconventional 217, 220women 224–8

political parties see also individual countries

authoritarian states 252cadre (elite) 252, 253cartel parties 262catch-all parties 253compared to social movements

and interest groups 314, 318defined 252electoral volatility 301–2, 301finance 262

as formal institution 78iron law of oligarchy 258mass parties 253membership 261–2niche parties 257organization 258–61roles of 253, 289safe district 259selectorate 259

political systems 5, 13–17 see also individual countries

political trust 51, 203–5, 203, 298politics 6–8, 6populations 21, 26–7

diaspora 30–1legislature size and 97–8

post-colonial states 25–6, 213 see also de-colonialization

post-communist states 26, 57, 62–3, 110, 111, 184

post-materialism 206–10, 206power 8–9, 8presidential government 148,

152–3, 157prime ministerial government 151–2promotional groups 306–7, 307propaganda 247proportional representation 12,

271, 272–5, 272protective groups 305–6, 306, 307public authority 6–7public opinion 10, 221–4, 221, 314public policy

authoritarian states 338–40bottom-up implementation 331cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 236defined 325garbage-can model 238, 326,

327–8incremental model 236, 327models 325–8policy convergence 335–8, 335policy cycle 328–35policy diffusion 335–6, 335policy entrepreneurs 330policy instruments 329policy outcomes 332–3, 332policy outputs 332rational model 236, 326–7top-down implementation 331

Putin, Vladimir 159, 160, 197–8, 211, 212–13, 284

Qquasi-states 27

Rrational choice 84–5, 84rational model 326–7red tape 163



Index 365

regional government 185–6, 186regional integration 4, 33regulatory agencies 169–71, 169religion see also Islam; Islamic

republicsconflict of civilizations thesis

210–12secularization 292and voter choice 291–2

religious law 122–3representation (by legislature) 4research methods 91

analytic narrative 103case-study method 92–4, 92comparative method 2, 9,

12–13, 91–2, 99–103confirmation bias 101correlation 97counterfactuals 100critical junctures 104, 105dependent variables 94–5historical method 93, 103–6hypotheses 94–5independent variables 94–5level of analysis 91methodology 91most different/similar systems

design 96outliers 98path dependence 104, 105process tracing 104qualitative method 92, 93, 95–6,

95, 97quantitative method 92, 93,

96–9, 97regression line 97–8selection bias 100–1, 100sequencing 104–5, 105slow-moving causes 106survivorship bias 101unit of analysis 91value bias 101variables 91

resource curse 339rule of law 44, 109Russia

bureaucracy 165, 179comparative political ranking 16constitution 124–5cultural kinships 210electoral system 226, 284, 301executive 159–60, 226federalism 187form of government 226gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17interest groups 321–2judicial appointments 120judiciary 226KOF Globalization Index 102

legal systems 125legislature 135, 137, 143, 226political communication 249political culture 212–13political participation 227, 229political parties 226, 266–7presidential elections 62, 278public policy 340Spotlight 226–7sub-national government 197–8

SSaudi Arabia 16, 62, 63, 159Scandinavia see also individual

countriesbureaucracy 165legislature 130, 138–9voter choice 291–2

Schumpeter, Joseph 43, 46second-order elections 270secularization 292security state 34self-determination 29, 30semi-presidential government

152–3, 154–8, 154separation of powers 149sharia law 122–3, 122Singapore 58, 176, 266single-member plurality (SMP) 271single-party systems 255social capital 204–5, 205social class 290–1social media 94, 111 see also

internetand the Arab Spring 248–9interest groups 311political communication 236–7,

236, 241public opinion 221–2

social movements 231, 317, 318social sciences 2, 74Somalia 27, 35, 71South Africa

bureaucracy 165comparative political ranking 15constitution and courts 111, 117electoral system 116executive 116, 150form of government 116gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17judiciary 116legislature 116, 133, 135political participation 229political parties 116, 256presidential elections 278quasi-federation 190Spotlight 116–17

South Korea 176sovereignty 21–2, 23, 26, 184

Soviet Union 26, 70, 206, 282 see also Russia

Spain 155, 156states

authority 9–10, 86challenges to 31–5criticisms of 33de-facto states 27–8defined 9, 20–1diversity of 26–9emergence 23–4expansion 24–6failing states 26, 35formation of 23, 25–6, 75major features 20–3microstates 26–7, 27post-colonial 25–6, 213post-communist 26quasi-states 27security state 34and sovereignty 21–2stateless nations 30and wars 23, 24

statute law 122structural violence 44–5structuralism 82–4, 83sub-national government 185,

196–8subsidiarity 189supreme courts 115, 118–19, 120Sweden

bureaucracy 165coalition governments 153–4committees 139comparative political ranking 15constitution 114electoral system 301, 334executive 334form of government 334gross national income (GNI) 16head of state 156Human Development Index 17judiciary 334KOF Globalization Index 102legislature 133, 135, 334local government 192partisan dealignment 289political culture (earlier ref?) 201political parties 334public policy 335Spotlight 334–5sub-national government 185trade unions 315women in the labour force 174

Switzerland 26, 29, 187, 280, 282

TTaiwan 22term limits 141terrorism 34, 221



366 Index

Thailand 15theocracies 68–9, 69theoretical approaches

behaviouralism 76, 81–2, 82empirical approaches 81grand theory 72institutional 76–81interpretive 76, 85–8new institutionalism 79–80, 80normative approaches 81overview 74–7rational 76rational choice 84–5structural 76, 82–4

theory 74think-tanks 308Three Worlds system 14total war 24totalitarianism 70, 70trade unions 104–5, 307–8, 315transmission model (communication)

234Tunisia 60Turkey 15, 17, 165, 174, 210, 229Tuvalu 16two-party systems 256typologies

Aristotelian 14defined 13–14Three Worlds system 14

UUkraine 58–9, 211, 213, 301unitary systems 182, 184–6, 191–2United Kingdom (UK)

bureaucracy 165, 166, 172civic culture 203comparative political ranking 15democracy 45–7, 49, 50e-government 176elections 271, 273, 279electoral system 138electoral volatility 301executive 138, 153form of government 138gross national income (GNI) 16head of state 156Human Development Index 17judiciary 46–7, 119, 120, 138KOF Globalization Index 102legislature 130, 131, 135, 137–8,

139lobbying 313local government 192military intervention and imposi-

tion of democracy 52newspapers 235, 238opinion polls 222parliamentary government 153

political generations 209political parties 138, 256, 257,

261political trust 204referendums 281regional assemblies 186, 189regulatory agencies 169social movements 318–19Spotlight 138–9sub-national government 185trade unions 315uncodified constitution 110voter behaviour 288–9women in the labour force 174

United States of America (USA)American dream 95–6American Revolution 24bureaucracy 164, 165, 166, 168,

169, 173civic culture 203comparative political ranking

15concept of the state 22constitution 24, 110, 111, 112,

113, 114cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 326Declaration of Independence 24democracy 45, 49e-government 176elections 270, 273, 275, 301electoral system 274executive 148, 149–50, 159, 274federalism 187, 188–9, 190, 274gross national income (GNI) 16Human Development Index 17institutions 79interest groups 315iron triangle 309, 310judiciary 274KOF Globalization Index 102law-making 131legislature 130, 132, 135, 137,

139–40, 141, 148, 274, 311–12mass media 239, 241mayor-council system 196military intervention and imposi-

tion of democracy 52opinion polls 222pluralism 309political generations 209political parties 256, 263, 274political trust 204presidential elections 277, 278public policy 330–1regulatory agencies 169–70social movements 317–18, 319Spotlight 274–5Supreme Court 115, 118–19,

120

trade unions 315voter choice 288, 291, 293, 295voter turnout 298women in the labour force 174

Uzbekistan 62–3

VVenezuela

comparative political ranking?? 15

constitution 179electoral system 242, 301executive 242form of government 242judiciary 242legislature 242political communication 243political parties 242Spotlight 242–3

Vietnam 63–4von Clausewitz, Carl 7vote of confidence 133voters

authoritarian states 299–302behaviour explanations 287compulsory voting 299issue voting 292partisan dealignment 288–9,

288, 290party identification 287–9, 288rational choice 293turnout 297–9voter choice 289–97, 292

Wwarlords 197wars 23, 24waves of democratization 49Weber, Max

on authority 9–10definition of the state 20model of bureaucracy 164,

174–5welfare state 24Westphalian system 23women

in bureaucracy 173–4cultural differences and 211gendered institutions 225, 225political culture 212political participation 224–8

YYemen 60

ZZaire 159, 266Zambia 266Zimbabwe 63, 123–4



9781137528360 01 prexviii - Comparative politics • Classifying political systems PREVIEW...

Documents

Transcript of 9781137528360 01 prexviii - Comparative politics • Classifying political systems PREVIEW...