COMPARATIVE RESEARCH METHODSQuote of the dayTopicsWhy is methodology important?Why is important to compare countries?The language of researchCause & effectTypes of ComparisonsSlide 9Using Most Different System DesignsSlide 11Slide 12Typology of case studies (Yin)Typology of case studiesCrucial (Critical) Case Studies?Historic Comparative MethodologyExamples of Historic Comparative ResearchCross-national Design (large N)Meritocracy and Bureau capabilityEmployment & Pub. Sector wagesCorruption and FDIExperimental vs. Quasi-experimental MethodsThings to consider as rival or alternative hypothesisSlide 24RESEARCH DESIGNResearch design with limited causal powerSlide 27Research designs with more causal powerSlide 29CHANGES TO LOOK FORDivergenceConvergenceCross patternResearch design with more power (time series)Changes to look for in time seriesCOMPARATIVE RESEARCH METHODSQuote of the day“ We shall use the concepts of validity and invalidity to refer to the best available approximation to the truth or falsity of propositions, including propositions about cause…At best we can know what has not yet been ruled out as false.” (Cook & Campbell 1979: 37 )Topics1. Why is methodology important? 2. Why is important to compare countries? 3. The language of research 4. Comparative Methods•Case study methodology (small “n” )•Historic-Comparative methodology •Cross-national studies (large “N”) 5. Quasi-experimentationWhy is methodology important?•As Cook & Campbell (1997) suggested methodology is what will validate our invalidate arguments, it offers the best available approximation to the truth. There exist different types of validity. 1. Internal validity: establishing cause and effect 2. External validity: generalization 3. Construct validity: translation of concepts into operational variables 4. Statistical Validity: Use of appropriate measurements •Thus, our ultimate goal is to rule out “rival explanations” through the use of sound methodologies.Why is important to compare countries?1. Contextual description: “Evidence without inference” (T. Landman) 2. Classification: Heuristic purpose to begin organizing complex issues into common patterns (e.g. Weber’s typology of bureaucracy and Marx’s modes of production). 3. Hypothesis-testing: To identify relationships (e.g. Bureaucratic efficiency and FDI) 4. Prediction or forecasting: Based on probabilistic instead of deterministic statements. (e.g. As a country develops the likelihood of having a traditional bureaucracy diminishes.)The language of research•Variable: A state that takes different attributes (e.g. Bureaucracy: Traditional, Charismatic, Rational) •Dependent variable: The outcome or effect variable (Y)•Independent variable: The cause or explanatory variable (X) •Relationship: Positive ( as X increases Y increases or vice verseNegative (as X increases (decreases) Y decreases (increases)Cause & effect SINGLE CAUSE XYMULTIPLE CAUSE X1X2X3YSIMULTANEOUS CAUSEX YINDIRECT CAUSEXZ YCompensationCorruptionEffectiveInstitutionsDevelopmentEffectiveBureaucracyRecruitmentCompensationIncentives &PunishmentEffectiveBureaucracyLegitimate Public SectorReformTypes of Comparisons•Most Similar System Design (MSSD) is based on the principle of the difference method. Key is to identify what factor leads to dissimilar outcomes of Y when the cases appear rather similar in most regards.•Key is to identify what factor leads to dissimilar outcomes of Y when the cases appear rather similar in most regards.•Twin countries that followed different paths (Costa Rica and Nicaragua)Using MSSD to Explain Economic Reform OutcomesChi Arg. Mex. BraDemographic pressuresA A A AInternational pressuresB B B BMobilization of ProponentsC C C CMobilization of OpponentsD D D DCheck & Balances of powersNone Medium Medium HighPolicy Outcome Extensive reformModerate reformModerate reformLimited reformUsing Most Different System Designs•The key to this type of design is to understand that very different cases have the same outcome (Y variable). The search is then for a key explanatory variable common to the cases that all appear very different from each other.•See book by Todd Landman (2003) for a good description.Using MDSD to explain democratic transitionMexico Korea IndonesiaFeatures Major ReligionA D G GNP/capitaB E H Political systemC F IKey explanatory factor: Market Reformsyes yes yesOutcome to be explained:Democratic TransitionYes Yes YesUsing MDSD to explain development Japan USA Costa RicaFeatures Major ReligionA D G GNP/capitaB E H Political systemC F IKey explanatory factor: Bureaucracy ReformLegal/Rational Legal/RationalLegal/RationalOutcome to be explained:Human Development IndexTop Top TopTypology of case studies (Yin) Type 1 Type 3Type 2 Type 4Single caseDesign Multiple case Design Holistic (single unit ofAnalysis) Embedded (multiple unit ofAnalysis)Typology of case studies•Comparing extremes of case studies (type 1 vis a vis type 4) •Type 1: It can be used to confirm, challenge or extend a theory. Strong on internal validity but weak on external validity and reliability. •Type 4: Strong in terms of external validity and reliability. Internal validity is as good as the theory used.Crucial (Critical) Case Studies? •Eckstein (1975) A crucial case is one where something occurs where/when it should be least likely to occur, and thus can be enough evidence to support a theory.•Meiji reforms (switch from tradition to rationality) in Japan set the stage for the modernization. •No single case could ever proof cause and effect.Historic Comparative Methodology•A powerful method to address big questions of societal change •It is an appropriate tool for theory building •Focuses on micro (individuals) and macro levels of analysis (societies, groups) •Analyses the whole (all causes) as opposed to a specific cause (bureaucracy) •Historiography is the main method of acquiring data (archival, oral history, historical statistics, laws, memos, etc.) Nonrandom sample of what exists. •Interested in long-term structures and patterns (inflexion points in history)Examples of Historic Comparative Research •K. Marx: Analysis of modes of production (Asian, feudal, capitalist, socialist mode of production) •M. Weber: bureaucracies (traditional, charismatic, legal/rational)•S. Huntington: The clash of civilizations •F. Fukuyama: Liberal democracies and the end of