Poli Sci 106 1st Edition Lecture 6 Outline of Last Lecture 1. Theory (Review)2. Review from Previous Lecture3. Theories and Models4. Hypotheses5. Formulating Hypotheses6. 5 Steps Involved in Hypothesis Testing7. "Controlling"Outline of Current Lecture 1. Two Cornerstones of Comparative Politics2. The Comparative Method3. Mill's Method of Agreement and Difference4. Method of Agreement5. Method of Difference6. Liphart's "Patterns of Democracy"7. Comparing Democracies: Majoritarian vs. Consensus ModelsCurrent Lecture - The Logic of ComparisonTwo Cornerstones of Comparative Politics:- scientific method - employs a set of rules and methods for investigating reality logically and systematically- comparison - learning and understanding by comparing two or more casesWhy Do We Compare?- teaches us what is similar and different about countries- teaches us to relate the particularities of individual countries to broader trends and processes- we can never understand a phenomenon by looking at only one example of it; only by systematically examining similarities and differences can we begin to understand it- we can learn about our own countryTherefore by studying comparative politics we... - broaden our understanding of politics in other countries- our own country- politics in general- can identify what characteristics of political phenomena are salientThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- learn about the links between domestic and international politicsThe Comparative Method:- the examination of political phenomena by focusing on similarities and differences- John Stuart Mills (1806 - 1873)Mill's Method of Agreement and Difference:- Objective: to determine what factor explains a certain phenomenon- Method of Agreement: -applied in situations in which the outcome is the same across 2+ instances of the phenomenon to be explained-applied when value of DV is the same across 2+ cases-causal factor is isolated by being the only constant across these instances, whereas all other factors vary-Ex. 1: 4 voters all vote Republican. Why?-4 possible explanations: education, race, income, religiosity-have income in common (all wealthy)-probably the cause-identify all potential causes of outcome, otherwise there is uncertainty-Ex. 2: 4 countries experience political violence. Why?-explanations are GDP, heterogeneity of society, democracy, immigration-all have unconsolidated democratic institutions-this is probably the reason for political violence- Method of Difference:-outcome is different across 2+ instances -DV is different-causal factor is isolated by being the only IV that varies-what is different about these cases?-Ex. 1: 2 voters vote Democrat, one Republican-education, race, income, religiosity-income is different (high income for Republican)-income is likely explanation for vote choice-Ex. 2: 2 countries experience political violence, one country doesn't-heterogeneity of society, democracy, distribution of wealth-difference in distribution of wealth-slightly less certain in this case because of close ethnolinguistic fractionalization score-case selection allows you to isolate the cause by controlling many other variablesLiphart's "Patterns of Democracy":- 2 models of democracy (ideal types)-majoritarian model-consensus modelComparing Democracies:- one-party vs. coalition governments- 2-party vs. multi-party systems- unitary/centralized vs. federal/decentralized systems- unicameral vs. bicameral legislatures- constitutional flexibility vs. constitutional rigidity- judicial review: absence vs. presence- dependent vs. independent central banks- majoritarian electoral system vs. proportional representationComparing Democracies:- Majoritarian Democracy:-who governs? The majority!-power is concentrated in the hands of a bare majority (sometimes even just a plurality!)- Consensus Democracy:-as many people as possible govern-majority rule is a minimum requirement-seeks to maximize the size of decision-making majorities -institutions aim at broadest possible level of participation -share and disperse powerComparing Democracies:- Majoritarian - -one-party and bare-majority government-cabinet = most powerful-comprised of members of majority party in legislature-minority not included-narrow majorities: large minority in opposition- Consensus - -broad coalition government-all or most important parties share executive power -one party system strengthens power of bare majority-no prime minister/president of Switzerland-7 person heads of state-power is dispersed across themComparing Democracies:- Majoritarian - -two-party systems-most seats in legislature held by only 2 major parties-2 big parties usually take turns in ofice-major parties = centrist, but on opposite sides of center-usually one center-left and one center-right party- Consensus - -multi-party system-no party close to 50% +-not only centrist parties can be successful-but small number of parties usually captures vast majority of votesComparing Democracies:- Majoritarian - -unitary and centralized government-centralized states-subnational governments have little or no powers-those power not constitutionally guaranteed- Consensus - -power divided between central and subnational governments Comparing Democracies:- Majoritarian --unicameral legislature-legislative power concentrated in single chamber- Concensus - -bicameral legislature-2 chambers-usually minorities have special representation in upper chamber-chambers elected in different ways-upper chamber possesses real power-both chambers involved in legislative processComparing Democracies:- Majoritarian --constitutional flexibility-no single written document-unwritten constitution = flexible: can be changed just like any other law without super majorities- Consensus --constitutional rigidity-written constitution lays out basic rules-can only be changed by special majoritiesComparing Democracies:- Majoritarian --absence of judicial review-no court evaluates constitutionality of legislation and government action- Consensus: -judicial review-courts, including high supreme court, evaluate constitutionality of legislation and government