0% found this document useful (0 votes)
477 views12 pagesLijphart - Comparative Politics and Comparative Methods PDF
Uploaded by
Angelo ChiruCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
477 views12 pagesLijphart - Comparative Politics and Comparative Methods PDF
Uploaded by
Angelo ChiruCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 12
Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method*
AREND LIJPHART
University of Leiden
Among the several fields or subdisciplines
into which the discipline of political science is
usually divided, comparative politics is the only
one that carries a methodological instead of @
substantive label. The term “comparative poli-
tics” indicates the haw but does not specify the
what of the analysis. The label is somewhat
misleading because both explicit methodologi.
cal concern and implicit methodological aware-
ness among students of comparative politics
have generally not been very high.t Indeed, too
many students of the field have been what
Giovanni Sartori calls “unconscious thinkers”
—unaware of and not guided by the logic and
methods of empirical science, although perhaps
well versed in quantitative research techniques.
One reason for this unconscious thinking is un-
doubtedly that the comparative method is such
a basic, and basically simple, approach, that a
methodology of comparative political analysis
does not really exist. As Sartori points out, the
other extreme—that of the “overconscious
thinkers," whose “standards of method and the-
ory are drawn from the physical paradigmatic
sciences"—is equally unsound. The purpose of
this paper is to contribute to “conscious think
ing" in comparative politics by focusing an
comparison as a method of political inquiry.
‘The paper will atlempt to analyze not only the
inevitable weaknesses and limitations of the
comparative method but also its great strengths
and potentialities
* This article is 2 revised version of a paper pre-
seated to the Rotind Table Confereace on Campara-
tive Politics of the International Political Science
Association, held in Torin, Maly, September 10-14,
1969, T am very grateful t¢ David E. Apter, Donald
J Carat, Robert A, Dubl, Gioseppe Di Palma,
Hany Eckstein, Lewis J. Edinger, Samuel Fs Finer,
Galen A. Irwin, Jean Laponce, Juan J. Linz, Stefano
Passigli, Austin’ Renney, Stein Rokkan, Dackwart A.
Rustow, ard Kurt Sontheimer for their comments and
suggestions on earlier drafts of the paper, which were
vely ltelpful in the preparation of the revision.
“The reverse applies to the relatively new field of
political behavior”: its name indiestes a. substantive
field of inquiry, but especially the derivative "be-
haviorism” has come to stand for ¢ general approach
for set of methods. See Robert A. Dahl, “The Be-
hhavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a
Monument to a Successful Protest," American Politi-
el Science Review, 53 (December, 1961), pp. 76
+ Giovanni Sartori, “Concept Misformation in, Come
parative Polldes," American Potiteal Scienze Review,
(December, 1970), p. 1023.
In the literature of comparative politics,
a wide variety of meanings is attached to
the terms “comparison” and “comparative
method.” The comparative method is defined
here as one of the basic methads—the others
being the experimental, statistical, and case
study methods—of establishing general empiri-
cal propositions. It is, in the first place, def-
nitely 2 method, not just “a convenient term
vaguely symbolizing the focus of one’s research
interests."* Nor is it a special set of substantive
concerns in the sense of Shmuel N, Eisenstade’s
definition of the comparative approach in social
research; he states that the term does not
‘properly designate a specific methad..., but
rather a special focus on crass-societal, institu-
tional, ar macrosacietal aspects of societies and
social analysis."
Second, the comparative method is here de-
fined as one of the basic scientific methods, not
the scientific method. It is, therefore, narrawer
in scope than what Harold D. Lasswell has in
mind when he ergues that “for anyone with a
scientific approach to political phenomena the
idea of an independent comparative method
seems redundant,” because the scientific ap-
proach is “unavoidably comparative.”$ Like-
wise, the definition used here differs from the
very similar broad interpretation given by Ga-
briel A. Almond, wha also equates the compar-
ative with the scientific method: “It makes no
sense to speak af a comparative polities in po-
litical science since if it is a science, it goes
without saying that it is comparative in its ap-
proach,”*
"Arthur L. Kalleberg, “The Logic of Comparison:
‘A Methodological Note on the Comparative Study of
Political Systems," World Politics, 19 (October 1966),
1 72.
PSteatel NY, Fisenstedt, “Social Institutions: Com-
parative Study," in David L. Sills, ed, International
Encyclopedia af the Soctal Sciences’ (New York:
Macmillan & Free Press, 1968), Vol. 14, p. 423. See
also Eisenstadt, “Problems in the Comparative Anzly-
sis of Total Societies.” Transactions of the Sixth
World Congress of Sociology (Evian: International
Sociological Association, 1966), Vol. {, esp. p. 188.
‘Harold D. Laswell, “The Futuce of the Com
arative Method," Comparative Politics, 1 (Octaber,
968), p. 3.
‘“Gabrici A. Almond, “Political Theory and Po-
litleal Science,” American Political Scierice Review,
© Deceraber, 1966), pp. 877-78, Almand alsa
gues. that comparative politics is a “movement” in
political science rather than a subdiscipline. See his
682 1971
‘Third, the comparative method is here re-
arded as a method of discovering empirical re-
fetionships among variables, not asa method of
measurement. These two kinds of methads
should be clearly distinguished. It is the latter
that Kalleberg has in mind when be discusses
the “logic of comparison.” He defines the com-
parative method as “a form of measurement”;
comparison means “nonmetrical ordering,” or
in other words, ordinal measurement.’ Simi~
larly, Sartori, is ‘thinking in terms of measure-
ment on nominal, ordinal (or comparative),
and cardinal scales when he describes the con-
scious thinker as “the man that realizes the lim-
itations of not having thermometer and still
manages to say a great deal simply by saying
hot and cold, warmer and cooler.”* This impor-
tant step of measuring variables is logically
prior to the step of finding relationships among
them. It is the second of these steps to which
the term “comparative method” refers in this
paper.
Finally, a clear distinction should be made
between merhad and technique. The comparative
method is 2 broad-gauge, general methad, not a
nartaw, specialized technique, In this vein,
Gunnar Heckscher cautiously refers to “the
method (ar at least the procedure) of compari-
son,” and Walter Goldschmidt prefers the
term comparative approach, hecause “it lacks
the preciseness to call it a method." The com-
parative method may also be thought of as &
asic research strategy, in contrast with a mere
tactical aid to research. This will become clear
in the discussion that follows.
The Experimental, Statistical, and
‘Comparative Methods
The nature of the comparative methad can
be understood best if it is compared and con-
“Comparative Politics,” in International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences, Vol, 12, pp. 331-6.
"Kalleberg, op. cit, pp. 727%; see also pp. 75~78.
“Sartori, op. cit, o. 1033. See also Paul F. Lazars-
feld and Allen H. Barton, “Qualitative Mesturefment
in the Social Sciences: Clasieation, Typotoges, and
Indices," in Daniel Leer and Harald D. Laxevell,
eds, The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in
Scape and Method (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1951), pp. 155-92,
"Gunnar Heckscher, Tho Study of Comparative
Government and Polities (London: Allen and Un-
wid, 1957), p. 68 (italics added).
x Walter’ Goldschmidt, Comparative Fumetionalisin:
An Essay in Anthropolagical Theory (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1966), p. 4 Oscar Fewis
argues that “there is no distinctive ‘comparative meth~
od’ in anthropology,” and that he therefore prefers (0
discuss “comparisons in anthropology rather than the
comparative iethod." See his “Comparisons in Cul-
fara) Anthropology” in Wilam L; Thomas, Ir, et,
Current Anthropology (Chicago: University of Chi:
cago Press, 1956), p. 259.
Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method
683
trasied with the two other fundamental strate-
gies of research; these will be referced to,
following Neil J. Smelser’s example, as the ex-
perimental and the statistical methods." All
thyce methods (as well as certain forms of the
case study method") aim at scientific exptana-
tion, which consists af two basic elements: (1)
the establishment of general empirical relation~
ships among twa or more variables," while (2)
all other variables are controlled, that is, held
constant. These two elements are inseparable:
one cannot be sure that a relationship is a true
one unless the influence of other variables is
controlled. The ceteris paribus condition is vital
to empisical generalizations,
The experimental method, in its simplest
form, uses two equivalent groups, one of which
(the experimental group) is exposed to a stim-
ulus while the otber (the contro! group) is not.
The two groups are then compared, and any
difference can be attributed to the stimulus,
Thus one knows the relationship between two
variables—with the important assurance that
no other variables were involved, because in afl
respects but one the two groups were alike,
Equivatence—that is, the condition that the
cetera ate indeed paria—can be achieved by a
process of deliberate randomization, The exper-
imental method is the most nearly ideal method
for scientific explanation, but unfortunately it
"For the idea of discussing the comparative meth-
ed in relation ta these other basic methods, Tan it~
debied to Neil J, Smelser's ouistanding and most en-
lightening atticle “Notes_oa the Methadalogy of
roparative Analysis of Economic Activity,” Trans-
actions of the Sith World Congress of Sociology
(Evian: International Sociological Association, 1966),
Vol. 2, pp. WI=I7. For other generat discussions of
the comparative method, see Léo Moulin, “La Méth-
ode comparative en Science Politique,” Revue Inter
nationale Histoire Politique et Canstinationelle, 7
anuaryJune, 1957), pp. S771; 8. F. Nadel, The
Foundations of Social Anthropatogy (London: Cohet
and West, 1951), pp. 221-55, Maurice Duverger,
Méthodes" des Sciences Sociales (ied ed, Paris!
Presses Universitaires de France, 1964), pp. 275-99,
Joha W. M. Whiting, “The Crass.Cultiral Method,”
in Gardner Lindzey. ed, Handbook of Social Pey-
chology (Reading, Mass.:” Addison-Wesley, 1954), Vol.
1, pp. 523-31; Frank W. Moore, ed., Readings in
CrosiCulmral Methodology (New Fiaven, Conn.:
HIRAF Press, 1961); Adam Preeworski and Henry
eune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry
(New York: Wiley-Interscienee, 1970); and Robert T.
Holt and John B. Turner, “The Methodology of Com-
parative Research,” in Holt and Turner, eds, The
Methodology of Comparative Research (New York:
Free Press, 1970}, pp. 1-20.
The cove study method will be discussed below.
Eugene 1. Meehan, The Theory and Method of
Polidteal Analyste (Homewood, TL: Dorsey Press,
3965). He expresses this idea in three short scntences:
“Science seeks to establish telationsh
“Science is empirical” (p. 37);
generalizing activity” (p. 43). 684
can only rarely be used in political science be+
cause of practical and ethical impediments,
An alternative to the experimental method is
the statistical method. It entails the conceptual
(mathematical) manipulation of empizicially ob-
served data—which cannot be manipulated sit-
uationally as in experimental design—in order
to discover controlled relationships among vari-
ables. It hand!es the problem of control hy
means of partial correlations. For instance,
when one wants to inquire into the relationship
between political participation and level of edu-
cation attained, one should control for the in-
fluence of age because younger generations have
received more education than older genera-
tions. This can be done by partisling—dividing
the sample into a number of different age
groups and looking at the correlations between
participation and education within cach sepa-
fate age group, Paul F, Lazarsfeld states that
is ig such a basic research procedure that it
applied almost automatically in empirical
research, Whenever an investigator finds him-
self faced with the relationship between two
vasiables, be immediately starts to ‘cross-tabu-
late” ie, t0 consider the role of further vari-
ables."4
‘The statistical method can be regarded,
therefore, as an approximation of the experi-
mental method. As Ernest Nagel emphasizes,
“every branch of inquiry aiming at reliable gen-
eral laws concerning empirical subject matter
taust employ a procedure that, if it is not
strictly controlled experimentation, has the es-
sential logical functions of experiment in in-
quiry."** The statistical method does have these
essential Logical functions, but it is not as
strong a method as experimentation because it
cannot handle the problem of controf as well. It
cannot control for alll other variables, merely
for the other dey variables that are known or
suspected fo exert influence. Strictly speaking,
MPeul F. Lazarsfeld, “Interpeetation of Statistical
Relations as a Research Operation,” in Lazarsfeld and
Morris Rosenberg, eds, The Language of Social Re-
suarch: A Reader in the Methodology of Social Re~
search (Glencoe, Il: Free Press, 1955), p. 115. How
ever, control by means of partial correlations does not
allow for the eflects of measurement ecror of unique
factor components; see Marilynn B. Brewer, William
D. Crano and Donald . Campbell, “Testing a Single-
Factor Model as an Alternative ta the Misute of Par-
tiat Correlations in Mypothesis-Testing Research, Soc!
comeiry, 33 (March, 1979), pp. Ill. Moreover, par
Wal correlations do not résolve the problem of the
cediffusion of characteristics, known in anthropology
as “Galton’s problem”; sce Raoul Narolf, “Two So=
tations to Gsfion’s Problem," Philosophy ‘of Science,
28 Ganuary, 1961), pp. 15-39, and Proeworski and
Teune, op. eft pp. S153,
®Bmest Nagel, The Siructura of Science (New
York: Harcouré, Brace, and Warld, 1961), pp. 452f.
‘The American Political Science Review
Vol. 65
even the experimental method does not handle
the probtem of contral perfectly, because the
investigator can uever be completely sure that
his groups are actually alike in every respect.™®
But experimental design provides the closest
approximation to this ideal, The statistical
method, in turn, is an approximation—not the
equivalent-—of the experimental methad, Con-
versely, one can also argue, as Lazarsfeld dacs,
that the experimental method constitutes a spe-
cial form of the statistical method, but only if
one adds that it is an especially potent form.
The logic of the comparative method is, in
accordance with the generat standard ex-
pounded by Nagel, alsa the same as the logic of
the experimental method. The comparative
method resembles the statistical method in all
respects except one, The crucial difference is
that the number of cases it decls with is too
stnall to permit systematic control by means of
partial correlations, This problem aceurs in st2-
tistical operations, toa; especially when one
‘wants (a control simultaneously for many vari-
ables, one quickly “runs aut af cases.” The eom-
parative method should be resorted to when the
number af cases available far analysis is so
small that cross-tabulating them further in ot-
der (0 establish credible controls is nat feasible,
There is, consequently, no clear dividing line
between the statistical and comparative meth-
ods; the difference depends entirely on the
number of cases,"? Jt follows that in many re-
“For instance, if the groups are made. equivatent
by means of deliberate randomization, the investigator
knows that they are alike with a very high degree of
probability, bat not with absolute certainty, More-
‘aver, as Hubert M, Blalock, dt., states, so-called
‘forcing variables” cannot be controlled by randomi-
zation, See his Causal Injerences in Nonexperimentat
Research (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1964), pp. 23-26. In general, Blalock empha-
sizes “the underlying similarity between the logic of
making causal inferences on the basis of experimental
and nonexperimental designs” (p. 26).
“ Lazarsfeld, “Interpretation of Staistical Relations
as a Reseatch Operation,” p. 119. Taleatt Parsons
makes a siilar statement with regard to tbe com-
parative method: “Experiment is... nothing but the
comparative method where che cases’ to be compared
are produeed to order and under controlled condi«
tions." See bis The Structure af Social Action nd
e4., New York: Free Press, 1929), p. 743. Another
advantage of the experimental method is that the time
Variable fs controled, which is especially important if
one seeks 10 establish easel refationships. Tn statistical
design, this contrel can be appronimated by means of
the panel method,
“In order to. highlight the special problems arising
trom the availability of only a small rumber of cases,
the, camparative tbechod is discussed ay a diinet
method. OF concayit ean be atgued with equal juice
that the comparative and statistical matheds should be
regarded as two aspects of & single method. Many
authors use the term “comparative method’ in the 1971 Comparative Politics and
search situations, with an intermediate number
‘of cases, a combination of the statistical and
comparative methods is appropriate, Where the
cases are national political systems, as they of-
ten are in the field of comparative politics, the
number of cases is necessarily so restricted that
the comparative methad has to be used.
From the vantage point of the general aims
and the alternative methods of scicatific in-
cuiry, one can consider the camparative
method in proper perspective and answer such
questions as the following, raised by Samuel H.
Beer and by Harry Eckstein: Can comparison
he regarded as “the social scientist's equivalent
of the natural scientist's laboratory?*® and: “Is
the comparative method in the social sciences
really an adequate substitute for experimen-
tation in the natural sciences, as has sometimes
been claimed?"° The answer is that the com-
parative method is not the equivalent of the ex
perimental method but only a very imperfect
substitute, A clear awareness of the limitations
of the comparative method is necessary but
need pot be disabling, because, as we shall see,
these weaknesses can be minimized. The
“conscious thinker* in comparative politics
should realize the limitations of the compara~
tive method, but he should also recognize and
take advantage of its possibilities.
broad sense of the method of multivariate empirical,
but nonexperimental, analysis, ia, including bath the
comparative and statistical methods as defined in. this,
paper. This is how AR. Radcliffe-Rrown uses the
ferm when ho argues that “only the comparative
method can give Us goneral propositions.” (Brawn,
“The Comparative Method in Social Anthropology,”
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insite of
Great Britain and treland, 81 [198i], p. 22.) Emile
Durkheim also follows this usage when he declares
that “comparative sociology is not a particular branch,
of sociology: ic is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases
to be purely descriptive ané aspires to account for
facts." (Durkheim, The Rules of Sociologteal Meshod,
translated by Sarah A. Solovay and John H. Muclter,
{8th e4., Gleneoe, iL: Pree Press, 1928], p. 139.) Soe
ae the Ststemenis by Lasewell and -Aloiond cited
abave. Rodney Needham combines the two terms, and
speaks of “large scale statistical comparison,” ie, the
statistical method. (Needham, “Notes on ‘Compare
tive Method and Prescriptive Alliance,” Béjdragen fot
de Tact, Land. en Voikenkunde, 118 {1962}, pp. 160-
82.) On the other hand. E. E, Evans-Prichard uses
exactly the same terminology as used by Smelser and
fes adapted in this paper, when he makes a distinction
between “small-scale comparative stucies” and “large-
scale statistical ones." See his The Comparative Meth-
od in Social Anthropology (London: Athlone Press,
1962), p. 22.
™ Santuel H. Beer, “The Comparative Method and
the Study of British Politics,” Comparative Politics, 1
(October, 1968), p. 19.
Harry Eckstein, “A Perspective on Comparative
Polities, Past and Present,” in Eokstein and David E.
Apter, eds, Comparative Politics: A Reader (New
‘York! Free Press of Glencas, 1962), p. 3.
the Comparative Method 685
‘The Comparative Method: Weaknesses
and Strengths
‘The principal problems facing the compara-
tive method can be succinctly stated as: many
variables, smal) number of ‘cases. These two
problems are closely interrelated. The former is
common to virtually all social scence research
regardless of the particular method applied to
it; the latter is peculiar ta the comparative
methad and renders the problem of handling
many variables mote difficult to solve.
Before turning to a discussion of specific sug-
gestions for minimizing these problems, two
general comments are in order. First, if at all
possible one should generally use the statistical
(or pethaps even the experimental) method in-
stead of the weaker comparative method. But
often, given the inevitable scarcity of time, en-
ergy, and finenctal resources, the intensive
comparative analysis of a few cases may be
more promising than a more superficial statisti-
cal analysis of many cases. In such a situation,
the most fruitful approach would be to regard
the comparative analysis as the first stage of re-
search, in which hypotheses are carefully for-
mulated, and the statistical analysis as the sec-
‘ond stage, in which these hypotheses are tested
in. as large a sample as possible.
in one type of comparative cross-national re-
search, it is logically possible and may be ad-
vantageous to shift from the comparative to the
statistical method, Stein Rokkan distinguishes
two aims of cross-national analysis. One is the
testing of “macro hypotheses” concerning the
“interrelations of structural elements of total
systems": here the number of cases tends ta be
limited, and one has to rely on the comparative
method. The other is “miera replications,” de-
signed “to test out in other national and cul-
tural settings a proposition already validated in
one setting." Here, too, one ca use the com-
parative methad, but if the proposition in ques
tion focuses on individuals as units of analysis,
‘one can also use the statistical method; as Mer-
itt and Rokkan point out, instead of the “one-
nation, one-case” approach, nationality can
simply be treated as an additional variable on a
par with other individual attributes such as oc-
cupation, age, sex, type of neighharhaod, ete.4?
% Stein Rokken, “Comparative Cross-Natlonal Re-
search: The Content of Current Elforts," in Richard
E, Merritt and Roldan, eds, Comparing Nations: The
Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research
(New Haven: Yate University Press, 1966), pp. 19-
20. Rokkan specifically recommends the use of “paired
‘socuparisoas” for this purpose; sce his "Methods and
Models in the Comparative Stucy of Nation Build-
ing.” in Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the
Comparative Study of the Processes of Development
(Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1970), p. 52.
Merritt and Rokkan, op. cit, p. 193, 686
‘Terence K. Hopkies and Immanuel Wallerstein
make a similar distinetion between truly “oross-
national studies” in which total systems are the
units of analysis, and “multi-national but evoss-
individual research."**
The second general comment concerns a
dangerous but tempting fallacy in the applica~
Con of the comparative method: the fallacy of
attaching toa much signifcance to negative
findings. The comparative method should not
lapse into what Johan Galtung calls “the tradi-
tional quotalion/illustration methodology,
where cases are picked that are in accardance
with the hypothesis—aad hypotheses are re~
jected if one deviant case is faund."* All cases
Should, of course, be selected systematically,
and the scientific search should be aimed at
probabilistic, nat universal, generalizations.
‘The erroneous tendency to reject a hypothesis
on the basis of a single deviant case is rare
when the statistical method is used to analyze a
large sample, but in the comparative analysis of
a small number of cases even a single deviant
firiding tends to loom large. One ot two deviant
casts obviously constitute a much less serious
Problem in a Statistical analysis of very many
cases than in a comparative study of only a few
—perhaps less than ten—cases, But it is never-
theless a mistake to reject 2 hypothesis “be-
cause one can think pretty quickly of a con-
trary case.” Deviant cases weaken a probabi-
listic hypothesis, but tiey can only invalidate it
if they turn up in sufficient numbers to make
the hypothesized relationship disappear alto-
gether.
Terence K. Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein,
“The Comparative Study of National Societies,” Som
cial Science InJormarion, 6 (October, 1967), pp. 27-
32 Gualies added), See’ also Przeworski and Teune,
op. elt, pp. 34-43,
He adds: “This is a very maive conception of se-
ial science. propositions; if only perfect correlations
should be pecmitted social science would nat have
cane very far” Foun Galtung, Theory and Merhads
of Socie? Research (Osio: Universiterstorlaget, 1967),
p, 505. The functions of deviant case analysis will be
discussed below.
2 W. I. M. Mackenzie, Politics and Social Science
(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967), p. 52.
have been guilty of committing this fallacy myself. In
my eritique of Giovanni Sertori's proposition relating
political instability to extreme multipartism (systems
with ix or mote significant parties), one of my argue
ments consists of the deviance of & single historical
case: the stable sixparty system of the Netherlands,
during the interwar years, See Arend Lijptart, “Typot-
cogies af Democratic Systems,” Comparative’ Political
Studies, 1 CAptil, 1968), pp. 32-35,
“It is clearly incorrect, therefore, to argue that on
logical grounds a probabilistic generalization can
never be invalidated; cf, Guenter Lewy's statement
“To be sure, a finding of a very latge nitmber of...
{deviant cases] would cast doubt upon the value of the
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 65
After these introductory observations, let us
turn to a discussion of specific ways and means
of minimizing the “many variables, small N”
problem of the comparative metod. These
may be divided into four categories:
(1) Increase the number of cases as much as
possible. Even though in most situations it is
impossible to augment the eumber of cases suf-
ficiently tw shift to the statistical method, any
enlargement of the sample, however small, im-
proves the chances af instituting at least some
control.27 Modern comparative politics has
made great progress in this respect as a result
of the efforts of the field’s innovators to fashion
universally apalicable vocabularies of basic po-
fitically relevant concepts, notably the ap-
proaches based on Parsonian theory and Ga-
briel A. Almond’s functional approach.** Such
a restatement of variables in comparable terms
makes many previously inaccessible cases avail-
able for comparative analysis. In addition to
extending the analysis geographically, one
should also consider the possibilities of “longi-
tudinal" (cross-historical) extension by in-
cluding as many historical cases as possible.”
it was the promise of discovering universal
favs through global and longitudinal compari-
sons that made Edward A, Freeman enthusias-
tically espouse the comparative method almast
proposition, but logically such evidence would not
compel its withdrawal. The test of the hypothesis by
way of a confrontation with empirical at historical
data remains inconclusive.” Lewy, “*Historieal Date in
Comparative Political Analysis: A Note oa Some
Problems af Theory," Comparative Peiities, 3. (Octo-
‘ber, 1968), p. 109.
* Gucthermoxe, unless one investigates all available
‘cases, one is faced with the problem of haw tepre-
sentalive one's limited sample is of the universe of
cases.
On the necessity of establishing general concepts
not tied to particular cultures, see Smelser, op. cit,
pp. 104-09; Nadel, op. cit,” pp. 237-38; Douglas
Oliver and Walter B, Miller, “Suggestions for a More
Systematic Method ‘of Compating Political Units.”
American Anthropologist, 57 (February, 1955), pp.
118-21; and Nien Frijda and Gustav Tahoda, “On the,
Scope and Methods of Cross-Cultural Research," In-
ternational Journal of Prychatogy, 1 (1966), pp. X14—
16. For critiques of recent attempts at tecminclogical
inqovation in comparative polities, see Sartori, “Con-
cept Misformation in Comparative Politics"; Robert T.
Holt and John M. Richardson, 4x, The State of The-
ary in Comparative Politics (Minneapolis: Center for
Comparative Studies in Technological Development
and Social Change, 1968); Robert F. Dowse, “A
Funetionalist's Logic," World Politics, 18 (uly, 1966),
p. 607-21; and Sartuel B. Finer, “Almond’s Concept
of “The Political System’: A Textual Critique,” Gov-
ermment and Opposition, 5 Winter, 1969-70), pp.
+21.
Michael Haas, “Comparative Analysis,” Western
Political Quarterly, 15 (June, 1962), p, 2980. See also
Lewy, op. cit, pp. 103-10. 1971 Comparative Politics and
a century ago. In his Comparative Politics,
published in 1873, he called the comparative
method “the greatest intellectual achievement”
of bis time, and stated that it could lead to the
formulation of “analogies . . . between the po-
litical institutions of times and countries most
remote from one another." Camparative poli-
tics could thus discover “a world in which
times and tongues and nations which before
seemed parted poles asunder, now find each
‘one its own place, its own relation to every
other."29 The field of comparative politics has
not yet achieved—-and may never achieve—the
goals that Freeman set for it with such opti-
mism. But his words can remind us of the fre~
quent utility of extending comparative analyses
both geographically and historically. (The
value of this suggestion is somewhat dimin-
ished, of course, because of the seriaus lack of
information concerning most political systems;
for historical eases in particular this problem is
often irremediable.)
(2) Reduce the “property-space” of the
analysis. LE the sample of cases cannot be in-
creased, it may be possible to combine two or
more variables that express an essentially sirni-
lar underlying characteristic into a single vari-
able. Thus the number of cells in the matrix
representing the relationship is reduced, and
the number of cases in each cell increased cor-
respondingly. Factor analysis can often be @
useful technique co achieve this objective. Such
a reduction of what Lazarsfeld calls the “prop-
erty-space” increases the possibilities of further
cross-tabulation and control without increasing
the sample itself.** It tay also be advisable in
certain ‘instances to reduce the number of
classes into which the variables ate divided (for
instance, by simplifying set of several catega-
ries into a dichotomy), and thus to achieve the
same objective of incteasing the average nunt-
ber of cases per cell. The latter procedure,
however, has the disadvantage of sacrificing a
part of the information at the investigator's dis-
posal, and should nat be used lightly.
@) Focus the comparative analysis on
“comparable” cases. In this context, “compara-
ble” means: similar in a large member of im-
portant characteristics (variables) which one
wants to treat as constants, but dissimilar as far
"Edward A. Freeman, Comparative Polltcs (Loa-
don: Macraillan, 1873), pp. 1, 19, 302, See also
Gideon Sjeberg's argument in favor of global com-
parative research: ‘The Comparative Metiod in the
Social Sciences," Philosophy of Science, 22 (Aprih
1955), pp. 106-17.
*Livarsfeld and Barton, op. cit, pp. 172-78: Bs
on, "The Concept of Praper'y-Space in Social Re-
geile" in Lemafsield and) Roseaberg, op. ey pp.
the Comparative Method 687
as those variables are concerned which one
wants to relate to each other. If such compara-
ble cuses can he found, they offer particularly
good opportunities for the application of the
Comparative method because they allow the es-
tablishment of relationships among a few vari-
ables while many other variables are con-
trolled.*? As Raiph Braihanti states, “the move~
ment from hypothesis to theory is contingent
upon analysis of the total range of political sys-
tems," but jt is often more. practical to accard
priority to the focus on a limited number of
comparable cases and the discavery of partial
generalizations,
Whereas the first two ways of strengthening
the comparative method were mainly con-
cerned with the prablem af “small N,” this third
approach focuses on the problem of “many
variables,” While the total number of variables
cannot be reduced, by using comparable cases in
which many vatiables are constant, one can re~
duce considerably the number af operative vari-
ables and study their celatioaships under con-
trolled conditions without the problem of run-
ning out of cases. The focus on comparable
cases differs ram the first recommendation not
only in its preoccupation with the problem of
“many variables” rather than with “small N,”
but also in the fact that as @ by-product of the
search for comparable cases, the dumber of
cases subject to analysis will usuelly he
decreased. The two recommendations thus point
in fundamentally different directions, although
both are compatible with the second (and also
the fourth} recommendation,
‘This form of the comparative method is
what John Stuart Mill described as the “method
of difference” and as the “method af cancomi-
tant variations." The method of difference con-
ists of “comparing instances in, which [a] phe-
nomenon does occur, with instances in other
respects similar in which it does not” The
% Smelser, ap. cit, p. 113, Holt and Turner, refer
to this stralegy 25 the process of “specification” (op.
cit. pp. 11-13). It is probably also what Eisenstadt
hes in mind when he mentions the possibility of
constiucting “special intensive comparisons of 4 quasi-
experimental nature” (op. city p. 424). See alse
Erwin K. Scheuch, “Society as ‘Context in Crass-Cal-
tural Cormparson," Socal Selence Infomation, 6 (Oc.
tober, 1965), esp. pp. 70-71; Mackenzie, op. cit,
Ste" Fred. Epgan “Social Anthopology and. the
Method of Controlled Comparison,” American Anthro
pologist, $6 (October, 1954), pp. 742-63; and Erwin
Ackerknecht, “On the Coruparative Methed in An-
thropelopy,” in Robert F, Spencer, od, Methad and
Perspective in Anthropology (Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 1956), pp. 117-25.
% Ralph Braibanti, “Comparative Political Anslytics
Reconsidered.” Journal of Politics, 30 (February,
1968), p. 36. 688
method of concomitant variations is a more so-
phisticated version af the method of difference:
instead of observing merely the presence or ab-
sence of the operative variables, it observes and
measures the quantitative variations of the op-
erative variables and relates these to each ather.
‘As im the ease of the method of difference, all
other factors must be Kept constant; in Mitl's
words, “that we may be Warranted in inferring
causation from concomitance of variations, the
concomitance itself must be proved by the
Method of Difference."
Mill's method of concomitant variations is
often claimed to be the first systematic formu-
Jation of the modern comparative method. Tt
should be pointed out, however, that Mill him-
self thought that the methods of difference and
of concomitant variations could not be applied
in the social sciences because sufficiently simi-
lar cases could not be found. He stated that
their application in political science was “com-
pletely cut of the question” and branded any
attempt ta do so as a “gross misconception of
the mode of investigation proper to political
phenomena” Durkheim agreed with Mill's
negative judgment: “The absolute elimination
of adventitions elements is an ideal which can-
not really be attained; .. . one can never be
even approximately certain that two societies
agree of differ in all respects save one.”""
‘These objections are founded on a too exacting
scientific. standard—what Sartori calls “over-
conscious thinking” It is important to remem-
ber, however, that in looking for comparable
cases, this standard should be approximated as
closely as possible,
The area approach appears to lend itself
quite well to this way of applying the compara~
tive methad because of the cluster of character-
istics that areas tend to have in common and
that can, therefore be used as controls.** But
opinions on the utility of the area approach
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic (Sih ed,
London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1872),
Book Ul, chapter 8
“Nadel, op. ett, pp. 222-23; Kenneth. B. Bock,
“The Comparative ‘Method of Anthropology Com:
parative Studies in Society and History, § (April
1966), p. 272. ° "
Mill, op. cit, Rook VI, chapter 7; set also Book
AU, chapter 10,
# Durkheim, op. cit, pp. 129-30. But he hailed che
method of concomitant variations, which he evidently
interpreted to mean a combivation of the statistical
ged comperasve methods, 36 “the instrument pat
excellence of sociological’ research” (p. 132)
also Frangois Rourricaud, “Science Politique et So-
siclogie: Rédexions d'un Sociologue." Revue Francatse
de Science Politigie, 8 (June, 1998), pp. 251-63.
“IE the area approach Is often preferable to re-
search efforts with a global range in order to maximize
comparability, the era approach may he preferable to
longitudinal “analysis for the same reason, Cf, the
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 65
differ sharply: Gunnar Heckscher states that
“area studies are of the very essence of con
parative government,” and points aut that “the
number of variables, while frequently still very
large, is at least reduced in the case of a happy
chaice of area."*9 Roy C. Macridis and Richard
Cox also argue that if areas are characterized
by political 2s well as non-political uniformi-
ties, “the area concept will be of great value,
since certain political processes will be com-
pared between units within the area against 2
common background of similar trait configura-
tion"; they cite Latin America as an example of
an area offering the prospect of “fruitfut intra-
area comparison.” On the other hand, Dank-
wart A. Rustow declares in a recent article that
area study is “almost obsolete,” and he shows
little faith in it as a setting for “manageable
comparative study.” He argues that “mere geo-
graphic proximity does not necessarily furnish
the best basis of comparison,” and furthermare
that “comparability is a quality that is not in-
herent in any given set of objects; rather it is a
quality imparted to them by the observer's per=
spective."*! This is a compelling argument that
should be carefully considered,
It is not true that areas reflect merely geo-
graphic proximity; they tend to be similar in
many other basic respects. By means of an in-
ductive process—a factor analysis of 54 social
and cultural variables on 82 countries—Bruce
M. Russet discovered socio-culturally similar
groupings of countries, which correspond closely
to areas o regions of the world as usually de-
Following statement by C. B, Black: “There is much
eater Valie in compatidg contemporary evenis and
institutions than those that are widely ‘separated in
time, Tae comparison of societies or smaller groups
chat’ ate concerned with reasonably similar problems
is more likely to lead to satisfactory conclusions than
comparisons between societies evisting many centuries
apast.” Black, The Dynamics of Madernization: A
Snudy in Comparative History (New York: Harper
and Row, 1966), p. 39.
® Heckscher, op. cit, p. 88.
“Roy C, Macridis and Richard Cox, “Research in
Comparative Polities,” American Political Sciance Re-
view, 47 (September, 1953), p. 654. See also John,
D. Martz, “The Place of Latin America in the Study
of Comparative Politics,” Journal aj Polities 18 (Feb-
ruary, 1966), pp. 57-80.
“Dankwart A. Rustow, “Modernization and Com-
parative Politics: Prospects in Reseerch and Theory,”
Comparative Polincs, 1. (October, 1968), pp. 15-27,
Area study may also be criticized ‘on the ground that,
in the words of Dell G, Hitchner and Carol Levine,
in Comparative Governvient ad Politics (New York!
Dodd, Mead, 1967): “Sts very method of delimitation
Puts emphasis on what may be particular to a limited
frou of states, as opposed to the universal general
izations which fully comparative study musi seek”
(pp. 7-8). This argument has been answered above
im terms of the need for partial generalizations as a
first step, See afso Braibant, op. cit, pp. 54-55. 1971
fined.‘® Comparability is indeed not inherent in
any given area, but it is more likely within an
area than in a cagdomly selected set of coun-
tries. It seems unwise, therefore, to give up the
area approach in comparative politics. But two
important provisas should be attached to this
conclusion, First, the area appraach ean con-
tribute to comparative politics if it is an aid to
the comparative method, not if it becames an
end in itsel?. Otherwise, area study may indeed
become “a form of imprisonment." Ie is
against this danger that the thrust of Rustow's
argument is directed. Second, the area ap-
proach should not be used indiscriminately, but
only where it offers the possibility of establish
ing crucial controls. In this respect, some of the
stialler areas may offer more advantages than
the larger ones—Scandinavia, for example,
which has barely been exploited in this manner,
or the Anglo-American countries, which have
received greater comparative attention (hut
which do not constitute an area in the literal
sense).
An alternative way of maximizing compara-
bility is to anatyze a single country diachtoni
cally. Such comparison of the same unit at di
ferent times generally offers a better solution to
the control problem than comparison of two or
more different but simitar units (e.g., within the
same area) at the same time, although the con-
trol can never be perfect; the same country is
not really the same at different times. A goad
example of diachronic comparative analysis is
Charles F, Frye’s study of the empirical rela-
tionships among the party system, the interest
group system, and political stability in Ger-
many under the Weimar and Bonn Republics.
Frye argues that “for the study of these rela-
tionships, Weimar and Bonn make a particu-
“Brice M. Russett, “Delineating International Re-
gions,” im J. David “Singer, ed, QuansHative Inte
fnational Politics: Insights and Evidence (New Yo
Free Press, 1968), pp. 317-52. See also Russett, In
ternatianal Regions and the International System
(Caicaga: Rand McNally, 1967).
“George L Blanksten, “Political Groups
America,” American Political Science Review, 53
(March,’ 1959}, p. 126. See also Siginuind Neumann,
“Te Comparative Study of Pelitics,” Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 1 (Tanwary, 1959),
Bp. 17-10; and, Schapers, “Some Consens os
@ Comparative Method in’ Social Anthropology,”
American Anthropologtst,
353-361, esp. p. 360.
“See ‘Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Value Patterns
‘of Democracy: A Case Study in Comparative Analy-
sis," American Sociofogical Revie, 28 (August, 1962),
pp. 515-31; Robert R. Alford, Party and Soctery: The
Anglo-American Democracies (Chicago: Rand Mc-
Nally, 1963); Leslie Lipson, “Party Systems in the
United Kingdom and the Older Commonwealth:
Causes, Reserablances, and Variations,” Political Stud~
ies, 7 February, 1959), pp. 12-31.
in Latin
55 (August, 1953), Bp.
Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method
689
larly goad case [strictly speaking, 1v0 cases]
because there are more constants and reletively
fewer variables than in many cross-national
studies. Yet the differences could hardly be
sharper.“
Unless the national political system itself
constitutes the unit of analysis, comparability
can. also he enhanced by focusing on intrana-
tion instead of internation comparisons. The
reason js again the same: comparative intrana-
tion analysis can (ake advantage of the many
similar national characteristics serving as con-
trols. Smelser illustrates the utility of this
strategy with the example of a hypothetical re-
search project on industrialization in Germany
and Italy: “For many purposes it would be
more fruitful to. compare northern Italy with
southern Italy, and the Rubr with Bavaria, than
it would be to compare Germany as a whole
with Italy as a whole. These two countries
differ not only in level of industrialization, but
also in cultural traditions, type of governmental
structure, and so on.” The advantage of intra-
unit comparison is that inter-unit differences
can he held constant. “Then, having located
what appear to be operative factors in the in-
tra-unit comparisons, it is possible to move to
the inter-unit comparisons to see if the same
differences hold in the large.”*?
‘As Juan J. Linz and Amando de Miguel
point out, a particularly promising approach
may be the combination of intranation and in-
ternation comparisons: “The comparison of
those sectors of two societies that have a
greater number of characteristies in common
while differing on some crucial ones may be
more fruitful than. overall national eompari-
sone.# An illustradve example of this ap-
proach in the political realm is suggested by
Raoul Naroll: “If one wishes to test theories
ahout the difference between the cabinet and
“Charles E. Frye, “Parties and Pressure Groups it
Weimar and Bont.” World Politics, 17 Politieal science tacks this ad-
vantage, but can approximate it by focusing at-
tention on the key variables in comparative
studies,
‘A final comment is in order about the rela-
tionship of comparative politics as a substantive
field and comparison as a method. The two are
clearly not coterminous, In comparative poli-
tics, dther methods can often also be employed,
and the comparative method is also applicable
in other fields and disciplines. A particularly ia-
structive example is Tames N. Rosenau’s study
of the relative influence of individual variables
(personal policy beliefs and “personalizing ten-
dencies”) and tole variables (party role and
committee role) on the behavior of United
States senators during two similar periods: the
“Acheson era,” 1949-1952, and the “Dulles
era,” 1953-1956. Rosenau argues that these
two eras were characterized by a generally sim-
ilar international environment and that the two
secretaries of state conducted similar foreign
eds, Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New
2 Pree Press of Glencoe, 1962).
"Joseph LaPalombara, “Mactotheories and Micro-
applications in Comparative Politics,” Comparative
Politics, | (October, 1968), pp. 60-77. As an exemple
hhe cites Robert A, Dab, ed., Political Opposisions in
Western Democracies (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1966), esp. chapiers 11-13. See also LaPalom-
bara, “Parsimony ard Empiricism in Comparative
Politics: An Anti-Scholastic View," in Holt ead Tur-
nes, eds, The Methodology of Comparative Research,
pp. 123-49,
* Eckstein,
16s," p. 30.
Nadel, op. cit, p. 228,
“A Perspective on Comparative Poli- 1974 Comparative Politics and
policjes and also resembled cach other in per-
sonal qualities. He terms the method that he
uses in his analysis the method of “quantitative
historical comparison.” One of its basic charac-
teristics is the testing of hypotheses by compar-
ing two eras (cases) that are “essentially com-
parable . . . in all respects except for the . . .
variables being examined.” ‘The method is
called “quantitative” hecause the variables are
perationaly defined in quantitative terms, and
“historical” because the two cases compared
are historical eras.** The method is, therefore, a
special form of the comparative method, It il-
lusteates one of very many ways in which an
imaginative investigator can devise fruitful ap-
plications of the comparative aethod.7
The Comparative Methad and the
Case Study Method
‘The discussion of the comparative method is
not complete without a consideration of the
case study method. The statistical method can
be applied to many cases, the comparative
method to relatively few (but at least two}
cases, and the case ‘study method ta one case.
But the case study method can and should be
closely connected with the comparative method
(and” sometimes also with the statistical
method); certain types of case studies can even
he considered implicit parts of the comparative
method.
The preat advantage of the case study is that
by focusing on a single case, that case can be
intensively examined even when the research
resources at the investigator's disposal are rela
tively limited. The scientific status of the case
study method is somewhat ambiguons,
ever, because science is a generatizing activity.
A single case can constitute neither the basis
for a valid generalization nor the ground for
disproving an established generalization.
Indirectly, however, case studies can make
Tames N. Rosenay, “Private Preferences and Po-
litical Responsibilities: The Relative Potency of In-
dividual and Role Variables ia the Behavior of US.
Senators,” in Singer, ed., Quantitative International
Politics, pp. 17-56, esp. p. 19. Rosenau adds that if
“the findings ate not so cleer as to eonfirm or negate
the hypotheses unmistakably, then of course the
analyst moves on to a thied comparable period” (p.
19). If such a third or even mere perieds can be
found—whieh scems unlikely in the cate of Rosenau’s
particulac research problem-—they should be included
regardless of the outcome of the analysis of the. Gist
wo eres CF the svalable resources permit 1 of
course)
* See also the proposed use of “‘ntultiple compari-
som groups," as an approximation of the experiments!
method, by Barney G. Glazer and Anselm L. Strauss,
“Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy
Underlying Qualitative Research,” Ameriean Behavior
al Scientist, § (February, 1965), pp. S12.
the Comparative Method 691
an important contribution to the establishment
of general propositions and thus to theory
building in political science. Six types of case
studies may be distinguished. These are ideal
types, and any particular study of a single case
may fit more than one of the following catego-
ries:
(1) Atheoretical case studies;
(2) Interpretative case studies;
(3) Hypothesis-generating case studies;
(4) Theory-confirming case studies;
(S) Theory-infirming case studies;
(6) Deviant case studies.
Cases may be selected for analysis because
of an interest in the case per se or because of
an interest in theory-building, The first two
types of cases belong ta the former category.
A theoretical case studies are the traditional sin-
gle-cauntry or single-case analyses. They are
catirely descriptive and move in a theoretical
vacuuin: they are neither guided by established
or hypothesized generalizations nor motivated
by a desire to formulate general hypotheses.
Therefore, the direct theoretical value of these
case studies is nil, but this does not mean that
they are altogether useless. As LaPalomhara
emphasizes, the development of comparative
politics is hampered by an appalling lack of in-
formation about almost all of the world’s poli
cal systems.** Purely descriptive case studies do
have great utility as basic data-gathering opera-
tions, and cau thus contribute indirectly ta the-
ory-building. Tt can even be claimed that “the
cumulative effect of such studies will lead to
fruitful generalization,” but onty if it is recog-
nized that this depends on a theoretically ori-
ented secondary analysis af the data collected
in atheoretical case studies.°*
As indicated earlier, the atheoretical case
study and the other types of case studies are
ideal types. An actual instance of an atheoreti-
cal case study probably dacs not exist, hecause
almost any analysis of a singte case is guided by
at least some vague thearetical notions and
some anecdotal knowledge of ather eases, and
usually results in some vague hypotheses or
conchisions that have a wider applicability,
Such actual case studies ft the first type to a
large extent, but they also fit ane ar ‘more of
the other types (particularly the third, fourth,
and fifth types) at least to some extent.
“LaPstombara, “Macrotheories and Microapplica.
ions,” pp. 60-65.
"See Michael Curtis, Comparaiive Government and
Politics: An Iniroductory Essay in Political Science
(New York: ‘and Row, 1968), p. 7. See also
Macridis, The Study of Comparattve Government
(New York: Random House, 1955). 692
Interpretative case studies resembte atheoret-
ical case studies in one respect: they, too, are
selected for analysis because of an interest in
the case rather than an interest in the formula-
tion of general theory. They differ, however, in
that they make explicit use of established theo-
retical propositions. In these studies, a general-
ization is applied to a specific case with the aim,
of throwing fight on the case rather than of im-
proving the peneratization in any way. Hence
they are studies in “applied science.” Since they
do not aim to contribhte to empirieal general.
izations, their value in terms of theory-building
is nil. On the other hand, it is preeisely the pur
pose of empirical theory to make such interpre-
tative case studizs possible. Because of the
still very limited degree of theoretical devetop-
ment in political science, such ease studies are
rare. One interesting example is Michael C.
Hudson’s imaginative and insightful case study
of Lebanon in the light of existing development
theories, in which he discovers a serious dis-
crepancy hetween the country's socio-economic
and political development.
‘The remaining four types of case studies are
all selected for the purpase of theory-building.
Hypothesis-generating case studies’ start oat
with a more or less vague notion of possible hy-
potheses, and attempt to formulate definite hy-
potheses ta be tested subsequently among a
larger number of cases, Their abjective is to de-
velop theoretical generalizations in areas where
no theory exists yet. Such case studies are of
gteat theoretical value. They may be partien-
larly vatuable if the case selected for analysis
provides what Narall catls a sort of “crucial ex-
periment" in which certain variables of interest
happen to be present in a special way.
Theory-confirming and theory-infirming case
studies are analyses of single cases within the
framework of established generalizations, Prior
knawledge of the case is fimited to a single
“As Przeworski and Teune state: “The main role
of a theory is to provide explanations of ‘specific
events, These explanetions consist oF inferring, with a
high ope of probability, statements about particular
events from general statements concerning classes of
p. 86).
* Michael C. Hudson, “A Case of Political Under-
development,” Journal" of Polities, 29 (Navember,
1967), pp. 821-37. See also Aeer, “The Comparative
Method and the Study of British Politics," pp. 19-36.
®Narail, “Scientific Comparative Policies and In.
ternational Relations,” p. 336, An example of such
a case study is my analysis of the determinants of
Dutch colonialism in West Irian. In most cases, bath
objective (especially economic) and subjective factors
cas, be dlscetned, but the case of West Irian is unique
because of the complete absence of objective Dutch
fnterests in the colony. See Lijphart, The Trauma of
Decoionizaiion: The Dutch and West New Guinea
(New Haven: Yele University Press, 1966).
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 65
variable or to none of the variables that the
proposition relates, The ease study is a test of
the proposition, which may turn aut to be con-
firmed of infirmed hy it. If the ease study is of
the theory-confirming type, it strengthens the
proposition in question. But, assuming that the
proposition is solidly based on a large number
of cases, the demonstration that one more case
fits does not strengthen it a great deal. Like-
wise, theory-inflrming case studies merely
weaken the generalizations marginally. The
theoretical valiie of both types of case studies is
enhanced, however, if the cases are, or turo out
to he, extreme on one of the variables: such
studies can alsa be labeled “crucial experi-
ments” ar crucial tests of the propositions.
Deviant case analyses are studies of single
cases that are known to deviate from estab-
ished generalizations, They are selected in or-
der to yeveal why the cases are deviant—that
is, to uncover relevant additional variables that
were not considered previousty, of to refine the
(operational) definitions of same or all of the
variables.*? In this way, deviant case studies
can have great theoretical value. They weaken
the original proposition, but suggest a modified
proposition thet may be stronger. The validity
of the proposition in its modified form must be
established by further comparative analysis.
Of the six types of case studies, the hypothe-
sis-generating and the deviant case studies have
the greatest value in terais af their contribution
to theory. Each of these two types, however,
hhas quite different funetians in respect to the-
ory-building: ‘The hypothesis-generating case
study serves to generate new hypotheses, while
the deviant case study refines and sharpens ex-
isting hypotheses, The deviant case study—as
Sex Patricia L. Kendall and Katherine M. WolE,
“The Analysis of Deviant Cases in Coruttusications
Research,” ig Lazatsfeld and Frank Stanton, eds,
Communtcations Research: 1945-19 (New York: Har.
per, 1949), pp. 152-57; Sjoberg, op. cit, pp. 114-15;
and Lijphart, The Polises of Aecammodartons Plural:
gm and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley
University of California Press, 1968), chapter 10.
"Taig process of sefiniag’ generalizations through
sieviant case analysis is what Robert M. Marsh calls
“specification.” See his article “The Bearing of Come
parative Analysis on Sociatogieal Theory," Socia?
Forces, 43 (December, 1364), pp. 191-96. Specifice-
Got, should therefore definitely’ not be regarded as
“the gathage bin" of comparative research; see Conrad
Philip Koltak, “Towards a Comparative Science of
Saciety,”” Comparative Studies in Scctety and History,
12 Ganuary, 1970), p. 102. Sze also Milioa M, Gar-
dion, “Sociological Law and the Deviant Case,” Sock
amery, 10 ( hus 1947), pp. 250-58; and André
J. F. Kibben, “the Logic of Cross-Cultural Anaiysis
Why Exceptions?”, in Rokkan, ed., Comparative Re-
search Acrost Cultares and Nations (Paris: Mouton,
1968), pp. 17-53. 1971 Comparative Politics and
well as the theory-canfirming and theary-in-
firming case siudiés—are implicitly compaca-
tive analyses, They focus on a particular case
which is singled out for analysis from a tela-
tively Jarge number of cases and which is ana-
fyzed within the theoretical and empirical con-
text of this set of cases. The deviant case may
be likened to the “experimental group” with the
remainder of the cases constituting the “control
group.” Tust 2s the analytical power of the
comparative method increases the closer it ap-
proximates the statistical and experimental
methods, so the analytical power of the case
study method inereases the more it approxi-
mates the comparative methed. ia the form of
deviant case analysis. Such case analysis re-
quires, of course, that the position of the devi-
ant case om the variables under consideration,
and consequently also its position relative to
the other cases, are clearly defined,
The different types of cases and their un-
equal potential contributions to theory-building
should he kept in mind in selecting and analyz
ing a single case, Some of the shortcomings in
Eckstein's atherwise insightful and thought-
provoking case study of Norway may sezve as
instructive examples** Eckstein argues that the
Norwegian case deviates from David B. Tru-
man's preposition concerning “overlapping
memberships,"** because Norway is a stable de-
mocracy in spite of the country’s deep and non-
overlapping geographic, economic, and cul-
tural cleavages. But he fails to place the case of
Norway in relation te other cases, In fact, al-
though be describes Norway's divisions as “as-
tonishingly great, sharp, end persistent,” he ex-
plicitly ‘rules out any comparison with the
cleavages in other countries. This exclusion se-
tiously weakens the case study. Furthermore,
instead of trying to refine Truman's proposition
with the help of the deviant findings, Eckstein
simply drops it. In terms of the sixiold typology
of case studies discussed above, his analysis af
the Norwegian case is only a theory-inficming
one and is not made into 2 deviant case study.
From then on, the case study becomes a the
“Eckstein, Division and Cohesion in Democracy:
A Study of Norway (Princeton, NI: Princeton Unie
versity Press, 1966), esp. pp. 60-97, 177-201. Part of
the critique ‘which follows is included in my review
Of this Book in the fotenal af Modern History, 41
Marc, 1969), pp, 847
™David B. Truman, The Governmental Process:
Politieal Interests and Public Opinion (New York:
Knopf, 1951).
the Comparative Method 693
ary-confirming one. Eckstein finds that the
Norwegian case strikingly bears out his own
“congruence” theory, which states that govern-
ments tend to be stable if there is considerable
resemblance (congruence) between govern
mental authority patterns and the authority pat-
terns in society. He demonstrates persuasively
that both governmental and social patterns of
authority are strongly democratic in Norway
and thus highly congruent. The problem here i
not that the Norwegian facts do not fit the the-
ory, but that they ft the theory too perfectly.
The perfect fit strengthens the theory margin-
ally, but does not contribute to its refinement.
‘The theory does not hold that complete congru-
ence of atitharity patterns is required for stable
éemocracy. In his original statement of the
congruence theory, Eckstein himself points out
the necessity of further work on the important
questions of how much disparity can be toler-
ated and how degrees of congruence and dis-
parity can be measuted.s* Because the Norwe-
gian case turns out ta be @ perfect theory-coa-
firming one, it cannot be used to refine the the-
ory in any of these respects. Therefore, Eck-
stéin was unlucky ia his selection of this case as
far as the development of his congruence the-
ory is concerned, and he fails to take full ad-
vantage of the case study method in analyzing
the case in terms of Truman's theory of over-
lapping memberships.
‘The comparative method and the case study
method have major drawbacks. But precisely
because of the inevitable limitations of these
methads, it is the chalienging task of the inves-
tigator in the field of comparative politics to
apply these methods in such a way ae to mii
mize their weaknesses and to capitalize on their
inherent strengths. Thus, they can be highly
useful instruments in scientific political inquiry.
"In one respect, it is not altogether correct to call
the Norwegian case study a theory-confircing study.
Recause the congruence theory has a rather narrow
empirical basis, consisting chiefly of only two cases
(Britain and Germany), it is a hypothesis rather than
an established theory. The case study of Norway ls,
‘of course, not a hypothesis-generating study either
Pechaps it should be called 4 “hypothesis
