View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
2005
Comparative politics:
Theories and methods
Ana Rico, Associate ProfessorDepartment of Health Management and Health
Economicsana.rico@medisin.uio.no
2005
OUTLINE
I. Health politics: Content, motivation and goals of the course
II. Political science and comparative politics: problems & methods
Problems of political science research Small-N and Large-N approaches Comparative politics: “the fuzzy centre”
III. Types of theories: From early theories: monocausal + (socioeconomic, cultural or
institutional) determinism To multi-causal theories (=“comparative politics”, “political
economy”)
IV. Causes of policy change (IVs)
V. Applications (DVs) Causes of the expansion of the WS/HC systems in OECD
countries Causes of retrenchment/restructuring/resilience of WS/HC systems
VI. Course assignments Presentation and participation in class (10% + 10%) 1 or 2 per article Course paper (30%) Groups 2-4 Exam (50%) 5 December
2005
HEALTH POLITICS: Content and motivation
1. Content and motivation of the course
A) Content Application of political science theories to the health care sector Based on the comparative-historical method tries to build the gap between
qualitative case-studies and quantitative statistical studies Focus on how to build and criticise concepts and theoretical arguments
B) Motivation Compare health care (HC) with other sectors of the welfare state (WS) Understand how the WS was built, and which were the causes of its emergence The main distinctive feature of Europe? Outside Europe, a lot of interest on how to replicate it It can also help to understand how to mantain it or expand it further
Some paradoxes... Health politics has been developed mainly by US scholars In Europe, recent and often focused on how to cut back public health care We know a lot about health policies (e.g. Managed competition), but little on
how to introduce them (health politics)
2005
HEALTH POLITICS: Goals
2. Goals of the courseA) Conceptual Review and classify existing research traditions in political science Learn how to build and criticise concepts and theoretical arguments in a convincing way Learn how to build simple causal models out of complex theories and facts Analyze the political determinants of health policy
B) Empirical Assess the analytical goodness of fit between theory and evidence (validity) Study the causes of health care (and welfare state) reform policy change Focus on how to build universal WS/HC systems, and how to expand them
C) Practical Develop analytical skills as well as (experiential) “clinical eye” from reform processes Learn a new language: concepts of political science and health system research Learn how to read & systematize a great deal of information very fast
D) Professional Design and direct processes of political and policy change in health care Assess and evaluate complex real world situations in health politics & policy Advice policy-makers (state, interest groups, professional and patient associations, newspapers),
convince contenders, and build agreements with/among them
2005
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
1. Problems of political science (PS) research
1.1. Lack of agreement across schools of thought Divided across theoretical (which particular cause they emphasize) and ideological lines: marxism,
liberalism, structuralism, culturalism, pluralism, institutionalism, rational choice… Little communication, often tough competition and rivalry between them
Lack of agreement on how to define & operationalize basic terms
E.g. Institutions
1.2. Many variables, few cases Object of study involves complex macro-social phenomena (e.g. WS) characterized by:
Multidimensional concepts, meaning varies across time & place, difficult to operationalize A great number of potential causes, not independent among them Long causal chains and complex causal mechanisms Feedback effects, endogenous causation and selection bias (Przechevorski in Kohli)
Object of study (e.g. WS) often occurs only in a few cases (e.g. OECD countries) Difficult to build simple concepts and models that can be tested across cases (reliability), but still
resemble real world complexity (validity) But need to address both: Science of politics (build and test scientific models) and Science
for politics (advice politicians based on real world complexity) (T. van der Grinten)
2005
Three methodological approaches to adress such problems Narrative case-study (N=1) approach
Qualitative, in-depth study of a single case Internal validity high but ad-hoc explanation, low reliability No generalisation or theory-based explanation possible
Statistical (large N) analysis Too many cases to know in-depth what happened in each of them. Too little variables taken into account, simple or no causal mechanisms External validity goes at the cost of internal validity
The comparative method: medium-N (N=2 or more) Seeking a balance between number of cases and number of variables Seeking a balance between internal validity and external validity The goal is to build general theories, but based on cases researched in depth The research design is quasi-experimental Research techniques can be qualitative or/and quantitative
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
2005
1. Case(=country)-based: Small-N (=1) studies, e.g. US Welfare State Old research tradition: historical, in-depth analysis of one case-study It simplifies by reducing N so that all or most potential causes can be analysed It allows a detailed analysis of:
- Specific characteristics of countries (e.g unique, model causes) - complex causal mechanisms, and - time sequence of events
GOOD INTERNAL VALIDITY (causes represent well real world complexity), BUT
Little external validity (causes cannot be tested/applied to other cases) - It does not allow to discriminate between general and country-specific factors
It is the preferred method of theories based in cultural relativism- It fits well their main assumptions
- unique causal mechanisms apply in each case- optimal policy change results from internal, country-based trial and error
- Social constructivism and some institutionalist approaches are examples of cultural relativism
It can also be used to make general theories – based on the comparative method
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
2005
2. Variables-based: Large-N studies, e.g. Causes of democracy New research trends (modelling): study a few variables across a large number of cases
It simplifies by (1) selecting a few variables considered as key causes (2) reducing complexity or variability by making restrictive assumptions
(eg all the causes are independent of each other; the causes are independent of the effects;causal sequence does not matter
- Cross-national statistical studies are the main example (over 100 countries)
GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY (under tight, often unrealistic assumptions), but Little internal validity: too many omitted (=extraneous) variables, disregards variables
which are difficult to measure (often the most relevant), model is not a fair image of reality,
It is used by many schools that believe we can find general regularities across cases The most radical is rational choice analysis & game-theory, which works best when the
restrictive behavioural assumptions of classic economics apply: - all individuals behave in their own self-interest; - under complete rationality and - perfect information
New, sophisticated methods can avoid some of the pitfallsIf N decreased, and qualitative info added, similar to the comparative method
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
2005
Causal mechanisms Causal mechanisms in small-N case-in small-N case-
studiesstudies
Causal mechanisms Causal mechanisms in large-N case-in large-N case-
studiesstudies
E
ß1
ß2
ß3
ß4
Ass
um
pti
ons:
eg
Beh
avio
ur
Self-interest
Norms & values
Social interaction
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
2005
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
3. The comparative-historical method
“Thinking without comparison is unthinkable” (Swanson, 1971; quoted by JK Helderman)
Seeks a balance between N and number of variables: N=1 (+ reference case/s). Case-study treated comparatively
Ideal type (+ rest of cases) Often example of best practice Deviant/critical case (+ average case) Causal mechanisms
contradict establised, general theory
N=1 [Sector 1/Sector 2; Time period 1/Time period 2] N=2, 3, 4. Matched comparisons N > 4. Requires:
Combination of quantitative/qualitative. QCA, OLS Secondary qualitative/historical evidence on N>4 cases
Seeks a balance between internal validity and external validity Goal: build general theories, based on cases researched in depth The research design is often quasi-experimental (note OLS too)
2005
Most-similar cases (method of difference)Most-similar cases (method of difference)
Case 1ABCX
Outcome Y
Case 2ABC
Not X
Outcome not Y
Main cause (X) is present in one case and missing in the other. Both cases are similar (matched) in all other respects. The main effect Y is present when X present, and absent when X is absent (points to a necessary and sufficient cause).
2005
Case-study, before-after designCase-study, before-after design
Case 1, T0
ABC
Not X
Outcome not Y
Case 1, T0
ABCX
Outcome Y
Main cause (X) is present in one case and missing in the other. Both cases are similar (matched) in all other respects. The main effect Y is present when X present, and absent when X is absent (points to a necessary and sufficient cause).
2005
Most-similar, graduation in cause-effectMost-similar, graduation in cause-effect
Case 1, Sector 1ABC
X=0Not Y
Main cause (X) is present to different degrees in two cases and missing in the other. The cases are similar (matched) in all other respects. The effect Y is present when X present, and its graduation corresponds to X´s one (additional evidence of necessary and sufficient cause).
Case 1, Sector 2
ABC
X=1Y=1
Case 1, Sector 3
ABC
X=2Y=2
2005
Close to most-similar, N=4Close to most-similar, N=4
Case 1ACEXY
Main cause (X) is present in two cases and absent in the other two. The cases are only imperfectly matched, but rest of potential causes do not correspond to the effect (can be necessary or suficcient, but not both). The effect Y is present when X present., absent when is absent (necessary and sufficient cause).
Case 2ACD
Not XNot Y
Case 3ABDXY
Case 4ABE
Not XNot Y
2005
Most-different cases (method of agreement)Most-different cases (method of agreement)
Case 1ACEX
Outcome Y
Case 2BDFX
Outcome Y
Main cause (X) is present in both cases. They are very different in all other relevant respects. This suggests that the effect Y always occurs when X is present (necessary cause); the rest of factors can be irrelevent or sufficient causes.
2005
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
3. The comparative-historical method (cont.)
It can be used for explanatory, descriptive and prescriptive analysis:
A. Under a quasi-experimental research design, it can be used for inference (explanatory studies) Matched comparisons, QCA, OLS
QCA offers some advantages over OLS (Mahoney), eg:It allows for the different categories of a tipology - as the DV (eg: Esping-Andersen and the three worlds of welfare capitalism) being explained by different combinations of causes
B. Less strict, more qualitative comparisons can be used for descriptive and prescriptive purposes, e.g.:
Concept formation and categorization: e.g. Definition and types of WS, the concept of representation (Pitkin)
Operazionalization of complex concepts: e.g. Democratic institutions (Executive/Parliament Dominance, Federal/Unitary, Majoritarian/ConsotiationalProportional, Corporatism/Pluralism) Liphart
2005
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
3. The comparative-historical method (cont.)
B. Less strict, more qualitative comparisons used in descriptive and prescriptive purposes, e.g. (CONT.):
Building hypothesis and evidence on: Complex case-specific interactions between IVs Effect of historical accidents as sufficient causes Temporal sequences of causes
Complex causal mechanisms
Mapping and comparing policy alternatives for policy-makers Studying the key causal mechanisms of a case of best practice in
order to imitate it Uncovering specific temporal sequences of events in the history of
a deviant case: to facilitate removal of obstacles to change
2005Context Sociopol. actors
Politicalactors
Process, interact.
PolicyInstitutions & Resources
CAUSAL MECHANISMS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
2005
III. Types of theories: From early theories: monocausal + (socioeconomic, cultural or
institutional) determinism Good for advising/influencing policy-makers Often professional interests/ideology of researchers Limitations of quasi-experimental, qualitative comparisons Little information available
To multi-causal theories (=“comparative politics”, “political economy”)
IV. Causes of policy change (IVs)
1. Structural, cultural and convergence theories: SOCIAL CONTEXT (audience)
2. Actor-centred theories: POLITICAL ACTORS (=players/teams/clubs)
3. Institutionalist theories: INSTITUTIONS (= rules of the game) 4. Action-centred theories: INTERACTIONS (=game/league)
5. Policy-centred theories: PATH DEPEPENDENCE, FEEDBACK, LEARNING
CONCEPTUAL COMPLEXITY INCREASES
TYPE OF THEORIES & CAUSES OF POLICY
2005
POLITICAL SCIENCE & COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Exercise: Amenta et al. 2004EUROPE-BASED EXPLANATIONS
• Modernization & ec.development
• Partisanship theory (SD, CD)
• Coalition theories
• Institutional theory: centralization/ /fragmentation of the polity
• State-centred theory: state capacity and autonomy; state bureaucracy
• Path-dependency, policy feedbacksUS-BASED EXPLANATIONs_
• Race
• Social movements (citizens. mob.)
• Interest group theory: capitalists
• Public opinion
• Patronage, non-ideological pol. parties
• Democratic polity: openess & access
Types of theories
1. Context theories: Structural, Cultural Convergence theories:
2. Actor-centred theories: Interest groups Political parties State-centred State-society: civil society
3. Institutionalist theories:
4. Process-centred theories:
5. Policy-centred theories: Path dependence, Policy feedbacks & policy learning
2005
CAUSES OF POLICY CHANGE: Operationalization in WS/HC research
Adapted from Walt and Wilson 1994
Distrib. of formal pol. power: electoral law, constitution, federalism, corporatism Contracts and org. structures Norms of behaviour Sanctions/incentives
CONTEXT
INSTITUTIONS
POLITICS: InteractionsProcess
Individual and collective
• Socioeconomic structure:• Ownership, income• Education, knowledge• Social capital (status, connections)
• Sociopolitical structure:• Cleavages and political identities
• Values: Culture and subcultures
-
Access & participation Policy strategies Coalition-building Competition and cooperat. Changing resources Learning
POLICY Entitlements & rights Regulation by law (of power, ownership, financing, behaviour, contracts) Redistribution: Financing & RA Production of goods & services
Conjunctural factors: ec crisis, wars
Interest groups Profesional assocs. Poilitical parties State authorities Citizens: PO/SM Mass media
POLITICAL ACTORSPreferences
ResourcesFormal and informal
2005
ASSIGNMENTSASSIGNMENTS
Presentation and participation in class (10% + 10%) 1 or 2 students per article 1 or 2 presentations Summary, partly based on graphic tools Criticisms: to unclear or overstretched concepts, unconvincing arguments, counterarguments, lack of correspondence between concepts and evidence, insufficient evidence, important omitted variables, others
Course paper (30%) Groups 2-4 History of Norwegian WS/HC compared with other case Recent reforms expanding the HC sector compared with case
Exam (50%) 5 December Concepts and theories Text to discuss
2005
ASSIGNMENTSASSIGNMENTS
Wed. 21 Sep.,13:15-16:00
Ana Rico The social context of health politics
Mechanic & Rochefort 1996Bouguet 2003Svallsfors 1997
Wed. 28 sep.,13:15-16:00
Ana Rico Interest groups and political parties
Olsen 1982Quadagno 2004Hunold 2001
Wed. 5 Oct.10:15-12:00
Student-led session
Case 1: Interest groups in the US WS;
C2: Corporatism and professional self-
regulation in EU HC.
Navarro 1989Quadagno 2004Greß et al. 2004Blom-Hansen 2000
Wed. 5 Oct.,13:15-16:00
Ana Rico The role of the state: government, parliam-ent, and bureaucracy
Skocpol 1980White 2003Howlet & Ramesh, ch.2.
Wed. 12 Oct., 13:15-16:00
Ana Rico Civil society: policy experts, public opinion and mass-media
Hall 1993Manin 1989, ch6Hoffman 2003
Wed. 19 Oct., 10:15-12:00
Student-led session
Case 3: The political economy of the WS in US, UK & Sweden
Case 4: Mass media & public opinion in Clinton’s HC reform
Hall 1993Weir & Skocpol 1983Jacobs 2001Goldsteen et al 2001
2005
ASSIGNMENTSASSIGNMENTS
Wed. 19 Oct., 13:15-16:00
Ana Rico Institutions: Division of powers, veto points and regulation
Immergut 1992Scharpf 2000
Wed. 26 Oct., 13:15-16:00
Ana Rico Action theories and the political process
Korpi 1989Garrett 1993Rico & Costa 2005
Wed. 2 Nov., 10:15-12:00
Student-led session
Case study 5: HC expansion in the UK, the US, and Canada Case study 6: The origins of the US WS
Jacobs 1992Maioni 1997Briggs 2000Jenkings and Brents 1989
Wed. 2 Nov., 13:15-16:00
Ana Rico The new welfare/health politics and the debate on retrenchment
Pierson 1996Clayton & Pontusson 1998Tuhoy 1999
Wed. 9 Nov., 10:15-12:00
Student-led session
Case 7: Evidence on retrenchment in WS Case 8: Politics of retrenchment in HC
Korpi 2003Allan & Scruggs 04Hacker 2004Oliver 2004
Recommended