2005 Comparative politics: Theories and methods Ana Rico, Associate Professor Department of Health Management and Health Economics [email protected]

2005

Comparative politics:

Theories and methods

Ana Rico, Associate ProfessorDepartment of Health Management and Health

[email protected]

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:

Contents, motivation and goals of the course

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

2005Political science:

Methods and problems

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


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


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


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


2005


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


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


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

2005Types of theories

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


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

2005Causes of policy change

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

2005Assignments

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


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


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

Documents

2005 Comparative politics: Theories and methods Ana Rico, Associate Professor Department of Health Management and Health Economics [email protected]