Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

detailed contents
Illustrations and features ix Nations and nationalism 62
Preface xii The future of the state 63
Guide to the eleventh edition xv
Guide to learning features xviii
Guide to the website xx   5 Democratic rule 70
Publisher’s acknowledgements xxi Democratic rule: an overview 71
Direct democracy 72
  1 Key concepts 1 Representative democracy 73
Key concepts: an overview 2 Liberal democracy 76
Government and governance 2 Modernization and democracy 77
Politics and power 4 Huntington’s waves of democracy 79
The state, authority, and legitimacy 8 Democratization 83
Ideology 9 The future of democracy 85
Comparative politics 11
Classifying political systems 12   6 Authoritarian rule 89
Authoritarian rule: an overview 90
  2 Theoretical approaches 18 Hybrid regimes 90
Theoretical approaches: an overview 19 Authoritarian regimes 91
The changing face of comparative politics 19 Forms of authoritarian rule 94
The institutional approach 23 The political impact of corruption 102
The rational choice approach 26
The structural approach 29
The cultural approach 30   7 Constitutions and courts 106
The interpretive approach 31 Constitutions and courts:
an overview 107
  3 Comparative methods 35 The character of constitutions 107
The durability of constitutions 109
Comparative methods: an overview 36
The role of courts 110
The case study method 36
The role of the judiciary 113
The qualitative method 39
Systems of law 116
The quantitative method 41
Constitutions and courts in
The historical method 43
authoritarian states 119
The challenges of comparison 46

  4 The state 52  8 Executives 124

The state: an overview 53 Executives: an overview 125
What is a state? 53 Heads of state and government 125
Origins and evolution 55 Presidential executives 127
The diversity of states 59 Parliamentary executives 129

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
detailed contents  vii

Semi-presidential executives 134 14 Political communication 234

Executives in authoritarian states 136 Political communication: an overview 235
The evolution of mass media 235
 9 Legislatures 141 Into the digital age 238
Legislatures: an overview 142 Media influence 240
The role of legislatures 142 Recent trends in political
One chamber or two? 148 communication 242
Representatives and their work 153 Political communication in authoritarian
Legislatures in authoritarian states 155 states 246

10 Bureaucracies 160 15 Elections 252

Bureaucracies: an overview 161 Elections: an overview 253
Origins and evolution 161 Legislative elections 253
E-government 165 Executive elections 258
How bureaucracies are organized 166 Referendums, initiatives, and recalls 261
How bureaucrats are recruited 172 Elections in authoritarian states 266
Bureaucracies in authoritarian states 173
16 Political parties 270
Political parties: an overview 271
11 Sub-national governments 179 Origins and roles 271
Sub-national governments: an overview 180
Party systems 272
Multi-level governance 180
Party organization 279
Unitary systems 181
Political parties in authoritarian states 282
Federal systems 184
Local government 190 17 Voters 287
Sub-national government in Voters: an overview 288
authoritarian states 193
Party identification 288
How voters choose 290
12 Political culture 199 Voter turnout 296
Political culture: an overview 200 Voters in authoritarian states 298
Understanding political culture 200
From The Civic Culture to 18 Interest groups 306
post-materialism 202 Interest groups: an overview 307
Political trust 207 Origins and types of groups 307
A clash of civilizations? 208 Channels of influence 310
Political culture in authoritarian states 211 Ingredients of influence 312
The dynamics of interest groups 314
13 Political participation 216 Interest groups in authoritarian states 318
Political participation: an overview 217
Who participates, and why? 217 19 Public policy 324
Public opinion 220 Public policy: an overview 325
The dynamics of public opinion 222 Models of the policy process 325
Women in government and politics 223 The policy cycle 328
Political participation in authoritarian Policy diffusion and convergence 332
states 227 Public policy in authoritarian states 337

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
viii  detailed contents

20 Political economy 342 Development and global divisions 351

Political economy: an overview 343 Political economy in authoritarian states 352
Understanding political economy 343
Comparative political economy 345 Bibliography 359
The welfare state 348 Index 374

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

key concepts 1

Source: iStock/araelf
contents
◆ Key concepts: an
overview
◆ Government and
governance
PREVIEW ◆ Politics and power
The best place to begin the study of any topic is with an exploration ◆ The state, authority, and
of key concepts. Most of the political terms which interest us are legitimacy
embedded in ordinary language; government, politics, power, and authority
are all familiar terms. But – as we will see – this does not mean that
◆ Ideology
they are easily defi ned, or that political scientists are agreed on how ◆ Comparative politics
best to understand or apply them. ◆ Classifying political
This opening chapter begins with a discussion about the meaning
systems
of government and governance, which are related terms but quite different
in the ideas they convey: the first focuses on institutions while the sec-
ond focuses on processes. We then go on to look at politics, whose core
features are relatively easy to identify, but whose boundaries are not so clear: does it imply a search for a decision, or a
competitive struggle for power? This is followed by a review of the meaning of power, authority, legitimacy, and ideology,
all of which lie at the heart of our understanding of how government and politics work.
The chapter then looks at some of the core purposes of comparative politics, whose value – above all – lies in help-
ing us broaden and deepen our understanding of politics and government, taking us beyond the limitations inherent
in studying a single political system. The chapter ends with a review of the challenges involved in classifying political
systems, and looks at some of the typologies available to help us make better sense of a complex, diverse, and changing
political world.

KEY ARGUMENTS
◆ Like all fields of study, political science uses concepts whose defi nitions – while often disputed – are
important to understand.
◆ While government describes the institutions and offices through which societies are governed, governance
describes the process of collective decision-making.
◆ An exact defi nition of politics is difficult, because the term has multiple nuances. But it is clearly a
collective activity, occurring between or among people.
◆ Power is the capacity to bring about intended effects, and is central to understanding both government
and politics. Authority and legitimacy are key related concepts.
◆ Ideology may have lost its original meaning as the science of ideas, but it remains useful as a way of
packaging different views about the role of government and the goals of public policy.
◆ Typologies help us compare, imposing order on the variety of the world’s political systems, and helping
us develop explanations and rules.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
2  chapter 1

key concepts: an overview

Concept Every field of study is built on a specialized vocabulary made up of terms or concepts that
An idea, term, or need to be understood and defi ned in order to provide us with our points of reference.
category. Political science is no exception. In trying to understand the features which a political
system (see later in this chapter) must possess in order to qualify as a democracy, for example,
Political we can agree that some measure of popular control over the rulers is essential; if there were no
science ways of holding the government to account, there could be no democracy. A good defi nition
The study of the
theory and of a democracy as a concept, then, is a political system in which government is based on a fair
practice of and open mandate from all qualified citizens of a state. As we will see in Chapter 5, though,
government and there are many facets to the discussion of what should – at fi rst glance – be an idea that we can
politics, focusing all understand without too much trouble.
on the structure This opening chapter reviews several of the most important concepts involved in comparative
and dynamics of
institutions, government and politics, providing the foundations for understanding the chapters that follow.
political processes, We will start with government and politics, two concepts that are routinely used interchangeably,
and political but not necessarily applied correctly. We will then look at power, a concept that comes in several
behaviour. different forms. We also begin looking at the meaning of the state (covered in much more depth
in Chapter 4), and how it relates to authority, legitimacy, and ideology.
Social science These concepts are all central to an understanding of the manner in which governments are
The study of
human society and organized and the way in which politics unfolds.We will find, though, that their precise meanings
of the structured are routinely contested. This is a problem found not just in political science, but throughout the
interactions social sciences; there is even some dispute about the meaning of the term social science. It is
among people used here in the context of studying and better understanding the organized relations and inter-
within society. action of people within society. Social scientists study the institutions we build, the rules we agree,
the processes we use, our underlying motives, and the outcomes of our interactions.
Ultimately, we need to understand these concepts in order to constructively make comparisons. In turn, we need
to make those comparisons in order to better understand human behaviour. Comparison is one of the most basic of
all human activities, lying at the heart of almost every choice we make in our lives. No surprise, then, that it should
be central to research in the social sciences as a whole, and political science in particular. We can study government
and political processes in isolation, but without comparing different cases, examples, and situations, we can never really
hope to fully comprehend them, to draw general conclusions about what drives people to act the way they do, or to
be sure that we have considered all the explanatory options. Only by looking at government and politics across place
and time can we build the context to be able to gain a broader and more complete understanding of how they work.

government and governance

Since this is a book about comparative government and politics, the logical place to begin is with a review of the
term government. Small groups of people can reach collective decisions without any special procedures; a family
or sports team can reach an understanding by informal discussion, and these agreements can be self-executing in
the sense that those who make the decision carry it out themselves. However, such simple mechanisms are
impractical for larger units such as towns, cities, or states, which must develop procedures and
Government institutions for making and enforcing collective decisions. By doing so, they give themselves
The institutions
and structures
a government.
through which The term government is usually used to describe the highest level of political offices in a soci-
societies are ety: presidents, prime ministers, legislatures, governors, mayors, and others at the apex of power.
governed. But government actually consists of all organizations charged with reaching and executing deci-
sions for a community. By this definition, the police, the military, bureaucrats, and judges are all
Institution part of government, even if they do not come to office through the methods usually associated
A formal
organization or
with government, such as elections. In this broader conception, government is the entire com-
practice with a munity of institutions endowed with public authority. The term government can also apply to the
political purpose group of people who govern (as in the Japanese government), a specific administration (the Putin
or effect, marked government), the form of the system of rule (centralized government), and the character of the
by durability and administration of a community (good government).
internal
complexity.
The classic case for the institution of government was made in the seventeenth century by
the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (see Focus 1.1). He argued that government provides
Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  3

Focus 1.1
Hobbes’s case for government
The case for government was well made by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) in
his famous treatise Leviathan, published in 1651. His starting point was the
fundamental equality in our ability to inflict harm on others:

For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the
strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others.

So arises a clash of ambition and fear of attack:

From this equality of ability, arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends.
And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they
cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is
principally their own conservation, and sometimes their own delectation, Thomas Hobbes.
endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. Source: Getty Images/De Agostini
Picture Library
Without a ruler to keep us in check, the situation becomes grim:

Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they
are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.

People therefore agree (by means unclear) to set up an absolute government to avoid a life that would
otherwise be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’:

The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of
foreigners, and the injuries of one another … is, to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or
one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will … This done, the
multitude so united is called a COMMONWEALTH.
Source: Hobbes (1651).

us with protection from the harm that we would otherwise inflict on each other in our quest for gain and glory. By
granting a monopoly of the sword to a government, we transform anarchy into order, securing peace and the oppor-
tunity for mutually beneficial cooperation.
In a democracy, government supposedly provides security and predictability to those who live under its jurisdiction
(see Chapter 5). Citizens and businesses can plan for the long term, knowing that laws are developed in a standardized
fashion, take into account competing opinions, and are consistently applied. Of course, nothing is ever that simple,
because governments create their own dangers. The risk of Hobbes’s commonwealth is that it will abuse its own
authority, creating more problems than it solves. As John Locke – one of Hobbes’s critics –
Political
pointed out, there is no profit in avoiding the dangers of foxes if the outcome is simply to be system
devoured by lions (Locke, 1690). A key aim in studying government, then, is to discover how to The interactions
secure its benefits while also limiting its inherent dangers. and organizations
In democracies, government is influenced by wider forces, such as interest groups, political through which a
parties, the media, corporations, and public opinion. In authoritarian systems, meanwhile, the society reaches
and successfully
government may lack much autonomy, and effectively becomes the property of a dominant indi- enforces collective
vidual or clan. In both cases, the forces and influences surrounding government come together to decisions. See also
form a political system. This concept takes us beyond mere institutions and helps us pin down discussion in
all the factors involved in the political life of a given state or community. It has a hard edge, as Chapter 4 about
reflected in the adverb authoritatively in the famous definition of a political system offered by the regimes.
political scientist David Easton (1965):

A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a
society; that is what distinguishes a political system from other systems lying in its environment.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
4  chapter 1

Governance The ‘Swedish political system’ means more than ‘Swedish government’; it is the space in
The process by which most of the activity of Swedish politics – positive and negative, in the public or private
which decisions, interest – takes place. It has many similarities with the political systems of Finland, Denmark,
laws, and policies and Norway, but many differences with those in Mexico, South Africa, or India, even if all
are made, with or
without the input
these countries have governing institutions that have approximately the same purpose. (See
of formal Chapter 3 for details on how comparative politics goes about assessing the similarities and the
institutions. differences.)
Another related concept is governance. Where the concept of government suggests a rather
static account based on organizations, the concept of governance highlights the process and quality of collective
decision-making. The emphasis is on the activity of governing, so that we can – for example – speak of global gov-
ernance: there is no such thing as a global government, but there is a large community of international organizations
(such as the United Nations), thousands of treaties that form the basis of international law, and a constant interaction
involving governments, corporations, and interest groups, all of which amount to a process of governance. Governance
directs our attention away from government’s command-and-control function towards the broader task of public reg-
ulation, a role which ruling politicians in democracies share with other bodies. We need the concept of governance as
a supplement, rather than a replacement, for the notion of government.
The notion of governance has been prominent in discussions about the European Union. This regional integration
association has several institutions that look much like an EU government – they include an elected European Par-
liament and a Court of Justice – but which are better regarded as a system of governance (McCormick, 2015). Their
job is to develop policies and laws, and to oversee the implementation of those policies and laws, but they can only do
as much as the foundational treaties of the EU, and the governments of its member states, allow them to do. They are
better seen as servants of the process of European integration than as the government of the EU.
Because governance refers to the activity of ruling, it has also become the preferred term when examining the qual-
ity and effectiveness of rule. In this context, governance refers to what the institutions of government do and to how
well or badly they do it. Good governance should, at a minimum, be accountable, transparent, efficient, responsive, and
inclusive, but these are all ideals; even those countries that rank at the top of political rating systems (see later in this
chapter) have flaws. The kind of bad governance that we so often find in authoritarian systems is much more clearly
evident; see Spotlight Nigeria as an example.

politics and power

While government is tangible in the sense that we can see most of the people in government, and the buildings that
institutions inhabit, politics and power are much less easy to identify and to measure. In the debate over the
meaning of politics, for example, we can easily list and agree examples of political activity.
Politics When the President and Congress in the United States engage in their annual tussle over the
The process by budget, for example, they are clearly engaged in politics. When the Spanish region of Catalonia
which people held non-binding independence referendums in 2014 and again in 2017, politics was again on
negotiate and
compete in the view. When thousands of Iranians took to the streets during 2017–18 to protest rising food
process of making prices (and also to express their opposition to the government), they too were taking part in
and executing politics. The political heartland, as represented by such examples, is clear enough.
shared or collective However, the boundaries of politics are less precise. When one country invades another, is it
decisions. engaged in politics or merely in war? When a dictatorship suppresses a demonstration by vio-
lence, is it playing or preventing politics? When a court issues a ruling about privacy, should its
judgment be read as political or judicial? Is politics restricted to governments, or can it also be found in businesses,
families, and even university classrooms?
A crisp definition of politics – one which fits just those things we instinctively call ‘political’ – is difficult, because
the term is used in so many different ways. But three aspects of politics are clear:

◆ It is a collective activity, occurring between and among people. A lone castaway on a desert island could not
engage in politics, but if there were two castaways on the same island, they would have a political relationship.
◆ It involves making decisions regarding a course of action to take, or a disagreement to be resolved.
◆ Once reached, political decisions become authoritative policy for the group, binding and committing its
members (even if some of them continue to resist, which is – in itself – a political activity).

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  5

Politics is unavoidable because of the social nature of humans. We live in groups that must reach collective
decisions about using resources, relating to others, and planning for the future. A country deliberating on whether
to go to war, a family discussing where to go on holiday, a company deciding where to locate a new factory, a
university deciding whether its priority lies with teaching or research: these are all examples of groups forming
judgements affecting their members. Politics involves assessing different opinions, and ideally brings them together
into a compromise course of action.
Once reached, decisions must be implemented. Means must be found to ensure the acquiescence and preferably
the consent of the group’s members. Once set, taxes must be raised; once adopted, regulations must be imposed; once
planned and funded, highways must be built. Public authority – and even force if needed – is used to implement collec-
tive policy, and citizens who fail to contribute to the common task may be fined or even imprisoned by the authorities.
As a concept, then, politics can be defined idealistically as the process of making and executing collective deci-
sions based on the pursuit of a group’s common interest, or at least on seeking peaceful reconciliation of the different
interests within a group. This interpretation of politics as a community-serving activity can be traced to the ancient
Greeks.The philosopher Aristotle (384–322 bce) argued that ‘man is by nature a political animal’ (1962 edn), by which
he meant not only that politics is unavoidable, but also that it is the highest human activity, the feature which most
clearly separates us from other species. His view was that people can only express their nature as reasoning, virtuous
beings by participating in a political community which seeks to identify the common interest through discussion, and
tries to pursue it through actions to which all contribute. In Aristotle’s model constitution, ‘the ideal citizens rule in
the interests of all, not because they are forced to by checks and balances, but because they see it as right to do so’
(Nicholson, 2004).
This idea of politics as a peaceful process of open discussion leading to collective decisions acceptable to all stake-
holders in society is all well and good, but the reality rarely measures up to the ideal. Perhaps more realistically, politics
can also be seen as a competitive struggle for power and resources between people and groups seeking their own ad-
vantage. From this second perspective, politics can involve narrow concerns taking precedence over collective benefits
when those in authority place their own goals above those of the wider community, using methods that can spill over
into manipulation, corruption, and perhaps even violence and bloodshed.
In this view, politics is a competition for acquiring and keeping power, a process that yields winners and losers. This
is reflected in the famous definition by the political scientist Harold Lasswell (1936) of politics as ‘who gets what, when,
how’. In short, it is anything but the disinterested pursuit of the public interest. Taking the cynical (or perhaps realistic)
extreme, the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz once said that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’,
a view backed up by Chinese leader Mao Zedong when he said that ‘war is politics with bloodshed’. But we could as
easily turn these ideas around and argue that politics is the continuation of war by other means, or that politics is war
without bloodshed.
Politics, then, has many different facets. It involves shared and competing interests; cooperation and conflict; reason
and force. Each concept is necessary, but only together are they sufficient. The essence of politics lies in the interaction
between conceptions, and we should not narrow our vision by reducing politics to either one. As Laver (1983) puts it:
‘Pure conflict is war. Pure cooperation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both.’
Meanwhile, at the heart of politics is the distribution and manipulation of power. The word comes from the
Latin potere, meaning ‘to be able’, which is why the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1938) saw power as ‘the production of
intended effects’.The greater our ability to determine our own fate, the more power we possess. In this sense, describing
Germany as a powerful country means that it has a high level of ability to achieve its objectives,
whatever those may be. Conversely, to lack power – as do many poor or unstable countries – is to Power
The capacity to
fall victim to circumstance. Arguably, though, every state has power, even if it is the kind of nega- bring about
tive power involved in obliging a reaction from bigger and wealthier states; Somali pirates, Syrian intended effects.
refugees, and illegal migrants from Mexico may seem powerless, but all three groups spark policy The term is often
responses from the governments of those countries they most immediately affect. used as a synonym
Notice that the emphasis here is on power to rather than power over – on the ability to achieve for influence, but
is also used more
goals, rather than the more specific exercise of control over other people or countries. But most narrowly to refer
analyses of power focus on relationships: on power over others. Here, the three dimensions of to more forceful
power distinguished by Steven Lukes (2005) (see Table 1.1) are useful, because they help us modes of influence
answer the question of how we can measure a group’s power, or at least establish whether one notably, getting
group is more powerful than another. As we move through these dimensions, so the conception one’s way by
threats.
of power becomes more subtle – but also, perhaps, somewhat stretched beyond its normal use.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

SPOTLIGHT NIGERIA
Brief profile
Although Nigeria has been independent since 1960, it was not until 2015 that it experienced a presidential
election in which the incumbent was defeated by an opposition opponent. This makes an important point about
the challenges faced by Africa’s largest country by population, and one of the continent’s major regional powers,
in developing a stable political form. Nigeria is currently enjoying its longest spell of civilian government since
independence, but the military continues to play an important role, the economy is dominated by oil, corruption
is rife at every level of society, security concerns and poor infrastructure discourage foreign investment, and a
combination of ethnic and religious divisions pose worrying threats to stability. Incursions and attacks since 2002
by the Islamist group Boko Haram, have added to the country’s problems, but it has still – nonetheless – been
recently upgraded from authoritarian to a hybrid on the Democracy Index.

Form of government Federal presidential republic consisting of 36 states and a Federal Capital
Territory. State formed 1960, and most recent constitution adopted 1999.
Executive Presidential. A president elected for a maximum of two four-year terms,
supported by a vice-president and cabinet of ministers, with one from each of
Nigeria’s states.
Legislature Bicameral National Assembly: lower House of Representatives (360 members)
and upper Senate (109 members), both elected for fixed and renewable four-year
terms.
Judiciary Federal Supreme Court, with 14 members nominated by the president, and
either confirmed by the Senate or approved by a judicial commission.
Electoral system President elected in national contest, and must win a majority of all votes cast
and at least 25 per cent of the vote in at least two-thirds of Nigeria’s states.
Possibility of two runoffs. National Assembly elected using single-member
plurality.
Parties Multi-party, led by the centrist People’s Democratic Party and the conservative
All Nigeria People’s Party.

186m Population
Full
Democracy Very High
Free
Flawed High
Democracy Partly Free
Gross Medium
$375bn Hybrid Regime Not Free
Domestic Low
Product Authoritarian Not Rated
Not Rated
Not Rated

Per Democracy Freedom Human

$1,969 capita Index rating House rating Development
GDP Index rating

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

Government and politics in

Nigeria
Many of the facets of the debate about
government, politics, power, and authority
are on show in Nigeria, a country that is still
struggling to develop a workable political
form and national identity in the face of
multiple internal divisions.
Understanding Nigeria is complicated
by the lack of durable governmental
patterns. Since independence in 1960,
Nigerians have lived through three periods
of civilian government, fi ve successful and
several attempted military coups, a civil
President Muhammadu Buhari addresses members of the Nigerian war, and nearly 30 years of military rule.
National Assembly in Abuja after submitting his annual federal budget. The first civilian government (1960–66)
Source: Getty Images/Sunday Aghaeze/Stringer. was based on the parliamentary model,
but the second and third (1979–83, and
1999–present) were based on the presidential form. Since 2007, Nigeria has twice made the transition from
one civilian government to another, and the long-term political prognosis has improved. Still, considerable
uncertainties remain.
Political doubts reflect economic drift, and vice versa. The country’s growing population is expected to double
in the next 25 years, straining an infrastructure that is already woefully inadequate to support a modern economy.
Nigeria’s core economic problem is its heavy reliance on oil, which leaves the size and health of the economy –
as well as government revenues –
dependent on the fluctuating price of
NIGER
oil. To make matters worse, much of CHAD
the oil wealth has been squandered and
stolen, feeding into the corruption that
is rife in Nigeria, and there have been
bitter political arguments over how BENIN NIGERIA
best to spend the balance. ABUJA
Nigeria’s problems are more than just TOGO
economic. In social terms, Nigeria is
divided by ethnicity, handicapping efforts Lagos
to build a sense of national identity. It is
also separated by religion, with a mainly CAMEROON
Muslim north, a non-Muslim south, and Gulf of Guinea
controversial pressures from the north
to expand the reach of sharia, or Islamic
law. Regional disparities are fundamental,
with a north that is dry and poor and a Further reading
south that is better endowed in
Bourne, Richard (2015) Nigeria: A New History of a Turbulent Century
resources and basic services. Regional
(Zed Books).
tensions have been made worse by oil, Campbell, John (2013) Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink (Rowman &
most of which lies either in the south- Littlefield).
east or off the coast, but with much of Campbell, John, and Matthew T. Page (2018) Nigeria: What Everyone
the profit distributed to political elites in Needs to Know (Oxford University Press).
other parts of the country.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
8  chapter 1

Table 1.1  Lukes’s three dimensions of power

Dimension Core question Core quality

First Who prevails when preferences Decisions are made on issues over which there is an
conflict? observable conflict of interests.
Second Who controls whether Decisions are prevented from being taken on potential issues
preferences are expressed? over which there is an observable conflict of interests.
Third Who shapes preferences? Potential issues are kept out of politics, whether through
social forces, institutional practices, or the decisions of
individuals.
Source: Lukes (2005).

The first dimension is straightforward: power should be judged by identifying whose views prevail when the actors
involved possess conflicting views on what should be done. The greater the correspondence between a person’s views
and decisions reached, the greater is that person’s influence: more wins indicate more power. This decision-making
approach, as it is called, was pioneered by the political scientist Robert Dahl (1961a) in his classic study of democracy
and power in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. In the United States, for example, and in spite of repeated mass
shootings, the successful lobbying of the gun lobby has meant that most leaders of the two major political parties have
refused to impose meaningful limits on gun ownership, forming what amounts to an elite conspiracy to make sure
that guns remain widely available. So far, at least, the gun lobby has prevailed; it has the power (see Chapter 18). The
approach is relatively clear and concrete, based on identifying preferences and observing decisions, and connecting
directly with the concept of politics as the resolution of conflict within groups.
The second dimension focuses on the capacity to keep issues off the political agenda by preventing the emergence
of topics which would threaten the values or interests of decision-makers. As Bachrach and Baratz (1962) once put it,
‘to the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public air-
ing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’. In China, for example, fear of government reprisals currently
discourages many people from expressing their support for a transition to democracy. By narrowing the public agenda
in this way, the ruling communist party renders democracy a non-issue. In order to address the problem of control over
the agenda, we need to both study the groups that gain the most from political decisions or the status quo, and those
whose views are not heard.
The third dimension broadens our conception of power by extending it to cover the formation, rather than
­merely the expression, of preferences. Where the first and second dimensions assume conflicting preferences, the third
­dimension addresses the idea of a manipulated consensus. In war time, for example, governments often seek to sustain
public morale by preventing news of military defeats or high casualties from seeping into the public domain. In this
and similar cases, agenda control is achieved by manipulating the flow of information so as to prevent any conflict
from arising in the first place. So this third dimension of power focuses on manipulating preferences rather than just
preventing their expression.
The implication of these examples is that the most efficient form of power is one that allows us to shape people’s
information and preferences, thus preventing the first and second dimensions from coming into play. Denying people
access to information is one way of achieving this, as in the example of the selective briefings initially provided by the
power company responsible for operating the Japanese nuclear power station which leaked radiation after the 2011
earthquake. Power, then, is not just about whose preferences win out; we must also consider whose opinions are kept
out of the debate and also the wider context in which those preferences are formed.

the state, authority, and legitimacy

We will look at the state in more detail in Chapter 4, but a brief preview is needed here so that we can grasp two
other concepts that lie at the heart of our understanding of government and politics: authority and legitimacy. The
world is divided into nearly 200 states (the exact number, as we will see, is debatable – see Focus 4.1), each containing
a population living within a defined territory, and each recognized by its residents and by other states as having the
right to rule that territory. States provide the legal mandate for the work of governments, allowing them to use the

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  9

authority inherent in the state. We can compare government and politics at multiple levels, from the national to
the local, but it is the state that provides us with our most important point of reference as we work through the
complexities of comparison, and states need both authority and legitimacy in order to function effectively.
Authority is a concept that is broader than power and, in some ways, more fundamental to comparative politics.
Where power is the capacity to act, authority is the acknowledged right to do so. It exists when subordinates accept
the capacity of superiors to give legitimate orders, so that while Russia may exercise some power
over Russians living in neighbouring countries such as Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Kazakh- Authority
stan, its formal authority stops at the Russian border. The German sociologist Max Weber (1922) The right to rule.
Authority creates
suggested that, in a relationship of authority, the ruled implement the command as if they had its own power, so
adopted it spontaneously, for its own sake. For this reason, authority is a more efficient form of long as people
control than brute power.Yet, authority is more than voluntary compliance. To acknowledge the accept that the
authority of your state does not mean you always agree with its decisions; it means only that you person in
accept its right to make them and your own duty to obey. In this way, authority provides the authority has the
right to make
foundation for the state. decisions.
Just as there are different sources of power, so too can authority be built on a range of foun-
dations. Weber distinguished three ways of validating political power:

◆ By tradition, or the accepted way of doing things.

◆ By charisma, or intense commitment to a leader and his or her message.
◆ By appeal to legal–rational norms, based on the rule-governed powers of an office, rather than a person.

This classification remains useful today, even in democracies where we might think that Legitimacy
legal–rational authority is the dominant form. We can also add to Weber’s ideas: much of what The condition of
a leader can or cannot achieve, for example, comes down to competence – or at least, to the being legitimate. A
perception that a leader actually knows what they are doing – and to the extent to which legitimate system
of government is
leaders are able to represent the moral values and ideological goals of their followers. one based on
Legitimacy builds on, but is broader than, authority. When a state is widely accepted by its authority, and
citizens, and by other states with which it deals, we describe it as legitimate. Thus, we speak of the those subject to
authority of an official but the legitimacy of a state. Although the word legitimacy comes from the Latin its rule recognize
legitimare, meaning ‘to declare lawful’, legitimacy is much more than mere legality: where legality its right to make
decisions.
is a technical matter, referring to whether a rule is made correctly by following regular procedures,
legitimacy is a more political concept, referring to whether people accept the authority of a state, Ideology
without which its very existence is in question. A system of
Legality is a topic for lawyers; political scientists are more interested in issues of legitimacy: how connected beliefs,
a political system wins, keeps, and sometimes loses public faith in its right to function. A flourish- a shared view of
ing economy, international success, and a popular governing party will boost the legitimacy of a the world, or a
blueprint for how
political system, even though legitimacy is more than any of these things. In fact, we can think of politics,
legitimacy as the credit a political system has built up from its past successes, a reserve that can be economics, and
drawn down in bad times. In any event, public opinion – not a law court – is the test of legitimacy. society should be
And it is legitimacy, rather than force alone, which provides the most stable foundation for rule. structured.

ideology
The concepts reviewed so far have mainly been about politics, but ideas also play a role in politics: political action is
motivated by the ideas people hold about it. One way to understand this is via the notion of ideology. This is a
term that was coined by the French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy during the 1790s, in the aftermath of the
French Revolution, to describe the science of ideas. Its meaning has long since changed, and it now denotes
packages of ideas related to different views about the role of government and the goals of public policy. An ideology
is today understood as any system of thought expressing a view on human nature, the proper relationship between
state and society, and the individual’s position within this order.
Which specific political outlooks should be regarded as ideologies is a matter of judgement, but Figure 1.1 offers
a selection. In any case, the era of explicit ideology beginning with the French Revolution ended in the twentieth
century with the defeat of fascism in 1945 and the collapse of communism at the end of the 1980s. Ideology seemed

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
10  chapter 1

Ideology Typical features

All forms of governmental authority are unnecessary, and society is best structured around
Anarchism
voluntary cooperation and free association.

Elimination of the state system and private property will lead to the creation of a classless,
Marxism
non-exploitive, and self-governing society.

Individuals are the best judges of their own interests. Advocates a tolerant society which maximizes
Liberalism
personal freedom, and favours a government which is limited but freely elected.

Traditional institutions and practices work best, the free market is the most efficient at meeting
Conservatism
societal needs, and government should be as decentralized as possible.

Supports the achievement of national unity through an authoritarian state, strong leadership, mass
Fascism
mobilization, and an emphasis on nationalism and militarism.

Figure 1.1  Major ideologies: five examples

to have been destroyed by the mass graves it had itself generated. Of course, intellectual currents – such as environ-
mentalism, feminism, and Islamism – continue to circulate, but it is doubtful whether contemporary ideas, values, and
priorities constitute ideologies in the classical sense. To describe any perspective, position, or priority as an ideology
is to extend the term in a manner that bears little relation to its original interpretation as a coherent system of ideas.
Even though the age of ideology may have passed, we still tend to talk about ideologies, placing them – and the p­ olitical
parties with which they are associated – on a spectrum between right and left. For the origins of this habit we turn again
to revolutionary France, where – in the legislative assemblies of the era – royalists sat to the right of the presiding o ­ fficer,
in the traditional p­ osition of honour, while radicals and commoners sat to the left.To be on the right implied support for
aristocratic, royal, and clerical interests, while being on the left implied support for a secular republic and civil liberties.
The words ‘left’ and ‘right’ are still commonly encountered in classifying political parties; see Chapter 16. Hence the
left is associated with equality, human rights, and reform, while the right favours tradition, established authority, and
pursuit of the national interest. The left supports policies to reduce inequality; the right is more accepting of natural
inequalities. The left sympathizes with cultural and ethnic diversity; the right is more comfortable with national unity.
(See Table 1.2 for more details.) Surveys suggest that most voters in democracies can situate themselves as being on the
left or right, even if many simply equate these labels with a particular party or class (Mair, 2009).
Although the terms left and right have travelled well throughout the democratic world, enabling us to compare
­political parties and programmes across countries and time, the specific issues over which these tendencies compete
have varied, and the terms are better understood as labels for containers of ideas, rather than as well-defined ideas in
themselves. The blurring of the distinctions can be seen in Europe, where the left (socialists and communists) once
favoured nationalization of industries and services, and the right (conservatives) supported a free market, but the wide-
spread acceptance of the market economy has meant that the concepts of left and right have lost some bite.

Table 1.2  Contrasting themes of left and right

Left Right
Peace Armed forces
Global outlook National priorities
Democracy Authority, morality, and the constitution
Planning and public ownership Free market
Trade protection Free trade
Social security Social harmony
Education Law and order
Collectivist Individualist
Source: Adapted from Budge (2006).
Note: Based on an analysis of the programmes of left- and right-wing political parties in 50 democracies, 1945–98.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  11

comparative politics
Recent years have seen the rise of political leaders and parties who have based their appeal on a combination of nationalism
(discussed in more depth in Chapter 4) and populism (Chapter 5). In the United States, Britain, France, Hungary,
Poland, India, and the Philippines, to name just a few, we have seen new support for the idea that countries should put
national interests first and build literal and metaphorical barriers with their neighbours and trading partners. What has
been going on here? Why have such similar policies been pursued by such a diverse group of
countries? What impact have these changes had on the health of democracy in those countries? Comparative
We could study each of these countries in isolation, but it would only be through comparing their politics
The systematic
records that we could gain real insight into the motives and thinking behind these trends.
study of
Comparative politics is just one of the major sub-fields of political science (see Figure 1.2), government and
but it is also arguably the most important and the most fundamental. Its core goal is to understand politics in different
how government and politics works by examining its varieties across a range of cases. Compar- countries,
ison has much to offer, including improvements in the simple description of political systems designed to better
understand them
and institutions, helping us understand the broader context within which they work, helping us
by drawing out
develop theories and rules of politics, and showing us how similar problems are approached by their contrasts
different societies. But two particular purposes are worth elaboration: broadening our under- and similarities.
standing of the political world, and predicting political outcomes.

Broadening understanding
The first strength of a comparative approach is straightforward: it improves our understanding of government and
politics. Through comparison we can pin down the key features of political institutions, processes, and actions, and
better appreciate the dynamics and character of political systems. We can study a specific government, legislature,
party system, social movement, or national election in isolation, but to do so would be to deny us the broader context
made possible by comparison. How could we otherwise know if the object of our study was unusual or usual, efficient
or inefficient, the best option available or significantly lacking in some way?
When we talk of understanding, it is not only the need to comprehend other political systems, but also to under-
stand our own.We can follow domestic politics closely and think we have a good grasp on how it works, but we cannot
fully understand it without comparing it with other systems; this will tell us a great deal about the nature of our home
system. Consider the argument made by Dogan and Pelassy (1990):

Because the comprehension of a single case is linked to the understanding of many cases, because we perceive the
particular better in the light of generalities, international comparison increases tenfold the possibility of explaining
political phenomena. The observer who studies just one country could interpret as normal what in fact appears to the
comparativist as abnormal.

Sub-field Subject matter

Comparative
The comparative study of politics and government in different settings.
politics

International The study of relations between and among states, including diplomacy, foreign policy, international
relations organizations, war and peace.

The study of politics and government in the setting of individual states, including institutions and
National politics
political processes.

Political
The study of political philosophy, addressing issues such as authority, ethics, and freedom.
philosophy

Political theory The study of abstract or generalized approaches to understanding political phenomena.

Public policy The study of the positions taken or avoided by governments in response to public needs.

Figure 1.2 Sub-fields of political science

Note: Political science is subdivided differently in different countries and by different academic traditions. Other sub-fields include law, methodology,
political economy, and public administration.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
12  chapter 1

Comparison also has the practical benefit of allowing us to learn about places with which we are unfamiliar. This
ability to interpret events outside our borders grows in importance as globalization continues to deepen and broaden
the political, economic, and social links among us, as events from other parts of the world have a more direct impact on
our lives, and as we find that we can no longer afford to ignore the ‘foreign’. Understanding government and politics
in other systems not only helps us interpret the news, but also helps with practical political relationships. Diplomats, for
example, know the importance of understanding the political, economic, and social realities of the governments with
which they interact and negotiate.

Predicting political outcomes

Comparison helps us make generalizations that can, in theory at least, help us predict the outcome of political events.
Hence a careful study of, say, campaigning and public opinion will help us better understand the possible outcome
of elections. For example, we know from a study of those European countries where proportional representation is
used that its use is closely tied to the presence of more political parties winning seats and the creation of coalition
governments. Similarly, if we know that subcontracting the provision of public services to private agencies increases
their cost-effectiveness in one country, governments elsewhere will see that this is an idea at least worth considering.
If the explanation of a phenomenon is sound, and all the relevant factors have been reviewed and considered, then
it follows that our explanations should allow us to predict with at least a high degree of accuracy, if not with absolute
certainty. But while the study of the physical and natural sciences has generated vast numbers of laws that allow us to
predict physical and natural phenomena, the social sciences have not fared so well. They do not generate laws so much
as theories, tendencies, likelihoods, adages, or aphorisms. A famous example of the latter is Lord Acton’s, that ‘Power
tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely’ (see Chapter 6). While the idea contains much truth,
it is not a rule or a law, and thus cannot be used either to explain or to predict with absolute certainty.
While there is a lot to be said for strengthening predictions by drawing lessons from different countries, and asking
‘what would happen if … ?’ questions, there are many who argue that political science should not – or cannot – be in
the business of predicting to begin with. Karl Popper (1959) long ago asserted that long-term predictions could only
be developed in regard to systems that were ‘well-isolated, stationary, and recurrent’, and human society was not one
of them. More recently, an opinion piece in the New York Times (Stevens, 2012) raised hackles when it argued that in
terms of offering accurate predictions, political science had ‘failed spectacularly and wasted colossal amounts of time
and money’. It went on to assert that no political scientist foresaw the break-up of the Soviet Union, the rise of Al
Qaeda, or the Arab Spring. It quoted an award-winning study of political experts (Tetlock, 2005) which concluded that
‘chimps randomly throwing darts at the possible outcomes would have done almost as well as the experts’.
As we will see in Chapter 2, though, the problem lies less in comparison as such (which, after all, lies at the heart
of the scientific method) than in the way we compare. The results of our research will depend on the number and
the combination of the cases we use, the depth of information we have about each case, the reliability of our data, the
research methods we use, and the extent to which we allow biases and assumptions to shape our research. Despite the
pioneering role of the ancient Greeks, government and politics have been studied in a structured manner for barely
a century, there is still a great deal that we do not fully understand, and there are still many vigorous debates about
meaning and interpretation. Comparison has opened up new horizons and exciting new possibilities as we learn more
about the sheer variety of forms in which government and politics can be found.

classifying political systems

Although the political systems of states have many core elements in common – an executive, a legislature, courts,
a constitution, parties, and interest groups, for example – the manner in which these elements work and relate to
Typology one another is often different. The results are also different: some states are clearly democratic,
A system of some are clearly authoritarian, and others sit somewhere along a spectrum between these two
classification by core points of reference. To complicate matters, political systems are moving targets: they
which states, evolve and change, and often at a rapid pace. In order to make sense of this confusing picture,
institutions,
it is helpful to have a guide through the maze.
processes, political
cultures, and so A typology is a system of classification that divides states into groups or clusters with common
on are divided into features. With this in hand, we can make broad assumptions about the states in each group, using
groups or types case studies to provide more detailed focus, and thus work more easily to develop explanations
with common sets and rules, and to test theories of political phenomena (Yin, 2018). The ideal typology is one that
of attributes.
is simple, neat, consistent, logical, and as real and useful to the casual observer as it is to journalists,

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  13

political leaders, or political scientists. Unfortunately, such an ideal has proved hard to achieve; scholars of comparative
politics disagree about the value of typologies, and even those who use them cannot agree on the criteria that should
be taken into account, or the groups into which states should be divided, or the labels to use, or even which states to
place in each group.
The first attempt at developing such a system – and one of the earliest examples of comparative politics at work –
was Aristotle’s classification of the 158 city-states of Ancient Greece. Between approximately 500 and 338 bce, these
communities were small settlements showing much variety in their forms of rule, providing him with an ideal labora-
tory in which to consider which type of political system provided what he looked for in a government: stability and
effectiveness.
Aristotle based his scheme on two dimensions.The first was the number of people involved in the task of governing:
one, few, or many. This dimension captured the breadth of participation in a political system. His second dimension,
more difficult to apply but no less important, was whether rulers governed in the common interest (‘the genuine form’)
or in their own interest (‘the perverted form’). For Aristotle, the significance of this second aspect was that a political
system would be more stable and effective when its rulers governed in the long-term interests of the community.
Cross-classifying the number of rulers with the nature of rule yielded the six types of government shown in Figure 1.3.
Another example of an attempt to build a typology was The Spirit of the Laws, a treatise on political theory written
by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, and first published in 1748. He identified three types: republican sys-
tems in which the people or some of the people had supreme power, monarchical systems in which one person ruled
on the basis of fixed and established laws, and despotic systems in which a single person ruled on
the basis of their own priorities and perspectives. Three Worlds
Both typologies remain interesting as historical examples, but the political realities out of which system
they were formed have long since changed. A more recent example that was current throughout A political
much of the Cold War (late 1940s to late 1980s) was the Three Worlds system. Less a formal typology that
divided the world
classificatory template developed by political scientists than a response to geopolitical realities, it along ideological
divided the world into three groups of countries based on ideological goals and political alliances: lines, with states
labelled according
◆ First World: wealthy, democratic industrialized states, most of which were partners in the to the side they
Western alliance against communism. took in the Cold
War.
◆ Second World: communist systems, including most of those states ranged against the
Western alliance.
◆ Third World: poorer, less democratic, and less developed states, some of which took sides in the Cold War, but
some of which did not.

The system was simple and evocative, providing neat labels that could be slipped with ease into media headlines
and everyday conversation: even today the term Third World conjures up powerful images of poverty,
underdevelopment, corruption, and political instability. But it was always more descriptive than analytical in the
Aristotelean spirit, and was also dangerously simplistic. The First and Second Worlds had the most internal logic
and consistency, but to consider almost all the states of Africa, Asia, and Latin America as a single Third World was
asking too much: some were democratic while others were authoritarian; some were wealthy while others were
poor; and some were industrialized while others were agrarian.
The end of the Cold War meant the end of this particular typology, but nothing has replaced it in the sense of having
won general support. There have been many candidates, though, of which two in particular – the Democracy Index
maintained by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and the Freedom in the World index maintained by Freedom House –
are among the most often quoted (see Focus 1.2).They are not perfect: questions can be asked about the methodologies

Rule by

One Few Many

Form Genuine Kingship Aristocracy Polity
Perverted Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Figure 1.3 Aristotle’s classification of governments

Source: Aristotle (1962 edn: Book 3, Chapter 5).

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
14  chapter 1

Focus 1.2
Two options for classifying political systems
With political scientists unable to develop and agree a means of classifying political systems, it has been left
to the non-academic world to step into the breach. The two most compelling typologies (used in this book)
are the following:

◆ The UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU, related to The Economist, a British weekly news magazine)
maintains a Democracy Index based on 60 different measures. These include such factors as the
protection of basic political freedoms, the fairness of elections, the security of voters, election turnout
rates, the freedom of political parties to operate, the independence of the judiciary and the media, and
arrangements for the transfer of power. It then gives states a score out of ten, and divides them into four
groups: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. In the 2017
index, Norway ranked highest with a score of 9.87 and North Korea lowest with a score of 1.08.
◆ The Freedom in the World index has been published annually since 1972 by Freedom House, a US-based
research institute. It looks at the records of states in the areas of political rights (the ability of people to
participate in the political process) and civil liberties (including freedom of expression, the independence
of the judiciary, personal autonomy, and economic rights), and gives each state a score out of 100, rating
them as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free. Several countries – including Syria and North Korea – have
sometimes been ranked in the index as the ‘Worst of the Worst’.

Table 1.3 combines the results of these two typologies, focusing on the 18 cases used in this book, while also
including examples of countries with the highest and lowest scores on each index. In both indices there have
been worrying declines in recent years, the authors of both reports commenting on the kind of reversals of
democracy we will examine in other parts of this book. Among the more notable changes of recent years were
the downgrading by the EIU of the United States, Japan, and France from full democracies to flawed democracies.

Very high Medium Data unavailable

High Low

Map 1.1 The Human Development Index

Source: United Nations Development Programme (2017).

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  15

Table 1.3  Comparative political ratings

Democracy Index Freedom in the World

Score Category Score Freedom rating
Norway 9.87 Full democracy 100 Free
Sweden* 9.39 Full democracy 100 Free
Canada 9.15 Full democracy 99 Free
New Zealand 9.26 Full democracy 98 Free
Germany* 8.61 Full democracy 94 Free
UK* 8.53 Full democracy 94 Free
USA* 7.98 Flawed democracy 86 Free
Japan* 7.88 Flawed democracy 96 Free
France* 7.80 Flawed democracy 90 Free
South Africa* 7.24 Flawed democracy 78 Free
India * 7.23 Flawed democracy 77 Free
Brazil* 6.86 Flawed democracy 78 Free
Mexico* 6.41 Flawed democracy 62 Partly Free
Nigeria* 4.44 Hybrid 50 Partly Free
Bangladesh 5.43 Hybrid 45 Partly Free
Kenya 5.11 Hybrid 48 Partly Free
Turkey* 4.88 Hybrid 32 Not Free
Thailand 4.63 Hybrid 31 Not Free
Venezuela* 3.87 Authoritarian 26 Not Free
Egypt* 3.36 Authoritarian 26 Not Free
Russia* 3.17 Authoritarian 20 Not Free
China* 3.10 Authoritarian 14 Not Free
Iran* 2.45 Authoritarian 18 Not Free
Saudi Arabia 1.93 Authoritarian 7 Not Free
North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian 3 Not Free
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit (2017) and Freedom House (2018).
Note: * Cases used in this book. European Union is not rated.

upon which they are based, we should take into consideration the agendas and values of the EIU and Freedom House,
and we should beware the danger of taking classifications and rankings too literally; government and politics are too
complex to be reduced to a single table. Nonetheless, these rankings give us a useful point of reference and a guide
through an otherwise confusing world, and we will use them in the chapters that follow.
We will go further and also use some economic and social data to help us find our way through the maze. The
­relationship between politics and economics in particular is so intimate that – as we will see in Chapter 20 – there is an
entire field of study devoted to its examination, called political economy.This involves looking not just at the structure
and wealth of economies, but also at the influences on economic performance: good governance is more likely to
produce a successful economy, and bad governance less so.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
16  chapter 1

Gross The core measure of economic activity is output. There are various ways of measuring this,
domestic the most popular today being gross domestic product (GDP) (see Table 1.4). This is the sum
product of the value of the domestic and foreign economic output of the residents of a country in a
The core measure given year, and is usually converted to US dollars to allow comparison. Although the accuracy
of the size of of the data itself varies by country, and the conversion to dollars raises additional questions
economies,
calculated by
about the appropriate exchange rate, such measures are routinely used by governments and
giving a monetary international organizations in measuring economic size. While GDP provides a measure of the
value to all goods absolute size of national economies, however, it does not take into account population size. For
and services a more revealing comparison, we use per capita GDP, which gives us a better idea of the relative
produced within a economic development of different states.
country in a given
year, regardless of
Finally, we must not forget the importance of gauging political systems by looking at their
who owns the relative performances in terms of providing their citizens with basic needs. There are different
different means of ways of understanding ‘basic needs’, but at a minimum they would include adequate nutrition,
production. education, and health care, and in this regard the most often-used comparative measure of social
conditions is the Human Development Index main-
Table 1.4 Comparing economic size tained by the UN Development Programme. Using a
combination of life expectancy, adult literacy, educa-
Country GDP Per capita tional enrolment, and per capita GDP, it rates human
(billion US $) GDP (US $) development for most of the states in the world as either
United States 19,390 59,531 very high, high, medium, or low. On the 2017 index,
European Union 17,278 33,715
most democracies were in the top 30, while the poorest
states ranked at the bottom of the table, with Niger in
China 12,238 8,827 last place at 187 (see Map 1.1).
Japan 4,872 38,428
Germany 3,677 44,470
UK 2,622 39,720
India 2,597 1,940
France 2,582 38,477
Brazil 2,055 9,821
Canada 1,653 45,032
Russia 1,577 10,743
Australia 1,323 53,800
Mexico 1,150 8,902
Turkey 851 10,540
Sweden 538 53,442
Iran 439 5,415
Nigeria 375 1,969
South Africa 349 6,160
Egypt 235 2,412
New Zealand 205 42,940
Burundi 3 320
WORLD 80,684 10,714
Source: World Bank (2018).
Note: Data are for 2017. Data for Venezuela not available.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
key concepts  17

discussion questions
◆ What is government?
◆ What is politics? Where does it begin and end?
◆ Who has power, who does not, and how do we know?
◆ Does it necessarily follow that to be a democracy is to be legitimate, and to be legitimate
is to be a democracy?
◆ Are the ideological distinctions in modern political systems as important and as clear as
they once were?
◆ What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Democracy Index and Freedom in the World
as means of classifying political systems?

key concepts
◆ Authority ◆ Legitimacy
◆ Comparative politics ◆ Political science
◆ Concept ◆ Political system
◆ Governance ◆ Politics
◆ Government ◆ Power
◆ Gross domestic product ◆ Social science
◆ Ideology ◆ Three Worlds system
◆ Institution ◆ Typology

further reading
Boix, Carles, and Susan C. Stokes (eds) (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics
(Oxford University Press). At more than 1,000 pages in length, this is a rich survey of the
many different dimensions of comparative politics.
Dogan, Mattei, and Dominique Pelassy (1990) How to Compare Nations: Strategies in Comparative
Politics, 2nd edn (Chatham House). Although published many years ago, the arguments
made by this short and readable book are still relevant.
Goodin, Robert E. (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (Oxford University Press).
Another in the Oxford handbook series, offering a survey of the different facets of the
study of political science.
Heywood, Andrew (2017) Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 6th edn (Red Globe Press). An
informative and wide-ranging textbook that successfully introduces influential political
creeds and doctrines.
Peter, Fabienne (2011) Democratic Legitimacy (Routledge). An exploration of the components of
legitimacy in democracies, and the ways in which the concept has been understood and
interpreted.
Woodward, Kath (2014) Social Sciences: The Big Issues, 3rd edn (Routledge). A useful general
survey of the social sciences and the kinds of issues they include.

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

index
References for concept definitions personal rule  96–7, 137–8, 321, 339 organization  166–7, 170–2
are shown in bold. political communication  246–50 origins and evolution  161–5
political culture  211–14 outsourcing  163
political economy  352–3, 356–7 recruitment 172–3
A political participation  227–9, 232
political parties  282–5
red tape  161
regulatory agency  171–2
absolute monarchy  95–6, 137 public policy  337–40 spoils system  162
see also constitutional monarchy ruling parties  97–8 unified recruitment  172
accountability (bureaucracy)  174 sub-national government  193–7 Weber’s model of  161–3, 167, 170,
Acton, Lord  12, 102 theocracy  99, 102 174, 176
Afghanistan  99, 195 totalitarianism  97, 101, 103 Burke, Edmund  143, 235
affirmative action see bureaucracy voters 298–304 
anarchism 10 see also hybrid regimes
Arab Spring  xiii, 90, 96, 98, 99, 137, authority 5, 9, 54, 55, 56, 59–60, 63, 77, C
209, 213, 248 95, 102, 116–17, 121, 184, 190, 193
and online activism  249 cabinet  129, 134–5, 226
origins and events  84–5, 93 cabinet government  132–3, 166
Argentina  175, 182, 226 B Canada 148
bureaucracy  162, 173
Aristotle  5, 13, 36, 72
assembly see legislature Bagehot, Walter  126 elections 255
Athens, Ancient  72, 73, 142 behaviouralism 21, 153, 167 200, interest groups  311
Australia  112, 209 288, 293 legislature 152
bureaucracy 166  Belarus 96 multiculturalism  30, 189
city government  194 Belgium  63, 126, 184 multinationalism 63
constitution 111 Botswana 356 capitalism  26, 79, 345, 346, 347, 353
electoral system  256 Brazil career politicians  154
federalism 190 authoritarianism 175 cartel party  282
legislature 144 and BRICs  61, 352 case study method  36–9
political culture  200 executive 131 catch-all party  272
political parties  275 legislature 153 checks and balances  77, 125, 149
referendums 261 political parties  278 China
voting 296 Spotlight 130–1 as authoritarian state  8, 101
Austria  45, 113, 265 vote buying  294 and BRICs  61, 352
authoritarian rule  90 women in politics  226 bureaucracy  161, 174
absolute monarchy  95–6, 137 BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, Communist Party  97, 101, 121–2,
authoritarian regime  91–4 China)  61, 348, 352 139, 150, 158, 196, 228, 248,
bureaucracies 173–7 see also individual countries 267, 274, 319, 353
bureaucratic authoritarianism  175 Britain see United Kingdom as communist state  97–8, 346, 347
civil society  319–20, 321 broadcasting 236–7 constitution and courts  121–2
clientelism  228 bureaucracy  161 crony capitalism  176
coercion  93, 288, 338 accountability 174 elections 267
communist parties  97–8 administrative capacity  176 executive 139
constitutions and courts  119–22 affirmative action  172–3 interest groups  319, 322
corruption  102–4 in authoritarian states  173–7 legislature  150, 154, 157–8
cult of personality  97, 103 bureaucratic authoritarianism  175 political communication  243, 248
despotism 90, 93 crony capitalism  176, 353 political participation  228, 229
forms of authoritarian rule  94–9 departmental recruitment  172 political parties  274
elections 266–8 departments  166–7, 170 political trust  208
electoral authoritarianism  299, 302 developmental state  176 public policy  340
executives 136–9 divisions  170 regional government  183
interest groups  318–19, 322 e-government  165–6 Spotlight 100–1
Islamic Republic  99, 119, 121, 300 meritocracy  161 state 55–6
legislatures 155–8 new public management  162–4 state capitalism  353
military government  98–9 non-departmental public sub-national government  39
patronage  94, 102, 104, 162, 193, bodies  171–2 Taiwan 54
229, 304 ombudsman  174 unitary government  184, 196

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
index  375

Christian democracy  272 consumer politics  221 structural violence  77

Churchill, Winston  71, 93, 252 convergence thesis  347 waves of democratization  79, 82–3
citizen, defined  55–6 cooperative federalism  188 democratization  21–2, 23, 71, 79,
city government  194 corporatism  322 82–3, 83–5, 98, 157, 176
civic culture  203 corruption  25, 85, 91, 92, 94, 102–4, Denmark  103, 133, 221, 275
civil law  116, 117–18, 119 137, 174, 175, 208, 274, 294 dependency theory  351
civil liberties  76, 90, 91 in China  101, 139, 176 despotism 90, 93
civil service see bureaucracy in Mexico  277 development, defined 351
civil society  91, 92, 232, 303, 307 in Nigeria  214 developmental state  176
authoritarian states  319–20, 321 in Russia  340 devolution 62, 111, 182–3, 197
Clausewitz, Carl von  5 cost–benefit analysis  326 dictatorship  4, 71, 83, 94, 97, 136,
clientelism  228 council of ministers see cabinet 139, 197, 282, 284
coalition government  12, 38, 132, counterfactual  46 direct democracy see democracy
133, 144, 254, 256, 330, 349 coup d’etat  7, 40, 82, 83, 86, 91, 93, 97, Doing Business Index  336
coercion see authoritarian rule 98–9, 138, 139, 320, 338, 353 dual federalism  188
cohabitation  135 courts
Cold War  13, 20, 21, 75, 83, 85, 86, abstract review  112
208, 352
collective action problem  27, 314
appellate  113
in authoritarian states  119–22
E
collective decision making  2, 5, concrete review 112–13 echo chamber  238, 239, 293
71, 217 constitutional courts  113 economic development  16, 62, 77–8,
colonial/ism  21, 40 judicial activism  113, 116 79, 175, 176, 327, 340
and Latin America  351 judicial independence  117 economic nationalism  343, 347
decolonization  53, 79 judicial restraint  113, 116 economic system  344
effects on Africa  214 judicial review  110–11 economics, defined  344
postcolonial/ism  57, 59, 195 judiciary  110, 113, 116 Economist Intelligence Unit  14
command economy  103, 346 juristocracy 111 e-democracy  72–3
committees see legislatures original jurisdiction  113 e-government 161, 165–6
common law  107, 116–17 role of  110–13 Egypt 228–9
communism/communist  13, 39, 42, supreme courts  112–13 and Arab Spring  137–8, 213–14,
90, 346, 351 systems of law  116–19 249
communist parties  97–8, 139, 150, critical juncture  44, 45 as authoritarian regime  99, 119,
177, 273, 274 crony capitalism  176, 353 213–14
and elections  267, 299 Cuba  42, 212 courts 120
and interest groups  319 cult of personality  97, 103 elections  267–8, 302
and public policy  340 cultural approach to comparison  interest groups  321
see also China, Communist Party 30–1, 48 legislature 157
comparative method  36 political parties  98
comparative politics  11 Spotlight 320–1 
challenges of comparison  46–50
classifying political systems  12–15
D voting 302
election campaigns  281, 291, 303
comparing economies  15–16 Dahl, Robert  8, 21, 235 elections 253
goals and purposes  11–12 de facto states  60 in authoritarian states  266–8
and prediction Democracy Index  13, 14, 71, 75, 78, ballot stuffing  268
see also research methods, theoretical 86, 90, 92 closed primary 280
approaches democratic rule  71 distribution requirements  260
concept, defined  2 checks and balances  77, 125, 149 electoral formula  253
confederation  44, 47, 190 civil liberties  76, 90, 91 electoral fraud  102, 268, 304
confirmation bias  47–8 democracy, defined  71 electoral messages  259
constitutional courts see courts democratization 83–5 executive 258–61
constitutional monarchy  96, 126 direct democracy  72–3 first-order  253
see also absolute monarchy e-democracy  72–3 franchise 256
constitutions  107 future of democracy  85–7 initiatives  265, 266
amendments  111, 112 liberal democracy  76–7 legislative 253–8
in authoritarian states  119–22 liberalism 76 mandate  258, 259
character 107–9 limited government  76 primary election  280, 263
codified constitution  107–8 modern/modernization 77–8 recalls  265–6 
durability 109–10 modernization and second-order  253
entrenchment  111 democracy 77–9 see also referendums
flexible constitution  111 number of democracies  75 electoral authoritarianism  299, 302
rigid constitution  111 political regime 83 electoral college  126, 152
rule of law  91, 107, 110, 122, 157 populism  xiii, 22, 87, 206, 244, United States  260, 263
systems of law  116–19 245, 289–90, 291, 319, 346, 355 electoral formula  253
uncodified constitutions  107–8 representative democracy  73–5 electoral systems  253

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
376  index

executive 258–61 multi-level  180–1

legislative 253–8 F government, defined  2–4
majority system  255–6 failing state  67 limited government  76
mixed system  257–8 fair trade  221, 352 representative 73–5
plurality system  255  fascism  10, 57  self-government  71, 72, 73
proportional representation  26, federal systems  180, 184–5, 188–90 grand theory  21
43, 131, 156, 226, 253, 256–7, confederations  44, 47, 190 Greece  13, 72, 203
280, 298 cooperative federalism  188 financial crisis  45, 337
single-member plurality see plurality dual federalism gross domestic product  16
system quasi federation  190
electoral volatility  303
elite political culture  201
Finland  68, 132, 174, 224
flexible constitution  111 H
el-Sisi, Abdel Fattah  98, 138, 157, focus group  40, 222 Haiti 109
213–14, 268, 321 fourth estate  235 as hybrid regime  91
end of history  xiii, 85 France political parties  285
England see United Kingdom bureaucracy 170 Hamilton, Alexander  109, 223
entrenchment  111 economic nationalism  347 head of government  125–7, 129,
European Union  41, 46, 166, 242, elections  152, 153, 255–6, 259–60 134, 139
329, 331, 353, 354, 355 personality of leaders  295 head of state  125–7, 129, 134–5,
Brexit see United Kingdom political culture  206 138, 139
Bureaucracy 174 revolutionary era  10, 212 Hobbes, Thomas  3, 223, 345
compared to the USA  191 semi-presidential system  135 Human Development Index  16
confederation 190 social movements  316  Huntington, Samuel
Court of Justice  112, 116 Spotlight 186–7 Clash of Civilizations 208–10
democracy  75, 83 sub-national government  187 waves of democracy  79, 82–3
electoral system  256 trade unions  45 Hussain, Saddam  304
elitist political culture  201 voter turnout  296–7 hybrid regimes  14, 90–1, 92, 196
European Commission  170 Freedom House  13, 14, 15, 86, 87, constitutions 121
governance 4 245, 246–7, 310 elections 267
Greek financial crisis  45 freedom of speech  77 interest groups  322
interest groups  313  French Revolution  9, 55, 56, 220 legislatures 155–6
multilevel governance  181
political communication  235, 248
public opinion  222
political parties  284
referendums  261, 264, 265
regional integration  184
G
regulations 172
Spotlight 64–5
garbage-can policy model  325, 326,
328
I
system of governance  44 gendered institution  225–6 Iceland  63, 108
voters 289 see also women in government and identity politics 201, 202
executives  125 politics ideology  9–10, 45, 47, 200
absolute monarchy  95–6, 137 Germany  5, 30, 97, 337 anarchism 10
in authoritarian states  136–9 Bureaucracy 170 fascism  10, 57 
cabinet  129, 132–3, 134–5, coalition governments  133 incremental policy model  327–8
166, 226 constitution (Basic Law)  82, 111 India  39, 82, 243
cabinet government  132–3, 166 constitutional court  113 and BRICs  61, 352
coalition government  133 electoral system  257–8 coalitions 133
constitutional monarchy  96, 126 executive (chancellor)  132 constitution 109–10
dictatorship  4, 71, 83, 94, 97, 136, federalism 188 democracy  78, 81
139, 197, 282, 284 political culture  203, 205 economy 62
head of government  125–7, 129, political parties  279 electoral system  255
134, 139 Spotlight 204–5 federalism 188
head of state  125–7, 129, 134–5, welfare state  350 legislature  143, 150
138, 139 gerrymandering 156, 263, 268 local government  192
limited presidential global city  194 multiculturalism 201
executive  127–9, 135 Global Competitiveness Index  political parties  278–9
ministerial government  132–4 174–5 Spotlight 80–1
parliamentary executive  129, global financial crisis  61, 208, 352 structural violence  77
132–4, 142 globalization  xiii, 12, 19, 66, 206, voters 294
personal rule  96–7, 137–8, 321, 339 344, 347 Inglehart, Ronald  203, 206, 210–11
presidential executive  126, 127–9, and comparison  49–50 initiatives  265, 266
131, 136 and identity politics  202 institution, defined  2
semi-presidential executive  134–5 and political communication  243, institutionalism  23–5, 29, 150
separation of powers  128 246 institutionalization  24–5, 137
unlimited presidential and the state  67 interest groups  307
executive 131, 136 governance, defined  4 in authoritarian states  318–19, 322

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
index  377

channels of influence  310–12 as nation state  63 Mao Zedong  5, 100, 101, 346, 353
corporatism  322  nuclear disaster  8 Marx, Karl  26, 161, 346
density  312–13 political culture  201 Marxism  10, 45, 97, 346
dynamics of groups  314–18 political parties  274  mass media  235–7
ingredients of influence  312–14 Spotlight 168–9 see also political communication,
iron triangle  317, 318 judiciary see courts social media
issue network  317 media influence  240–2
lobbying  307, 311, 312, 313 agenda-setting  241, 242
origins and types  307–10 K framing  241, 242
peak association  309 priming  241, 242
Kenya  237, 304, 316
pluralism  22, 92, 118, 181, reinforcement  241
Keynes, John Maynard  57, 347
314–16, 322 self-selection  241–2
KOF Globalization Index  49
promotional group  308, 309 transmission model  240–1
Kurds 62–3 
protective group  308, 309, 317 meritocracy  161
Kuwait 
revolving door  176, 312 Mexico
social movements  316–17, 318 corporatism 322 
think tank  47, 120, 310, 318, 348 
see also civic culture, civil society
L democratization 84
electoral system  258
intergovernmental law, systems of  116–19 federalism 189 
organizations  66–7 see also constitutions; courts political culture  203 
internet  72, 163, 182 legislatures  142 political parties  84, 277
access 239–40 in authoritarian states  155–8 Spotlight 276–7
and Arab Spring  248–9 committee-based legislature  145  term limits  156, 260
control of  248 committees  145, 148  women in politics  226
e-democracy  72–3 co-option  155 Michels, Robert  279
e-government 161, 165–6 debating legislature  145  microeconomics  344
and fake news  239 elections 253–8 microstates  59 
and interest groups  315 functions  142–5, 148 military government  98–9
and political communication  model of representation  153 coup d’etat  7, 40, 82, 83, 86, 91,
238–40, 243, 246, 250 plenary session  145 93, 97, 98–9, 138, 139, 320,
and political participation  218 political class  154 338, 353
and public opinion surveys  220, 221 representatives 153–5 Mill, John Stuart  63, 223, 343, 347
trolls 73 role of  142–5, 148  ministerial government  132–4
see also social media separation of powers  128 mobilized participation  229, 232
interpretive approach to size of  150 modern/modernization  77–8
comparison  31–3, 242, 259, 288 strong bicameralism  151  Moltke, Helmuth von  332
Iran  4, 44 term limits  156, 160 monarchy
electoral manipulation  268 unicameral and bicameral  148–53 absolute  95–6, 137
human rights  121 vote of confidence 148 constitutional 96, 126
media 94 weak bicameralism  149–51 Moore, Barrington  29
no-party system  273 women in  226 Mugabe, Robert  96–7, 120, 339
revolution  32, 39 legitimacy, defined  9 multiculturalism  30, 39, 189, 201
Spotlight 300–1 level of analysis  36 multi-level governance  180–1
theocracy  99, 102 liberal democracy  76–7 multinational state  63
voters 301 see also democratic rule
iron law of oligarchy  279 liberalism
iron triangle  317, 318 democratic  76, 213 N
Islam and politics  86, 91, 95, 118–19, economic, classical  343, 345–6
nation, defined  62
121, 193, 213, 248, 273 economic, modern  347
nation-state  63
Clash of Civilizations, The 208–10 ideological 10
nationalism  xiii, 11, 39–40, 62–3,
see also sharia law Libya  85, 93
66, 282
Islamic republic  99, 119, 121, 300 limited government  76 
economic  343, 347
Israel  82, 116, 256, 257 limited presidential executive  127–9,
natural rights  56
issue network 317 135
neoliberalism  346, 347, 355
issue voter 291–3 lobbying  307, 311, 312, 313
Netherlands
Italy  82, 144, 145 local government  190–3
bureaucracy 172
Locke, John  3, 56, 76, 142, 345
coalition governments  132–3
Lukes, Steven  5, 8
J electoral system  280
resource curse  356
Japan  78, 337
bureaucracy  166, 169, 176
M new institutionalism  23
new public management  162–4
electoral system  257 Machiavelli, Niccolò  20, 26, 223 New Zealand  170
executive 133–4  macroeconomics  344, 345 bureaucracy 163 
interest groups  316–17 Malaysia  126, 190, 213 constitution  111, 116 
iron triangle  317 mandate, electoral  258, 259 corruption 103 

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
378  index

interest groups  313 internet troll  238 welfare economics  347

local government  192 mass media  235–6  welfare state  57, 162, 203, 297,
women in politics  224 media types  236–7 347, 348–51
newspapers 226 post-truth  239 political exclusion  219
Nigeria  48, 116, 166, 202, 296 propaganda 242, 247–8 political institutions  25
elections  260, 267 trends in  242–3, 246 see also bureaucracy; courts;
federalism 189 see also media influence, social executives; interest groups;
government and politics 7 media legislatures; political parties
legislature 41–2 political culture  200 political leaders see executives
military government  98–9, in authoritarian states  211–14 political participation  217
139, 173 civic culture  202–3 in authoritarian states 
political culture  214 Clash of Civilizations, The  227–9, 232
political parties  282–3  208–10 clientelism  228
political violence  303–4 elite political culture  201 conventional forms  217
Spotlight 6–7 identity politics  201, 202 mobilized participation 
sub national government  Inglehart-Welzel cultural 229, 232
193, 195 map 210–11 paradox of participation 219
night-watchman state  345, 350 multiculturalism  30, 39, 189, 201 patterns of  217–20
nimby 308 political capital political exclusion  219
non-governmental organizations political trust  207–8, 212 unconventional forms  217
(NGOs) see interest groups post-materialism 46, 203, 206 see also public opinion; women in
North Korea  14, 137 and revolutions  212 government and politics
authoritarianism 97 understanding political political parties  271
corruption 104  culture 200–2 in authoritarian states  282–5
mobilized participation  232 political economy  343  candidates 280
propaganda 247–8 in authoritarian states  352–3, cartel parties  281–2
totalitarianism 103 356–7 catch-all party  272
capitalism  26, 79, 345, 346, iron law of oligarchy  279
347, 353 money, role of  281
O see also crony capitalism niche parties  278
command economy  103, 346 organization 279–82
Obama, Barack  38, 113, 116, 212, communism  13, 39, 42, 90, origins and roles  271–2
243, 260, 295 346, 351 partisan dealignment  289,
Oman  95, 273 comparative  345–8 290, 292
ombudsman  174 comparative economic party leaders  279–80
O’Neill, Tip  192 freedom 348 party systems  272–5, 278–9
opinion poll see public opinion convergence thesis 347 political cleavage  271–2
orientalism  31 dependency theory 351 primary election  280, 263
Ostrogorski, Moisei  271 development, defined  351 ruling parties  97–8
economic nationalism  347 safe district  279
P economic system  344
economics  344
selectorate  279, 280
political regime  83
Paine, Thomas  73 externalities 346 political science  xii, 2, 11, 12, 19–20,
Pakistan 226 fair trade  221, 352 21, 23, 26, 36
parliamentary executive  129, global financial crisis  61, 208, political system  xii, xiii, 2, 3–4, 9, 11,
132–4, 142 352 20, 25, 32, 77, 99, 200, 203, 217,
parties see political parties liberalism, classical  345–6 271, 280
partisan dealignment  289, 290, 292 liberalism, modern  347 classification of  12–16
party identification  288–90 macroeconomics  344, 345 political theory see theoretical
path dependence  44 markets, defined  344 approaches
patronage  94, 102, 104, 162, 193, microeconomics  344 political trust  207–8, 212
229, 304 neoliberalism 346, 347, 355 political violence  303–4
personal rule  96–7, 137–8, 321, 339 new political economy  343 politics, defined  4–5 
Philippines 258 night-watchman state  345, 350 populism  xiii, 22, 87, 206, 244, 245,
pluralism  22, 92, 118, 181, radicalism 346 289–90, 291, 319, 346, 355
314–16, 322 rent-seeking  340, 347, 357 post-materialism 46, 203, 206
political cleavage  271–2 rentier state  357 post-truth  239
political communication  235 resource curse  94, 197, 356 power, defined  5, 8
in authoritarian states  246–50 social security  166, 206, 333, presidential executive  126, 127–9,
bots  238–9 340, 349 131, 136
digital media  238–40 state capitalism  343, 353 limited 127–9, 135
echo chamber  238, 239, 293 state socialism  346, 353, 355 unlimited 131, 136
fake news  239 understanding political primary election  280, 263
fourth estate  235 economy 343–5 propaganda 242, 247–8

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
index  379

proportional representation  26, research methods in comparative Schumpeter, Joseph  73–4

43, 131, 156, 226, 253, 256–7, politics 36 secularization 291
280, 298 case study method  36–9 selectorate 280, 279
public opinion  220 challenges of comparison  46–50 self-determination  62
deliberative opinion poll  222 comparative method  36 semi-presidential executive  134–5
dynamics of public opinion  confirmation bias  47–8 separation of powers 128
222–3 correlation  41, 43, 78, 206, 258, sharia law  7, 118–19 
focus group  222 296 Singapore, political parties  274
opinion poll  220–2 counterfactual  46 single-member plurality see elections
sample survey  220–2 critical juncture  44, 45 social class 288, 291
uninformed citizens  223 dependent variable  39, 40, 41, 47  social media  108, 238, 240, 246
public policy  325 generalizability 46–7 and the Arab Spring  249
in authoritarian states  337–40 historical method  43–5 in authoritarian states  250
bottom-up implementation  331 hypothesis  40, 42 e-democracy  72–3
coercion 337 independent variable  40, 41 and elections  38, 74
cost-benefit analysis  326 level of analysis  36 and fake news  239
garbage-can model  325, 326, 328 methodology  36  interest groups  311, 315
incremental model  327–8  most different/similar systems  40–1 political communication
policy analysis  325 outliers  41–2  political participation  217, 219
policy convergence  333, 336–7 path dependence  44  public opinion  220
policy cycle  328–32 process tracing  44 see also internet
policy diffusion  332–3  qualitative method  39–41 social movements  316–17, 318
policy entrepreneurs  330 quantitative method  41–3  social science  2, 12, 19, 21, 26, 343
policy models  325–8 regression line  41  social security  166, 206, 333, 340,
policy outcomes  331 selection bias  46–7, 295 349
policy outputs  331 sequencing  44–5 Somalia 336
and political survival  339 slow-moving cause  45 corruption 104
rational model  326–7 survivorship bias  47 elections 266
sticks, carrots and sermons  329 unit of analysis  36  instability of state  60
top-down implementation  330–1 value bias  47 South Africa
Putin, Vladimir  28–9, 85, 122, 138, variable  40  as quasi-federation  190
209, 229, 268, 322, 338 resource curse    94, 197, 356 constitution  109, 115 
approval ratings  212 revolving door  176, 312 executive 129 
political methods/style  139, 157, rule of law  91, 107, 110, 122, 157 legislature 148
177, 196, 250, 353 Russia 77 political institutionalization  25
authoritarianism in  44, 47, 85–6 political parties  274 
bureaucracy  175, 177 Spotlight 114–15 
Q constitution and courts  122  South Korea  176, 212–13
electoral manipulation  38, 74, 268 sovereignty 53, 55, 56, 59, 180, 181,
qualitative method  39–41 executive 138–9 182, 184
quantitative method  41–3 interest groups  322 Spain  112, 117, 126
quasi-federation  190 legislature 157 sub-national government  182–3
quasi-state 60 political communication  249–50 spoils system  162
political culture  209, 211–12 state  53
R political economy  346, 353
political participation  231 
citizenship  55
de facto states  60
rational choice theory  21, 26–9, 142, political parties  284–5 diversity of  59–62
219, 293, 297, 314 presidential elections  285 emergence 55–7
rational policy model  326–7 public policy  340 expansion 57–9
recalls  265–6 Spotlight 230–1  failing state  67–8
referendums  4, 72, 91, 108, 111, 257, sub-national government  196 features 53–5
261, 264–5, 302, 354 trust in government  208, 212 future  63, 66–8
Australia 261 and Ukraine  9, 59, 212 income 60–2
Brexit  66, 222 voters  28–9, 303 microstates  59
Scotland  146, 183 nations and nationalism  62–3
regional government  183–4 natural rights  56
regional integration  4, 65
see also European Union
S number 54
origins and evolution  55–9
regulatory agency  171–2 Said, Edward  31 political authority  59–60
religious law  118–19 Saudi Arabia  155, 225 population 59
rent-seeking  340, 347, 357 as absolute monarchy  96, 137 quasi-states  60 
rentier state  357 no-party system  273 security state  66 
representative democracy see political culture  209  sovereignty 53, 55, 56, 59, 180,
democratic rule political economy  357 181, 182, 184

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
380  index

total war  57 institutionalism  23–5, 29, 150  comparative politics, study

welfare state  57 institutionalization  24–5, 137 of 20, 21
Westphalian system  56, 63 interpretive approach  31–3, 242, compared to the European
state capitalism  343, 353 259, 288 Union 191
state socialism  346, 353, 355 new institutionalism  23 constitution 110
statute law  112, 117 normative perspectives  26 courts  113, 116
structural violence  77 rational choice  21, 26–9, 142, democracy, compared to UK  77
structuralism  29–30, 137, 161, 166 219, 293, 297, 314 elections  221, 225, 253, 260, 263
sub-national government  180 structural approach  29–30, 137, Electoral College  260, 263
in authoritarian states  193–7 161, 166 electoral system  256, 280
city government  194 theory, defined  19  executive  128–9, 145
confederation  44, 47, 190 think-tank  47, 120, 310, 318, 348 fake news in  239
cooperative federalism  188 Three Worlds system  13 federalism  56, 188, 189, 190
deconcentration  182–3 total war  57  gerrymandering 156, 263, 268
delegation  182–3 totalitarianism  97, 101, 103 global financial crisis  352
devolution  62, 111, 182–3, 197 trade/labour unions  309, 312–13 interest groups  8, 311, 312, 313
dual federalism  188 Trump, Donald  28, 29, 66, 87, 155, iron triangles  317, 318 
federal systems  180, 184–5, 221, 239, 246, 260, 294, 295, 347 legislature  144, 145, 152–3,
188–90 Tunisia 84 154–5, 156
global city  194 Turkey money and politics  281
local government  190–3 elections 257 party identification  288–9
multi-level governance  180–1 as hybrid regime  90–1 pluralism  314, 315
quasi-federation  190 political culture  209 political communication  237, 242,
regional government  183–4 political economy  355 243, 295
subsidiarity 188 Spotlight 354–5 political culture  30, 203
unitary systems  180, 181–4, 188, voter turnout  296 political economy  347, 348–9
190, 196 typology  12–14 political parties  271, 274–5
warlords 67, 195 public policy  330, 337
subsidiarity  188 social media and elections  38
supreme courts see courts
Sweden
U Spotlight 262–3
trust in government  208
bureaucracy  165, 174 Ukraine  59, 209  vote, expansion of  82, 256
constitution 108 unit of analysis  36 voters  292–3, 297
minority governments  133 unitary systems  180, 181–4, 188, unlimited presidential
partisan dealignment  289, 299 190, 196 executive 131, 136
political culture  211 United Kingdom Uzbekistan  58, 96 
public policy  335 Brexit  28, 65, 66, 68, 147, 174,
Spotlight 334–5 201, 208, 222, 223, 261,
sub-national government  182
trust in government  208
264, 315
bureaucracy  163, 166, 172
V
votes of confidence  148 constitution  107–8, 111 Venezuela
women in politics  226 courts 116 constitution 119–20 
Switzerland  49, 59, 175, 189 democracy 29–30 economic freedom  348
referendums  261, 265 compared to US  77 elections 266 
elections  221, 257, 259 federalism 197
electoral system  255, 256 interest groups  322
T leader personality and voters  295
legislature  144, 145, 147, 148,
political communication  245
political culture  212, 213
Taiwan 54 149, 153 political parties  284
Tanzania 284 mass media  236, 241 Spotlight 244–5
term limits  129, 135, 136, 156, 160, nationalism in  60, 63 vote of confidence  148
260 parliamentary system  38, 77, 128, voter turnout 296–8
terrorism  66, 110, 214, 217 144, 265 voters 288
Thailand, military government  98 political culture  203 in authoritarian states  298–9, 302–4
Thatcher, Margaret  163, 295, 346 political parties  272, 276, 278, behaviour  288, 303
theocracy  99, 102 279, 289 compulsory voting  299
theoretical approaches to comparative Spotlight 146–7 electoral authoritarianism  299
politics 19 sub-national government  183, electoral volatility  303
behaviouralism 21, 153, 167 200, 190, 191, 192 issue voters  291–3
288, 293 vote, expansion of  82 partisan dealignment  289, 292
cultural approach  30–1, 48 United States of America party identification  288–90
empirical perspectives  26  bureaucracy  162, 163, 166, 170, political violence  303–4
grand theory  21 172, 173 rational choice  293

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059

 Copyrighted material – 9781352005059
index  381

secularization  291 on the state  53

social class  288 welfare economics  347 Y
turnout 296–8 welfare state  57, 162, 203, 297, 347, Yemen  32, 225
vote buying  294 348–51
voter choice  290–6 Westphalian system  56, 63
women in government and
politics  86, 223–7
Z
W in bureaucracy  172–3 Zambia 283
gendered institution  225–6 Zimbabwe 176
warlords 67, 195 constitution 120 
in higher office  226–7
waves of democratization  79, 82–3 personal rule  96–7
in legislatures  226
Weber, Max political participation  232
in Muslim societies  119, 225
on authority  9 public policy  339
voting rights  82
model of bureaucracy  161–3, 167,
World Trade Organization  24
170, 174, 176 

Copyrighted material – 9781352005059