Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dilemma of Depth Versus Breadth in Comparing Political Systems Empirically…and How to Overcome It

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empirical comparisons of political systems can hardly avoid shortcomings. Many political scientists have turned to quantitative analyses of mass data, because case studies are assumed to have only explorative value. A variable-oriented design for comparisons with a small N would provide a basis for bridging the gap between the two empirical efforts. Until now, scholars who have dealt with this problem have not identified the key variables for the selection of cases, and for this reason the issue has never been discussed previously.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See the critical statement on this by Blomquist (1999: 223).

  2. Lieberson (1992: 112, 114, 116), from the perspective of a sociologist, is doubtful about the possibility of complying with this.

  3. The strategy does not start with definitions, as proposed by Collier and Levitsky (1997), but with empirical findings.

  4. The different means of interest intermediation (corporatism versus pressure) was an innovation in the work of Schmitter (1981).

  5. See also Armingeon (2002).

  6. An index was developed by Lijphart (1999: 185ff.).

  7. Because this model was quickly criticised, the more complex model of the ‘garbage can’, introduced by Cohen et al (1972), was adopted. ‘It views the policy process as composed of three streams of actors and processes: a problem stream …, a policy stream involving the proponents of solutions to policy problems, and the politics stream…’. These streams normally ‘operate independently of each other, except when “a window of opportunity” permits policy entrepreneurs to couple the various streams’ (Sabatier, 1999: 9). However, in the eyes of many scholars this model seems to be too complex for empirical research.

References

  • Armingeon, K. (2002) ‘Interest Intermediation: The Cases of Consociational Democracy and Corporatism’, in H. Keman (ed.) Comparative Democratic Politics. A Guide to Contemporary Theory and Research, London: Sage, pp. 143–165.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist, W. (1999) ‘The Policy Process and Large-N Comparative Studies’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 201–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olson, J.P. (1972) ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D. and Levitsky, S. (1997) ‘Democracy with adjectives. Conceptual innovation in comparative research’, World Politics 49 (April): 430–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., Mahoney, J. and Seawright, J. (2004) ‘Claiming to Much: Warnings about Selection Bias’, in H. E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, M. (1994) ‘Use and Misuse of Statistics in Comparative Research. Limits to Quantification in Comparative Politics: The Gap between Substance and Method’, in M. Dogan and A. Kazancigil (eds.) Comparing Nations. Concepts, Strategies, Substance, Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell, pp. 35–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, M. and Kazancigil, A. (1994) ‘Introduction. Strategies in Comparative Research’, in M. Dogan and A. Kazancigil (eds.) Comparing Nations. Concepts, Strategies, Substance, Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell, pp. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1953) The Political System, New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2004) ‘What is a case study and what is it good for?’, American Political Science Review 98 (2): 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hague, R., Harrop, M. and Breslin, S. (1993) Comparative Government and Politics. An Introduction, 3rd edn, Houndmills and London: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofferbert, R.I. (1990) The Reach and Grasp of Policy Analysis: Comparative Views of the Craft, Tuscalloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. (1993) ‘The clash of civilisations’, Foreign Affairs 72 (1): 22–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immergut, E. (1992) Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe, Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R.S. and Mair, P. (eds.) (1992) Party Organisations. A Data Handbook, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R.S. and Mair, P. (eds.) (1994) How Parties Organise. Change and Adaptation in Party Organisations in Western Democracies, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P.J. (1984) Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland and the Politics of Industry, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P.J. (1985) Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Interference in Qualitative Research, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingemann, H.-D., Hofferbert, R.I. and Budge, I. (1994) Parties, Policies and Democracy, Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingemann, H.-D. and Hofferbert, R.I. (2000) ‘The Capacity of New Party Systems to Channel Discontent’, in H.-D. Klingemann and F. Neidhardt (eds.) Zur Zukunft der Demokratie (Future of Democracy), Berlin: Sigma, pp. 411–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979) ‘Effective number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S. (1992) ‘Small N's and Big Conclusions: an Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases’, in C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker (eds.) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’, American Political Science Review 65 (September): 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1975) ‘The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research’, Comparative Political Studies 8 (2): 158–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy. Goverment Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M.M.L. (1991) ‘Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen countries: conceptual and empirical linkages’, British Journal of Political Science 21: 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T.J. (1972) ‘Four systems of policy, politics and choice’, Public Administration Review 33: 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. and Inglehart, R. (2004) Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999) ‘Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development of Framework’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 35–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B.G. (1998) Comparative Politics. Theory and Methods, New York, NY: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C.C. (2000) Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C.C. (2004) ‘Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-oriented Research’, in H. E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, F.W. (1994) ‘Conceptural Homogenisation of a Heterogeneous Field’, in M. Dogan and A. Kazancigil (eds.) Comparing Nations. Concepts, Strategies, Substance, Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell, pp. 72–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P.S. (1999) ‘The Need for Better Theories’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1994) ‘Compare Why and How. Comparing, Miscomparing and the Comparative Method’, in M. Dogan and A. Kazancigil (eds.) Comparing Nations. Concepts, Strategies, Substance, Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell, pp. 14–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassen, S. (2000) Cities in the World Economy, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City, New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edn, Princeton, NJ: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P.C. (1981) ‘Interest Intermediation and Regime Governmentability in Western Europe and North America’, in S. Berger (ed.) Organizing Interests in Western Europe, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siaroff, A. (1999) ‘Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: meaning and measurement’, European Journal of Political Research 36: 175–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siaroff, A. (2003) ‘Varieties of parliamentarism in the advanced industrial democracies’, International Political Science Review 24 (4): 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (2000) ‘Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (1999) ‘Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: an empirical analysis’, American Political Science Review 93 (3): 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, J. (1992) ‘Making the Theoretical Case’, in C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker (eds.) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waarden, F. van (2002) ‘Dutch consociationalism and corporatism: a case of institutional persistence’, Acta Politica Special, International Journal of Political Science 37 (1–2): 44–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieviorka, M. (1992) ‘Case Studies: History and Sociology?’, in C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker (eds.) What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–159.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, D-26111, Germany

    Hiltrud Nassmacher

Authors
  1. Hiltrud Nassmacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiltrud Nassmacher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nassmacher, H. The Dilemma of Depth Versus Breadth in Comparing Political Systems Empirically…and How to Overcome It. Eur Polit Sci 7, 113–125 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210179

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210179

Keywords

Search

Navigation