READING

MATERIALS
IN
FUNDAMENTALS
OF
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
THE METHODS AND APPROACHES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
INQUIRY AND ANALYSIS

Political science is a social science discipline that studies the theory and practice of politics and
government at the local, national, and international levels. It encompasses a wide range of subfields, including
comparative politics, international relations, political theory, public administration, and public policy. Political
scientists seek to understand and analyze political behaviour, institutions, and processes, as well as to develop
theories and concepts that explain political phenomena. Political science is distinct from political philosophy,
which is more concerned with normative and rational questions about politics and values (Lijphart, 2019).
Meanwhile, Political science inquiry and analysis is the process of using systematic and rigorous
methods to study political phenomena and answer empirical questions. Political scientists use a variety of
approaches, such as experiments, case studies, surveys, interviews, narrative analysis, and secondary data
analysis, to collect and interpret data and test hypotheses. Some of the key concepts and principles that guide
political science inquiry and analysis are embedded in the logic of social science, which seeks to explain
causation, or what causes what, in political, social, or economic phenomena. Political scientists use positive
research, which describes and explains what is, rather than normative research, which prescribes what ought to
be; the role of comparison, which is essential for establishing correlation, temporal sequencing, and ruling out
alternative explanations. Comparison can be done across cases (such as countries, regions, or groups), within
cases (such as over time or across subunits), or between cases and within cases (such as using a most-similar or
most-different design) and finally, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods (Kuru, 2019).
Quantitative methods use numerical data, statistics, mathematics, and formal theory to draw inferences and
insights into key political questions. Qualitative methods on the other hand, use description and observation of
non-numerical data, such as texts, images, speeches, or behaviours, to draw inferences and insights into key
political questions.
One of the main debates in political science is about the methods and approaches of inquiry and
analysis. Some scholars favor a positivist approach, which seeks to test hypotheses and discover causal
relationships using quantitative data and statistical techniques (Gerring, 2012). Others prefer an interpretivist
approach, which aims to understand the meanings and contexts of political phenomena using qualitative data
and Global Journal of Applied, Management and Social Sciences.
Both approaches have strengths and limitations, and there is no consensus on which one is superior or
more scientific.
Positivists argue that their approach is more objective, rigorous and generalizable. They claim that by
using numerical data and mathematical models, they can measure and compare political variables across
different cases and contexts, and identify patterns and regularities that can explain political outcomes (Marsh
& Furlong, 2018). Positivists also contend that their approach is more falsifiable, as they can test their
hypotheses against empirical evidence and reject or revise them if they are contradicted by the data.
Interpretivists counter that their approach is more nuanced, contextual and reflexive. They assert that by using
textual data and discourse analysis, they can capture the meanings and interpretations of political actors and
institutions, and understand how they shape and are shaped by their historical and cultural environments
(Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). Interpretivists also maintain that their approach is more critical, as they can
question the assumptions and values that underlie political practices and discourses, and expose the power
relations and ideologies that influence them.
Political science as a discipline, examines power, governance, and the distribution of resources within
societies and it aims to explain how political systems function, how policies are made, and how individuals and
groups participate in the political process. The methods and approaches of political science inquiry and
analysis are crucial in understanding and studying political phenomena and processes and there several
significant aspects related to these methods and approaches according to Marsh & Furlong (2018). These
aspects are:
1. Empirical Research: Political scientists use various research methods to such as surveys, interviews, case
studies, and statistical analysis to collect data and evidence. Empirical research helps in generating knowledge
based on observation and evidence, enabling the development of theories and hypotheses about political
phenomena.
2. Comparative Analysis: Political science often employs comparative methods to study political systems and
institutions across different countries or regions. By comparing and contrasting various cases, researchers can
draw insights about what factors influence political outcomes and understand different political models and
their strengths and weaknesses.
3. Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses: Political science inquiry involves both quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Quantitative analysis employs statistical methods to measure and analyze large datasets, aiming to
identify patterns and relationships between variables. Qualitative analysis, on the other hand, focuses on
interpreting meaning, exploring context, and understanding subjective experiences through methods such as
interviews, content analysis, or ethnography.
4. Theory Development: Political science inquiry relies on the development and testing of theoretical
frameworks. Theories in political science help explain and predict political behaviour, decision-making, and
other phenomena. Researchers use deductive or inductive reasoning to develop theories, which are then
empirically tested to assess their validity and generalizability.
5. Policy Analysis: Political science inquiry and analysis can contribute to policy development and evaluation.
By studying the impact of policy choices, political scientists can provide evidence-based recommendations to
improve governance and policy outcomes. They analyze the feasibility, effectiveness, and consequences of
policy decisions, assisting policymakers in making informed choices.
6. Disciplinary Collaboration: Political science overlaps with various other disciplines, such as economics,
sociology, history, or philosophy. Interdisciplinary collaborations enrich political science inquiry, bringing
different perspectives and methodologies to address complex political issues. For example, economists may
contribute their expertise on political economy, while sociologists may analyze social movements and political
participation. To investigate and explain various political phenomena, political scientists use various methods
and approaches such as quantitative, qualitative, comparative, historical, normative, and interpretive.
Although, there is no consensus on the best or most appropriate way to conduct political science inquiry and
analysis, not applying robust methods, approaches, and theoretical foundations in political science research can
result in biased, erroneous, inconsistent, irrelevant, or invalid findings (Marsh & Stoker, 2010). Therefore, to
ensure the credibility, reliability, and relevance of political science research, researchers Global Journal of
Applied, Management and Social Sciences must diligently adhere to established methodologies, utilize
appropriate theoretical frameworks, and remain mindful of potential biases and errors.
Furthermore, political science research entails many challenges and limitations that require careful and
rigorous application of methods, approaches, and theoretical foundations to ensure the quality and relevance of
the findings. However, by applying appropriate methods, approaches, and theoretical foundations in political
science research, political scientists can avoid or minimize the dangers of bias, error, inconsistency,
irrelevance, or invalidity and produce valid, reliable, generalizable, comparable, and useful knowledge that can
inform and improve political decision-making and practice. Therefore, this paper seeks to examine the
methods and approaches of political science inquiry and analysis.
Specifically, the paper seeks to:
i. understand the various methods and approaches used in political science research and analysis;
ii. examine the strengths and weaknesses of different methods and approaches in political science inquiry;
iii. explore how these methods and approaches contribute to the understanding and explanation of political
phenomena;
iv. evaluate the relevance and applicability of different methods and approaches in addressing specific research
questions or problems;
v. analyze the ethical considerations and challenges associated with the use of different methods and
approaches in political science.
 Political science inquiry and analysis is a field of study that focuses on understanding and explaining
political phenomena, institutions, processes, and behaviours. It involves rigorous research methods and
theoretical frameworks to explore and examine political issues and topics. Political science inquiry and
analysis is grounded in several foundational principles. Firstly, it recognizes the importance of studying power
and authority in political systems, whether at the local, national, or international level. Scholars in this field
seek to understand how power is acquired, exercised, and contested, and how it shapes political outcomes
(Sartori, 2018).
Secondly, political science inquiry and analysis emphasizes the study of institutions, such as
governments, parliaments, courts, and international organizations. Institutions play a crucial role in shaping
political behaviour and decision-making processes. Understanding their functioning, structure, and dynamics is
essential for comprehending political processes and outcomes.
Thirdly, political science inquiry and analysis incorporates the study of political behaviour and
attitudes. It explores how individuals and groups form their political preferences, engage in political activities,
and participate in political processes.
Political science inquiry and analysis typically involves several key elements. These elements help
researchers conduct systematic investigations and generate knowledge about political phenomena like research
questions, theory, research design, data collection and data analysis. Moreso, political science inquiry and
analysis encompasses a wide range of research approaches and methodologies as hypothesized by Toshkov &
Blavoukos (2018). Some commonly used approaches include:
1. Comparative Politics: Comparative politics involves studying political systems, institutions, and
behaviours across different countries or regions. It aims to identify similarities, differences, and patterns in
political phenomena.
2. International Relations: International relations focuses on the study of interactions between states, non-
state actors, and global institutions. It explores issues such as diplomacy, international conflict, cooperation,
and global governance.
3. Political Theory: Political theory examines the normative foundations of political systems and ideologies. It
explores concepts like justice, democracy, freedom, and equality, seeking to provide theoretical frameworks
for understanding political phenomena.

4. Public Policy: Public policy analysis examines the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public
policies. It investigates the factors influencing policy decisions, their impact on society, and the effectiveness
of policy interventions.

The Various Methods Used in Political Science Research and Analysis

Political science is the study of the theory and practice of governing, lawmaking, and politicking.
Political scientists use various methods and approaches to conduct research and analysis on political
phenomena. Some of the most common methods are:
Quantitative data analysis: This method involves measuring and analyzing numerical data using statistical
models and mathematics. Quantitative data can be collected through surveys, polls, experiments, or other
sources that provide numerical information. Quantitative data analysis can help describe the basic features of a
data set, such as the frequency, distribution, correlation, or causation of variables. For example, a political
scientist might use quantitative data analysis to examine the relationship between income and voting
behaviour, or the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes.
Qualitative data analysis: This method involves identifying and exploring the qualities and meanings of non-
numerical data using observation, interpretation, and comparison. Qualitative data can be collected through
interviews, focus groups, case studies, document analysis, or other sources that provide textual or visual
information. Qualitative data analysis can help understand the how and why of a political phenomenon, such as
the motivations, perceptions, or experiences of political actors or groups. For example, a political scientist
might use qualitative data analysis to investigate the political culture of a country, or the discourse of a social
movement.
Game theory models: This method involves using mathematical models to represent strategic interactions
among rational actors in situations of conflict or cooperation. Game theory models can help predict the
outcomes and equilibria of political games, such as bargaining, voting, war, or cooperation. Game theory
models can also help explain the behaviour and preferences of political actors under different scenarios and
assumptions. For example, a political scientist might use game theory models to analyze the incentives and
strategies of nuclear deterrence, or the collective action problems of climate change.
Historical analysis: This method involves using historical sources and evidence to reconstruct and explain the
past events and processes that shaped the present political reality. Historical analysis can help identify the
causes and consequences of political change over time, as well as the continuities and discontinuities of
political patterns and trends. Historical analysis can also help contextualize and compare different political
cases and periods. For example, a political scientist might use historical analysis to study the origins and
development of democracy, or the similarities and differences between revolutions.
Scenarios: This method involves creating plausible stories or narratives about alternative futures based on
current trends, uncertainties, and choices. Scenarios can help explore the possible implications and impacts of
different political decisions or events on various aspects of society and environment. Scenarios can also help
stimulate creativity and imagination among political actors and stakeholders. For example, a political scientist
might use scenarios to envision the potential outcomes of a global pandemic, or the challenges and
opportunities of a post-carbon world.
These are some of the main methods used in political science research and analysis. However, there are many
other methods that can be used depending on the research question, purpose, design, and context. Moreover,
these methods are not mutually exclusive or incompatible; rather, they can be combined or integrated to
produce more comprehensive and robust political knowledge.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods and Approaches in Political Science Inquiry
Political science is a broad and diverse discipline that studies the theory and practice of politics, both
at the domestic and international levels. Political scientists use different methods and approaches to analyze
political phenomena and answer research questions. One of the main distinctions in political science research
is between qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods involve collecting and analyzing non-
numerical data, such as texts, images, interviews, observations, etc. Quantitative methods involve collecting
and analyzing numerical data, such as statistics, surveys, experiments, etc. Both types of methods have Global
Journal of Applied, Management and Social Sciences (GOJAMSS); Vol.27, October 2023; P.232 – 242 (ISSN: 2276 –
9013) advantages and disadvantages, depending on the research question, the availability of data, the validity
and reliability of the measurements, and the generalizability and causality of the findings.
According to Looi Theam Choy (2014), some of the strengths of qualitative methods are:
i. They can provide rich and detailed information about the context, meaning, and interpretation of political
phenomena.
ii. They can capture the complexity and diversity of political reality and human behaviour.
iii. They can explore new or emerging topics that have not been studied before or that lack existing theories or
hypotheses.
iv. They can generate new concepts, theories, or frameworks that can guide further research.

Some of the weaknesses of qualitative methods are:

i. They can be time-consuming and labor-intensive to collect and analyze data.
ii. They can be influenced by the researcher's subjectivity, bias, or preconceptions.
iii. They can be difficult to replicate or verify by other researchers.
iv. They can have limited generalizability or external validity due to small or non-representative samples.

Some of the strengths of quantitative methods are:

i. They can provide precise and objective measurements of political phenomena using standardized instruments
and procedures.
ii. They can test existing theories or hypotheses using statistical techniques and inferential logic.
iii. They can handle large amounts of data and produce generalizable or representative results.
iv. They can establish causal relationships or effects using experimental designs or control variables.
Some of the weaknesses of quantitative methods are:
i. They can oversimplify or ignore the context, meaning, and interpretation of political phenomena.
ii. They can miss the complexity and diversity of political reality and human behaviour.
iii. They can rely on existing or predefined concepts, theories, or frameworks that may not capture the novelty
or specificity of the topic.
iv. They can generate spurious or misleading results due to measurement errors, sampling errors, confounding
factors, or statistical artifacts.

Another important distinction in political science research is between normative and empirical approaches.
Normative approaches involve evaluating political phenomena based on moral principles, values, or ideals.
Empirical approaches involve describing or explaining political phenomena based on observable facts,
evidence, or data. Both types of approaches have different purposes and implications for political science
inquiry.
According to Brady & Collier (2010), some of the strengths of normative approaches are:
i. They can provide ethical guidance or justification for political actions or decisions.
ii. They can challenge or criticize existing political practices or institutions that are unjust or undesirable.
iii. They can propose or envision alternative political scenarios or possibilities that are more just or desirable.
iv. They can reflect on the normative assumptions or implications of empirical research.

Some of the weaknesses of normative approaches are:

i. They can be subjective or arbitrary in choosing or applying moral principles, values, or ideals.
ii. They can be contested or disagreed by different moral perspectives or viewpoints.
iii. They can be unrealistic or utopian in ignoring or neglecting the empirical constraints or consequences of
political reality.
iv. They can be irrelevant or detached from the actual problems or issues faced by political actors or agents.

Some of the strengths of empirical approaches are:

i. They can provide factual information or knowledge about political phenomena based on observation,
measurement, or experimentation.
ii. They can analyze or explain the causes, effects, patterns, trends, variations, etc. of political phenomena
using scientific methods and logic.
iii. They can predict or anticipate future political outcomes or events based on past data or evidence.
iv. They can evaluate or test the empirical validity or accuracy of normative claims or arguments.
Some of the weaknesses of empirical approaches are:
i. They can be descriptive or explanatory without providing normative guidance or evaluation for political
actions or decisions.
ii. They can be limited or constrained by the availability, quality, or validity of data or evidence for political
phenomena.
iii. They can be uncertain or tentative in their findings due to methodological challenges, limitations, or trade-
offs.
iv. They can be influenced by the empirical assumptions or biases of researchers or methods.

How Methods and Approaches of Political Science Inquiry and Analysis Contribute to the
Understanding and Explanation of Political Phenomena
As earlier pointed out, Political science is the systematic study of politics, power, and human
interactions. It aims to understand and explain political phenomena using various methods and approaches.
Methods of political science inquiry are the technical rules that lay down the procedures for how data can be
obtained and analyzed. They help political scientists to test hypotheses, measure concepts, compare cases, and
draw valid inferences. There are different types of methods that can be used depending on the research
question, the availability of data, and the level of analysis. Some of the common methods of political science
inquiry are:
Quantitative data analysis: This method involves the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of
numerical data using statistics, mathematics, and formal theory. It can help to identify patterns, correlations,
and causal relationships among variables. For example, a quantitative study can examine how economic
development affects democracy across countries using regression models (Lauer, 2017).
Qualitative data analysis: This method entails the description and observation of non-numerical data such as
texts, images, speeches, interviews, etc. It can help to understand the meanings, contexts, and processes behind
political phenomena. For example, a qualitative study can explore how political elites frame climate change
issues using discourse analysis (Herbst, 2010).
Game theory models: This method uses mathematical models to represent strategic interactions among
rational actors in situations of conflict or cooperation. It can help to predict the outcomes and equilibria of
political games. For example, a game theory model can analyze how countries bargain over trade agreements
using Nash equilibrium (Morrow, 2014).
Historical analysis: This method uses historical sources and evidence to reconstruct and explain the past
events and processes that shape the present political phenomena. It can help to identify the origins, causes, and
consequences of political change over time. For example, a historical analysis can trace how colonialism
influenced the formation of states in Africa using process tracing (Moses & Knutsen, 2012).
Scenarios: This method uses plausible stories or narratives to imagine and explore alternative futures or
outcomes of political phenomena. It can help to anticipate the uncertainties, risks, and opportunities of political
decisions or actions. For example, a scenario can envision how a global pandemic might affect the world order
using scenario planning (Lijphart, 2019).
Approaches of political science inquiry are the general perspectives or frameworks that guide the selection and
application of methods. They reflect the underlying assumptions, values, and goals of political scientists. There
are different types of approaches that can be used depending on the research problem, the theoretical
orientation, and the normative stance. Some of the common approaches of political science inquiry are:
Empirical approach: This approach focuses on observing and explaining what is happening in the real world
using empirical data and evidence. It aims to describe and analyze political phenomena as they are, without
imposing any normative judgments or prescriptions (Von-Wright, 2011). For example, an empirical study can
measure how democratic a country is using indicators such as civil liberties, electoral systems, etc

Normative approach: This approach focuses on evaluating and prescribing what should be happening in the
ideal world using moral principles and values. It aims to critique and improve political phenomena as they
ought to be, based on some ethical standards or criteria (Wolf, 2015). For example, a normative study can
assess how democratic a country should be using concepts such as justice, equality, etc.
Behavioural approach: This approach focuses on understanding and predicting how individuals or groups
behave in political situations using psychological theories and methods. It aims to uncover the motivations,
attitudes, preferences, and actions of political actors such as voters, leaders, parties, etc. For example, a
behavioural study can investigate how emotions affect voting behaviour using surveys or experiments
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2014).
Institutional approach: This approach focuses on examining and comparing how formal or informal rules
shape political outcomes using historical or comparative methods. It aims to identify the structures, functions,
and effects of political institutions such as constitutions, laws, courts, parliaments, parties, etc. For example, an
institutional study can analyze how electoral systems influence party systems using typologies or indices
(Franco, 2023).
The Relevance and Applicability of Different Methods and Approaches of Political Science Inquiry and
Analysis in Addressing Specific Research Questions or Problems
Political science as the systematic study of politics, power, and human behaviour uses various methods and
approaches to address specific research questions or problems related to political phenomena.
Quantitative data analysis: This method involves the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of
numerical data to provide inferences and insights into key political questions. It can help measure the
magnitude, frequency, distribution, and correlation of political variables, such as voting behaviour, public
opinion, policy outcomes, etc. Quantitative data analysis can also test hypotheses and theories using statistical
techniques, such as regression, factor analysis, or cluster analysis. For example, a recent study by Böhmelt et
al. (2021) used quantitative data analysis to examine the effects of climate change on civil conflict onset across
the world.
Qualitative data analysis: This method entails a set of tools for explaining political phenomena that are not
numerical or statistical and does not seek to count or measure data. Instead, a qualitative approach uses
description and observation of non-numerical data to draw inferences. Such data can include texts, documents,
speeches, interviews, images, videos, etc. Qualitative data analysis can help explore the meanings, motivations,
perceptions, and experiences of political actors and groups, as well as the contexts and processes that shape
political phenomena. For example, a recent study by Kaya et al. (2020) used qualitative data analysis to
investigate the narratives and practices of Turkish diaspora organizations in Europe.
Game theory models: This approach uses mathematical models to represent strategic interactions among
rational actors in situations of conflict or cooperation. It can help analyze the choices, preferences, payoffs, and
outcomes of political actors under different scenarios and assumptions. Game theory models can also help
identify the optimal strategies, equilibria, and solutions for various political games, such as bargaining, voting,
signaling, etc. For example, a recent study by Chen et al. (2020) used game theory models to analyze the
strategic interactions between China and the US in the South China Sea dispute.
Historical analysis: This approach uses historical sources and evidence to examine the origins, development,
and consequences of political phenomena over time. It can help understand the continuity and change of
political institutions, ideas, movements, policies, etc., as well as the causal mechanisms and factors that
influence them. Historical analysis can also help compare and contrast different historical cases and periods to
identify similarities and differences in political phenomena. For example, a recent study by Kuru (2019) used
historical analysis to explain the rise and fall of political Islam in Turkey.
Scenarios: This approach uses imaginative narratives to describe possible future situations or events related to
political phenomena. It can help anticipate the opportunities, challenges, risks, and uncertainties that may arise
from different political developments or decisions. Scenarios can also help evaluate the implications and
impacts of various political alternatives or options for different actors and groups. For example, a recent study
by Börzel et al. (2019) used scenarios to explore the future of EU-Turkey relations after 2023.

These aforementioned methods and approaches that political scientists use to address specific research
questions or problems in their field are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive; rather they complement each
other and can be combined or adapted depending on the research objectives and design.
The Ethical Considerations and Challenges Associated With the use of Different Methods and
Approaches in Political Science
Political science is a broad discipline that encompasses various methods and approaches to study political
phenomena. However, different methods and approaches may pose different ethical challenges and
considerations for researchers, especially when they involve human subjects, sensitive data, or controversial
topics.
One of the ethical issues that political scientists may face is the protection of privacy and
confidentiality of research participants. This is especially relevant for qualitative methods, such as interviews,
focus groups, or participant observation that collect personal or identifiable information from individuals or
groups. Researchers should obtain informed consent from participants, explain the purpose and scope of the
study, and ensure that their data are stored securely and anonymized when possible (Da Bormida, 2021;
Ethical considerations associated with Qualitative Research methods, 2022). Researchers should also respect
the right of participants to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis,
2019).
Another ethical issue that political scientists may face is the potential for harm or distress to research
participants or others. This is especially relevant for methods or approaches that deal with sensitive or
controversial topics, such as violence, conflict, human rights, or democracy. Researchers should assess the
risks and benefits of their study, avoid exposing participants to physical or psychological harm, and provide
support or referral to appropriate services if needed (Bhandari, 2021). Researchers should also be aware of the
possible consequences of their research for the wider society, such as influencing public opinion, policy
making, or social movements (Sandel, 2020).
A third ethical issue that political scientists may face is the quality and integrity of their research. This is
especially relevant for methods or approaches that involve data analysis, such as quantitative methods,
computational methods, or artificial intelligence. Researchers should ensure that their data are valid, reliable,
and representative of the population or phenomenon they are studying. Researchers should also avoid bias,
manipulation, or fabrication of data, and report their findings honestly and transparently (Bhandari, 2021).
Researchers should also acknowledge the limitations and uncertainties of their methods or approaches, and
seek feedback or peer review from other experts (Sandel, 2020).
These are some of the ethical considerations and challenges associated with the use of different methods and
approaches in political science. However, this is not an exhaustive list, and researchers may encounter other
ethical dilemmas in their specific contexts or cases.

Summary
The article examines the different methods used in political science research, such as quantitative and
qualitative approaches, surveys, experiments, case studies, and comparative analysis. It also delves into the
various approaches used, including positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory. By understanding these
methods and approaches, researchers can make informed decisions on the most suitable approach for their
research. The strengths and weaknesses of these methods and approaches are carefully analyzed. Quantitative
methods, for example, enable researchers to obtain precise and measurable data, but may neglect the
complexity of individual experiences. On the other hand, qualitative methods provide rich and detailed
insights, but may lack generalizability. By understanding these strengths and weaknesses, researchers can
weigh the trade-offs and choose the most appropriate method for their research objectives.
These methods and approaches play a crucial role in enhancing the understanding and explanation of political
phenomena. By using quantitative data analysis, researchers can identify patterns, relationships, and trends in
political behaviour. Qualitative methods enable researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the context,
motivations, and perceptions of political actors. The combination of these approaches helps build a
comprehensive understanding of complex political processes and outcomes. The relevance and applicability of
different methods and approaches are assessed in relation to specific research questions or problems. Some
research questions may require a large-scale quantitative study to observe broad patterns, while others may
necessitate an in-depth examination through qualitative case studies. The choice of method depends on the
specific research objectives and the nature of the phenomenon under investigation.

Finally, the article examines the ethical considerations and challenges associated with the use of
different methods and approaches in political science research. Ethical concerns may arise in terms of ensuring
informed consent, protecting privacy and confidentiality, avoiding harm to participants, and being transparent
about biases or conflicts of interest. Researchers must navigate these ethical challenges to uphold the integrity
and credibility of their work. By understanding these aspects, political scientists can conduct rigorous and
ethical research to advance our understanding of political processes and outcomes.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the study of political science encompasses a wide range of methods and approaches that
aid in the understanding and analysis of political phenomena. Through the utilization of various research
methods, such as quantitative, qualitative, and comparative, political scientists can gather and interpret data to
generate knowledge about political systems, actors, and processes. Different approaches, including positivism,
interpretivism, and post-positivism, offer distinct perspectives and methodologies for understanding political
phenomena.
While each method and approach has its strengths, they also have weaknesses that need to be
acknowledged and overcome. The adoption of diverse methods and approaches contributes to a deeper
understanding and explanation of political phenomena. By employing multiple methods, researchers can
triangulate findings and enhance the validity of their conclusions. When considering the relevance and
applicability of different methods and approaches, researchers must ensure that the selected method aligns with
the research question or problem at hand. Also, ethical considerations play a significant role in political science
inquiry and pose unique challenges. In conclusion, political science inquiry and analysis benefits from the
utilization of various methods and approaches. Understanding the strengths, weaknesses, relevance, and ethical
considerations associated with these methods and approaches is critical for conducting rigorous and ethical
research in the field of political science.

UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION AND NATURE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ADVANCED SOCIETIES

Introductions
What is Comparative Politics?
The scholars engaged in the field of comparative politics believe that with the help of comparative studies we
can get precise description of phenomenon happening in the world and in the local/domestic level. Comparing
the similarities and the differences between the political phenomena across the countries helps the social
scientists to assess which factors can play perfect role in which kind of situation to establish a stable political
system. Social scientists have given three reasons for the need of doing comparative study; a) First we cannot
understand one country without knowledge of others, b) secondly one cannot understand other countries
without knowledge of their background, institutions and history c) and lastly one cannot arrive at valid
generalizations about government and politics without the comparative method.
Comparison has been viewed as the basic function of political science and a reliable strategy of
research. Comparative politics along with political theory and international relations constitutes one of the
three core components of political science. Whereas, political theory deals with the normative and theoretical
questions, comparative politics deal with the empirical questions.
According to Caramani, comparative politics is a discipline that analyses political phenomenon as they appear
in the real world. This study is value -neutral and empirical by nature and studies interactions within political
systems.

Some important Definitions of Comparative Politics

“Comparative politics is the study politics in foreign countries”. (Zahariadis, 1997,p.2).
“Comparative politics involves the systematic study and comparison of the world’s political system.
It seeks to explain difference between as well as similarities among countries. In contrast to journalistic
reporting on a single country, comparative politics is particularly interested in exploring patterns, processes
and regularities among political system”. (Wiarda, 2000, p.7)
“Comparative politics involves involves both a subject of study-foreign countries -and a Method study-
comparison”. (Wilson 1996, p.4)
“What is comparative politics? It is two things, first a world, second a discipline. As a ‘World, comparative
politics encompasses political behaviour and institutions in all parts of the earth …..The ‘discipline’ of
comparative politics is a field of study that desperately tries to keep up with , to encompass , to understand, to
explain and perhaps to influence the fascinating world of comparative politics”. (Lane 1997, p.2)
“Within political science comparative politics is a subfield that compares the struggle for power across the
countries”. (O’ Neil 2009, p.3)
“Comparative politics is a discipline that deals with the very essence of politics where sovereignty resides in
the state: questions of power between groups, the institutional organisation of political system and authoritative
decision that affects the whole of a community”. (Caramani, 2011, p.3)
“Comparative politics is concerned with the study of all forms of governmental as well as nongovernmental
political activity. The field of comparative politics has an 'all encompassing' nature and comparative politics
specialists tend to view it as the study of everything political”.
(Ronald Chilcote 1994, Introduction, Theories of Comparative Politics, p.4)
According to Daniele Caramani, comparative study is a subject matter; it is concerned with the power
relationship between individuals, groups and organizations, classes, institutions within political systems. This
subject does not ignore external influences on internal structures, but its ultimate concern is power
configuration within systems (Daniele Caramani, 2008. p.3).
Comparative politics in more formal terms involve both a method of study and a subject of study. As a subject
of study comparative politics focuses on understanding and explaining political phenomenon that takes place
within a state, society, country or political system. Most of the comparative political thinkers accept that the
distinctiveness of comparative politics mainly lies in a systematic use of comparisons to study two or more
countries with the purpose of identifying and explaining differences or similarities between them with respect
to the particular phenomenon being analyzed.
For a long time comparative politics appeared merely to look for similarities and differences. As
Mohanty has mentioned that comparative study was earlier directed towards classifying and dichotomizing
political phenomena but in the present period comparative political analysis is however, not simply about
identifying similarities and differences. The purpose of using comparisons, it is felt by several scholars, is
going beyond 'identifying similarities and differences' or the 'compare and contrast approach', to ultimately
study political phenomena in a larger framework of relationships. (Mohanty, 1975, p.p.1-2).
On the basis of various definitions and explanations it becomes clear that Comparative Politics is one of the the
three main subfields of political science focusing on internal political structures, actors, processes and
analyzing them empirically by describing , explaining and predicting their variety across political systems.
According to Caramani as all scientific disciplines comparative politics is a combination of substance (which
includes study of countries/ regions and their political systems, actors and process) and Method (identifying
and explaining differences and similarities between cases following established rules and standards of
comparative analysis and using concepts that are applicable in more than one case (Caramani, 2008 p.4).
Comparative politics involves the analysis of similarities and differences between cases. In comparative
politics the cases are mainly political systems of nation states but it also could be regions which are sub-
national or supera national in nature. Comparative political scientist doesn’t always compare the whole of
political systems, but sometimes they just compare the elements such as institutions (parliaments) or actors
(parties) or processes (policy making).
The emphasis is on both the method of inquiry and the substance into which inquiry is directed. It is
the substance of comparative politics (subject matter, vocabulary and Perspective) which gives comparative
politics its distinctiveness both as a method and as a specific field of study. Looking at all these things; it
becomes clear that comparative deal with empirical questions and interactions with in political system. As a
subject matter it is concern with power relations between individuals, groups/ organisations, classes,
institutions, within political systems. Comparative politics is particularly interested in exploring patterns,
processes, regularities among political system. It looks for trends for change in patterns and attempt to develop
general prepositions and hypothesis.

Why there is a Need of Comparative Politics

 To know how others live and act. Comparative politics help to formulate predictions.
 To discover similarities and dissimilarities between oneself and others and thus gain an enriched perception
of one’s own-self. As it helps to describe and explain similarities and differences. Comparative politics
describes the real world and on the basis of these descriptions establishes classifications and typology.
 To accept what is perceived to be best in others- a reformist motivation.
 To predict which factors may cause similar or different effects
 With the passage of time world has been changed into a small village. Increased communication and
transportation led to the rise in interaction and gave birth to the world citizens. In this globalised world
ignoring any nation for study is not possible.
 As we all know that there is plurality of data as various variables are working to influence the different
phenomena in the society.

Nature and Content of Comparative Political Analysis with Special Reference to Developed
Societies
Comparative politics as distinguishable sub-field within political science has been emerged only in
recent times. Since then, it has undergone tremendous transformation in terms of its nature and study. The
modern study of comparative politics emerged in the late 19th century, and since then has evolved largely due
to the research in U.S universities. The nature and scope of comparative politics has been determined
historically by changes in subject matter, vocabulary and political perspective. To understand where, why and
how the changes took place we have to look at what is the focus of study at a particular historical period, what
are the tools, languages or concepts being used for the study and what is the perspective and purpose of
enquiry. Therefore, in order to study the nature and scope of comparative politics we need to peek into the
historical evolution of concept. The nature and scope of comparative political analysis varies in accordance to
the changes which occur in its subject matter. The subject matter of comparative politics has been determined
both by the geographical location (countries, regions) which has constituted its field as well as the dominant
ideas concerning social reality and change which shaped the approaches to comparative studies. At the
different historical stages the principal concern of the studies kept changing. We can trace the changing nature
and scope of comparative politics by studying comparative political analysis in various phases given below

Comparative politics in Pre-Modern Times

 Comparative politics from Aristotle to the 17th century
 Comparative politics in 18th and 19th century
Comparative politics in Modern Times: Development of Comparative Political Analysis in
20th century:
 Pre Behaviouralist phase
 Behaviouralist phase (1940’s to 1970’s)

Post Modern phase/ Post Behaviouralist Phase ( period after 70’s)

Comparative Politics in Pre-modern Times

Evolution of the Concept: Comparative politics from Aristotle to the 17th century
In its earliest incarnation, the comparative study of politics comes to us in the form of studies done by
the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle studied the constitutions of 158 states and classified them into a
typology of regimes. His classification was presented in terms of both descriptive and normative categories
i.e., he not only described and classified regimes and political systems in terms 'of their types e.g., democracy,
aristocracy, monarchy etc., he also distinguished them on the basis of certain norms of good governance. One
can see Aristotle evolved a method of comparison which was distinctive in nature. His comparison can be
outlined in systematic manner by outlining his study as:
a) Formulation of research problem: he raised the question that which constitutions are more prone to revolt or
what are causes of political stability?
b) After choosing the problem he collected the data relevant to the problem.
c) Then he analyzed the data on the basis of following criteria :
i) On the basis of number of rulers ( i.e Monarchy, Aristocracy, Polity)
ii) Modes of Operation: Oligarchic or Democratic
iii) By class structure and distribution of powers among classes
iv) Correlation among these above given points with political stability and instability.
v) Lastly he came up with the conclusion which type of regime is most stable and why?
The study of various constitutions of ancient Greece was considered as truly comparative and systematic in
nature by social scientists. Aristotle used the law of limitation, the law of diffusion and the law of similar
causes to explain uniformities and similarities.
These Aristotelian categories were acknowledged and taken up by Romans thinkers such as Polybius (20 1 -
120 B.C.) and Cicero (1 06-43 B.C.) who considered them in formal and legalistic terms. Polybius was the first
analyst to concentrate on measuring the success of power sharing and differentiation. His “Universal History”
analyzed the virtues of the Roman systemthe mixed constitution that combined monarchical, aristocratic and
democratic systemscompared to the Greek and explained its success. He believed a mixed constitution with
checks and balances would provide stability. Concern with comparative study of regime types reappeared ' in
the 15th century with Machiavelli (1469- 1527). In the renaissance period Machiavelli used the comparative
method of study in his writings – the prince and the Discourses. Later on French Philosopher Jean Bodin
undertook a comparative study of governments of various European states.
Development of Comparative Politics in 18th And 19th Centuries
After the origin of comparative politics it remained in abeyance for several centuries. It was revived only in the
18th and 19th centuries with the Montesquieu work of “Spirit of Laws (1748) which deeply influenced the
constitution making process in USA, France and other western countries. He used the comparative method for
analyzing law and politics. He made a comparative study of British and French system of governance and
formulated his theory of separation of powers. In the 19th century J.S Mill and E.A Freeman made good efforts
to compare the state and governments. They also made contribution to develop comparative method. A.D
Tocqueville took forward the practice of comparative study with his work “Democracy in America”. By the
end of 19th century comparative study of government took a new shape with various works of political
scientist. In 1896 A, Lowell published his work “Governments and parties of continental Europe” which was
the comparative study of various political systems like: France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary and
Switzerland. James Bryce through his work “Modern Democracies” also made a great contribution to the
development of comparative study and comparative method during this period.

Features of Comparative Politics in Pre-modern times (Traditional Approach)

 The pre modern stage or the traditional approach to comparison since Aristotle was was highly speculative
and normative, mostly ethnocentric and used comparisons in an anecdotal way.
Comparative Political Science owes a lot to other social sciences: philosophy, legal constitutionalism and
political Economy. In 19th century ‘Sociology’ was coined by Auguste Comte and soon became important in
helping political science to liberate itself from jurisprudence and be transformed into a ‘Social Science’. One
can clearly see that boundaries with other social science subjects were not clearly defined.
 Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Tocqueville came close to founding a modern comparative political Science.
During the Renaissance Machiavelli came close to a Social Science Approach, Minimizing the Philosophical
normative approach of former times. Many historical comparisons in early modern times from Machiavelli to
Montesquieu were rather a-historical confrontations of Roman experience and the life of modern states.
 The main goal of these comparative analyses was to establish classifications and typologies. Very often
these classifications concerned evolutionary models, as in the case of Spencer and Marx.
 The scholars of the sub-discipline put almost exclusive emphasis on the study of governmental structures
and the formal organisation of the state institutions and secondly, the subject was discussed in a purely
descriptive, historical or legalistic manner. It had thus adopted a rather limited methodology. Government
studied was smaller in in number, all falling in a single cultural pattern. Traditional approach was non-
comparative, Descriptive, Parochial and Static.
The focus was on western European democracies. Comparative politic at that time was mainly normative in
nature.
 There is an emphasis on the study of formal institutions to the neglect of political processes
 It is focused on the western European political system and thus the non –western European Political system
are neglected. It was culture bound.
 There is an emphasis on description existing institution with little attention given to the analysis and
development of systematic generalization about the political phenomena.
 There is lack of concern for the development of theories through collection and analysis of data in order to
test specific hypotheses.
 There is a neglect of the findings of other social sciences having bearing on the political phenomena
 The traditional approach showed insensitiveness to non political determinants of political behaviour and
thus to the non political bases of governmental institutions.
 The comparative politics of this time has been considered as comparative government.
Summing up
Pre-modern phase was highly speculative and normative, mostly ethnocentric, used comparisons in an
anecdotal way. The pre-modern or pre-paradigmatic phase is the traditional phase ridden with many limitations
like being descriptive, assumptive, too generalized and impressionistic. As such this phase was marked by
porosity of boundaries of different disciplines like philosophy, history, jurisprudence etc. There was pressure
to find similarities and overall the objective was to establish classification or typologies rather that focused or
meticulous study of any particular systems.

Comparative Politics in Modern Times: Development of Comparative Political Analysis

in 20th Century
There is no agreement when modernity starts. In the Art and literature it is often located earlier in the 19th
century. In the social sciences modernity is scheduled later. In order to avoid the quarrels of definitions social
scientist used the term classical modernity for the new social sciences in the 20th century. According to
Caramani Classical modernity coincides largely with the establishment of separate discipline in the social
sciences, such as Sociology and Political Science

Comparative Politics in Early 20th Century

The obsession with philosophical and speculative questions concerning the 'good ' or the 'ideal state' and the
use of abstract and normative vocabulary, persisted in comparative studies till late nineteenth and early
twentieth century. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s signified the period when liberalism was
the reigning ideology and European countries enjoyed dominance in world politics. The 'rest of the world' of
Asia, Africa and Latin America were either European colonies or under their sphere of influence as ex-
colonies. Major comparative works of this period like James Bryces's Modern Democracies (1921), Herman
Finer's Theory and Practice of Modern Governments (1932) and Carl J. Friedrich's Constitutional Government
and Democracy (1937), Roberto Michels, Political Parties (1915) and M. Duverger, Political Parties (1950)
were largely concerned with the comparative study of institutions, the distribution of power and the
relationship between the different layers of government. These studies were Eurocentric i.e., confined to the
study of institutions, governments and regime types in European countries like Britain, France and Germany.
It may thus be said that these studies were in fact not genuinely comparative in the sense that they excluded
from their analysis a large number of countries. Any generalization derived from a study confined to a few
countries could not legitimately claim having validity for the rest of the world. It may be emphasized here that
exclusion of the rest of the world was symptomatic of the dominance of Europe in world politics which
however, was on the wane, and shifting gradually to North America. All the history of this period kept Europe
at its centre and ignored the rest of the world as 'people in the rest of the world is without histories' or the
histories of these people were bound with and destined to follow the trajectories already followed by the
advanced countries of the West. Thus the works done in till mid 20th century manifest their rootedness in the
normative values of western liberal democracies which carried with it the baggage of racial and civilization
superiority, and assumed a prescriptive character for the colonies/former colonies.

Development of Comparative Political Analysis after Mid 20th Century: Adoption of

Behavioural Study
The traditional approach to comparative politics was not completely worthless. But the shortcomings
of this approach were becoming increasingly obvious. The comparative study of governments till the 1940’s
was predominantly the study of institutions, the legal-constitutional principles regulating them and the manner
in which these institutions and regulations functioned in western liberal-democracies. A powerful critique of
the institutional approach emerged in the middle of 1950’s. The critique had its roots in Behaviouralism which
had emerged as a new movement in the discipline of politics aiming to provide scientific rigour to the
discipline and develop a science of politics. Known as the behavioural movement, it was concerned with
developing an enquiry which was quantitative, based on survey techniques involving the examination of
empirical facts separated from values, to provide value-neutral, non-prescriptive, objective observations and
explanations. The Behaviouralist attempted to study social reality by seeking answers to questions like 'why
people behave politically as they do and why as a result, political processes and systems function as they do'. It
is these 'why questions' regarding differences in people's behaviours and their implications for political
processes and political systems, which changed the focus of comparative study from the legal-formal aspects
of institutions.

What is Behavioural Approach?

The Behaviouralist approach insists on the application of scientific methods to the study of politics, its
structure, processes and behaviour within these structures. It seeks to focus on the behaviour of individuals and
groups rather than their formally prescribed roles and activities.
Methodologically, the Behaviouralist scholars try to be rigorous and systematic in their political inquiries and
seek scientification’ of the discipline through the formulation and testing of empirical hypotheses and
quantification and measurement of data. Substantively, they seek to build up theories and discover uniformities
or regularities in political behaviour. The beahvioural approach was a movement against the conventional,
historical, philosophical and descriptive institutional approach to the study of political science. Behaviouralism
is distinguished more than anything else by its emphasis on:
a) Individual being treated as the basic unit of analysis by political science
b) The use of scientific methods in political science for observation, classification and measurement
of data
c) It stresses on the unity of political science with other social science
The principle features of the behavioural approach could be summarized as follows:
 The behavioural approach attempts to study all the phenomena about politics in terms of observed and
observable behaviour of men.
 It generates and tests verifiable scientific explanations about the political phenomena.
 It emphasis quantification and operational definitions.
 The behavioural approach assumes natural science as its ideal and rejects the methods of the
humanities.
 It scrupulously keeps out normative or value statements and even attempts to eliminate the influence of
personal values of researchers.
 It is characterized by an inter-disciplinary orientation and consciously seeks affiliation with concepts,
theories and approaches of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics etc.
 It seeks an effective system of back feeding the findings of empirical research into methodological
improvement.
 It lays stress on comparative inquiries and practical cross cultural research. In the 1955 Roy Macridis
criticized the existing comparative studies for privileging formal institutions over non-formal political
processes, for being descriptive rather than analytical, and case-study oriented rather than genuinely
comparative (Roy Macridis, 1955). Whereas, Harry Eckstein points out that the changes in the nature and
scope of comparative politics in this period show sensitivity to the changing world politics urging the need to
reconceptualise the notion of politics and develop paradigms for large-scale comparisons (Harry Eckstein,
1963).
Rejecting the traditional and almost exclusive emphasis on the western world, Gabriel Almond and his
colleagues of the “American Social Science Research Council's Committee on Comparative Politics”
attempted to develop a theory and a methodology which could encompass and compare political systems of all
kinds (primitive or advanced, democratic or non-democratic, western or non western). The notion of politics at
this period was broadened by the emphasis on the concept of 'realism' or politics of practice. The scope of the
study has been widened and focus has been shifted to the functioning of less formally structured agencies,
behaviours and processes e.g. political parties, interest groups, elections, voting behaviour, attitudes etc.
With the decline in the attention from studies of formal institutions, there was simultaneously a decline in the
centrality of the notion of the state itself. The emergence of a large number of countries necessitated the
development of frameworks which would facilitate comparisons on a large scale. This led to the emergence of
inclusive and abstract notions like the political system.
 Almond and his colleagues cited that the political theorists in the past did not concern themselves with
the performance of institutions, their interaction and political behaviour of man. As the state is limited by its
legal and institutional meanings, therefore the modern thinkers have discarded the traditional concept of State
and substituted it by "political system" similarly other terms like powers, offices, institutions and public
opinion' have been replaced by the terms functions, role, structures, political culture and political socialization
respectively.
According to Wiarda in the period of the sixties the 'new nations became for most of these scholars
'living laboratories' for the study of social and political change. It was during this period that some of the most
innovative and exciting theoretical and conceptual approaches were advanced in the field of comparative
politics. These were study of political culture, political socialization, developmentalism, dependency and
interdependency, corporatism, bureaucraticauthoritarianism and later transitions to democracy etc. (Wiarda,
2007, p.935)
The modern period of comparative analysis has also seen the mushrooming of various universalistic
models. David Easton's Political System theory, Deutsch's Social Mobilisation theory, Shil's, Centre and
Periphery, Theories of Modernization’ by Apter, Rokkan, Eisenstadt and Ward and The Theory of Political
Development’ by Almond, Coleman, Pye and Verba also claimed Content universal relevance. According to
Wiarda ‘Developmentalism' was perhaps the dominant conceptual paradigm of this time. To a considerable
extent, the interest in developmentalism emanated from US foreign policy interests in 'developing' countries, to
counter the appeals of Marxism-Leninism. (Wiarda, 2007, p.937)

Features and Scope of Comparative Politics according to Modern view-point

 Modern viewpoint of comparative politics stresses more on Analytical and empirical investigation. It is no
longer confined to descriptive studies.
 It emphasis on value free political study. Only those values are admitted whose validity can be scientifically
demonstrated. It concentrates on study of “what is” rather than “what should be”. It rejects the normative
approach of traditional viewpoint.
 The aim of modern view point is to develop an empirical and objective theory of politics capable of
explaining and comparing all phenomenons of politics.
 In the traditional approach stress was laid on the study of formal structures of the government. But in the
modern viewpoint the stress is laid on formal as well as informal structures and political processes/political
behaviour. Such behaviours and matters which affects the society as a whole. This viewpoint is more
concerned with decision making processes, role of political parties and pressure groups in the whole process.
Modern viewpoint lays stress on the study of infrastructures of political institutions rather than mere formal
structures.
 It stresses on study of developing areas and societies. Whereas earlier studies were only on developed areas.
The biased and parochial nature of traditional view has been replaced by all embracing studies of developing
as well as developed societies or major as well as minor countries of the world.
 In traditional viewpoint emphasis was on horizontal comparative study. But modern view lays emphasis on
both horizontal and vertical comparison. It involves both a comparative study of political structures and
functions of political systems of various nations and also compares political systems and sub-systems at work
within a single state.
 Modern view-point on comparative political analysis lays emphasis on interdisciplinary approach. It accepts
the need to study politics with the help of the knowledge of other social science subjects.
 Tools of research have been drawn from the discipline as –economics, sociology, and psychology.
 System of study borrowed from the natural sciences. Input –output system used by comparative politics is
borrowed from biology.
 In comparative politics more stress is laid to study problems like political socialization, political
modernization and political culture etc.
Comparative politics is an interdisciplinary approach and it is now closely linked with social
structures working in a society.
 The objective of the study of comparative politics in modern times is not only to make comparative studies
of similarities and dissimilarities of different political systems but also to build a theory of politics. Its main
purpose is to develop concepts, approaches and theories which can be used for scientific theory building in
politics.
 The behavioural revolution played a crucial role in establishing a modern comparative political science,
regularities lead to generalizations to be tested empirically and measured quantitatively.
 Comparative politics was progressively established in US and then European universities with departments
and chairs. Internationally, associations and consortia were created for the exchange of information and
scientific collaborations.
 From typologies and classifications of polities, comparative politics moved to the analysis of politics and
policies.

Deep analysis of the comparative political study in modern times shows that comparative analysis at
this time was able to overcome many of the problems of its preceding paradigm. The phase of modernity had
overwhelming stress on empiricism, experimentations and scientific comparisons. It resulted in establishment
of separate disciplines such as Political Science and sociology in social sciences and aided scientific
comparative studies. This endeavour was formalized with the Behavioural movement under David Easton in
post Second World-War era.
In 1960 this got further momentum from functionalist system theories. Rigorous criteria for scientific
comparisons were developed. Scholars tried to spot regularities to establish generalizations. This behavioural
upheaval expanded the frontiers of political science by stressing interconnections between social, cultural and
sometimes economic aspect of life.
However, Behavioural theory and theories of modern times failed to recognize the variation among
the developing societies by asking developing nations to follow the footsteps of developed nations. It ignored
the influence of vital determinants like history, culture, different colonial experience of these societies. Also
racism, ethnicity, gender dimension were not factored in its analysis.

Comparative Politics in Post Modern/Post-Behavioural Period

During the later 1970’s/early 1980’s number of theories and subject matters emerged into the field of
comparative politics against the existing theories of Modernisation, Developmentalism and Behaviouralism.
These theories included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, systems theory, and transitions to democracy, neo-
liberalism, and the politics of structural adjustment and so on. The Post-modern era challenged all the earlier
established modes of knowledge and understanding of behavioural period. It claimed that social facts are social
constructs

The Challenges to Developmentalism and Modernization

According to postmodernist development of value free scientific and universal theories in social
sciences is not possible. As such, there cannot be any universal concept of good or bad. Different societies
differ in terms of their values, political system everything. The absence of certain set rules and universal
standards in comparative politics, it became very difficult for researcher to compare and arrive to any
conclusions. Many scholars felt helpless, as such theories like post modernism and relativism pointed the
problems, but never came up with any solutions.
Comparative politics in post modern-era is encouraged to abstain away from any ethnocentric or
Euro centric prejudices and presumptions. Towards the end of 1970’s, developmentalism and other approaches
of modern era came under criticism for favouring abstract models, which flattened out differences among
specific political, social, cultural systems, in order to study them within a single universalistic framework.
These criticisms emphasized the ethno-centricism of the models of modern period and focused on the third
world in order to work out a theory of underdevelopment. Post modernist stressed the need to concentrate on
solutions to the backwardness of developing countries. Two main challenges to developmentalism which arose
in the early 1970’s and gained widespread attention were (a) dependency and (b) corporatism. Dependency
theory criticized the dominant model of developmentalism for ignoring (a) domestic class factors/social factors
(b) international market and power factors in development. Dependency theory was particularly critical of US
foreign policy and multinational corporations and suggested that development of the already industrialized
nations and that of the developing ones could not go together. Dependency theory claimed that the
development of the West had come on the shoulders and at the cost of the non- West. The idea that the
diffusion of capitalism promotes underdevelopment and not development in many parts of the world was
embodied in Andre Gundre Frank's: Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (1967), Walter
Rodney's: How Europe Underdeveloped Asia (1972) and Malcolm Caldwell's: The Wealth of Some Nations
(1979). Marxist thinkers criticises the dependency theory and explains the nature of exploitation through
surplus extraction. As mentioned by Chilcote in his study that the Marxist thinkers sees dependency not simply
on national lines but, as part of a more complex pattern of alliances between the metropolitan bourgeoisie of
the core-centre and the indigenous bourgeoisie of the periphery satellite as they operated in a worldwide
capitalist system. The corporatist approach criticized developmentalism for its Euro-American ethno-
centricism and indicated that there were alternative organic, corporatist, often authoritarian ways to organize
the state and state-society relations (Ronald Chilcote, 1994, p. 16)

Increased importance of State in Post modern Comparative Political Analysis

During the later 1970’s/early 1980’s number of theories and subject matters emerged into the field of
comparative politics against the existing theories of Modernisation, Developmentalism and Behaviouralism.
These theories included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, systems theory, transitions to democracy, neo-
liberalism, the politics of structural adjustment and so on. The notion of the political system remained quite
popular as the core of political study till 1970’s.
The state, however, started receiving its share of attention in the 60’s and 70’s in Latin America,
especially in Argentina in the works of Guillermo O'Donnell e.g., “Economic Modernisation and Bureaucratic
Authoritarianism” (1973), Ralph Miliband's “The State 'in Capitalist Sociery” (1969) Nicos Poulantzas's
“State, Power, Socialism” (1978) and political sociologists like Peter Evans, Theda Skocpol and so on . With
the 1980, however, there has been a move away from general theory to emphasis on the relevance of context.
Comparative political analysis of 1980’s put more emphasis on culturally specific studies (e.g. Islamic
countries), nationally specific countries (e.g. England) and even institutionally specific countries (countries
under a specific regime). Unit of study has been changed from 'grand systems' and model building to specific
contexts and cultures. The scale of comparisons was brought down in post modern period. Comparisons at the
level of 'smaller systems' or regions, however, remained in existence.

Focus on Democratization, Globalisation and Civil Society Process in late 1980’s

Globalization and other emerging trends in 1980’s led to the complete shift in comparative political
analysis. The disintegration of Soviet Union brought into currency the notion that there is an end of ideological
war with the end of communist ideology. Francis Fukuynma in his article ‘The End of History?' (1989), which
was developed later into the book “The End of History and the Last Man” (1992), argued that the history of
ideas had ended with the recognition and triumph of liberal democracy as the 'final form of human
government'. With end of communist ideology; the western liberal democracy has become dominating
ideology to form governments.
Most of the developed and developing nations adopted liberal democratic form of government. In the
nineteen eighties, the idea of the 'end of history' was coupled with another late nineteen eighties phenomenon
‘globalisation’. Globalisation refers to a set of conditions, scientific, technological, economic and political,
which have linked together the world in a manner so that occurrences in one part of the world are bound to
affect or be affected by what is happening in another part. It may be pointed out that in this global world the
focal point or the centre around which events move worldwide is still western capitalism.
The concept of civil society has gained more importance in comparative political analysis in the
globalised world order. Civil society was defined in terms of protection of individual rights to enter the modern
capitalist world. According to Mohanty (2000) comparative study of this period not only focused on
development of market democracy but also focused on the various civil society activities like resurgence of
people's movements seeking autonomy, right to indigenous culture, movements of tribal’s, dalits, lower castes,
and the women's movement and the environment movement. These movements reveal a terrain of contestation
where the interests of capital are in conflict with people’s rights and represent the language of change and
liberation in an era of global capital.” (Manoranjan Mohanty, 2000). Concerns with issues of identity,
environment, ethnicity, gender, and race have provided a new dimension to comparative political analysis.
Third world began to acquire a distinct character in comparative political analysis by the end of 70’s.
The Euro-centric discourse of social science and comparative politics gradually started to acknowledge various
activities like youth uprisings, anti-war movements, China’s Cultural Revolution in third world countries. The
emergence of third world challenges to the validity and reliability of study started since the beginning of
seventies. Comparativists increasingly started recognizing the peculiarities of Asia, Africa and Latin America
due to its colonial past and present encounter with neo-colonialism.

Consequences of the Widened Scope and Historical Experiences of Comparative

Politics
 According to Almond widened scope of comparative politics in recent times increased the variety of
political systems. It pointed to the role of agencies other than institutions, in particular parties and interest
groups, the role of civil society organisations, public opinion, social movements. (Almond, 1978: 14).
 It introduced a new methodology based on the analysis of ‘Real’ behaviour and roles based on empirical
observation.
 The development of statistical techniques for the analysis of large datasets
 An extra-ordinary efforts of systematic data collection across cases , the creation of data archives, combined
with the introduction of computerization and machine readable datasets.
 A new language - a new framework namely systematic functionalism was imported in comparative politics.
the challenge posed by the extension of the scope of comparison was to elaborate a conceptual body able to
encompass the diversity of cases

Critical Evaluation of Comparative Political Analysis

Comparative political analysis which has been developed through the various phases faced many problems and
limitations. These limitations are mainly concerned with the comparative method and content.
 Comparative political analysis is heavily dependent upon other subfields of political science (such as
political theory and political philosophy) for its approaches, methods and concepts. In comparative politics
there is no longer any central body of literature and any coordinating grand theory. It does not have any
autonomous status. In many centers it is regarded an extension of International Politics and foreign policy.
Comparative politics is methodologically and epistemologically dependent on other subjects.
 Scholars of comparative politics used many new terms but there is no consensus among scholars regarding
meaning of terminology. There is the problem of standard and precise definitions of various important
concepts and terms. Many terms used in comparative politics is suffers from the ambiguity as social scientists
use concepts according to their specialized knowledge.
 Serious difficulties are faced by the comparative political analyst while collecting information and data
about the political system and other non state institution. Wide range of characters of the background variables,
role of norms, institutions and behaviours in government and cross cultural studies.
 The adoption of inter-disciplinary approach in comparative politics has so much widened the scope of this
subject that one is often faced the difficulty of knowing what subject of political analysis included and what it
excluded. It is difficult to draw boundaries in the study of comparative politics.
 Universally acceptable results are not possible in comparative politics because political economy and social
conditions of every country are diverse. As the problems of developed countries are not similar to developing
countries.
 Political behaviour is not concluded on a rational basis or scientific principles therefore, doing systematic
study in comparative politics is more difficult.
 The concept of political institutions and nation’s state in comparative politics are facing the challenges from
the capital and technology, cultural practices, cross-country labour migrations, monitoring of human rights
violations, military interventions and autonomy movement from below. This signifies that the ideas and the
institutions of a ‘culturally homogenous’ nation state which had come to pervade political thinking since the
18th century, are in crisis. (For more details on limitations/problems please see Neera Chandhoke’s “Limits of
Comparative Political Analysis. 1996. Epw, 31.4: 2-8, and Daniele Caramani, 2014. Comparative Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press )
 Field of comparative politics is very dynamic in nature (as we have evidenced the quick variations in
different periods of comparative political analysis). Comparative politics by necessitating comparison help us
to find out various ways in which politics operate and provides with the diversity of the alternatives that exist
in the world. Comparative political analysis always remains the creative, self reflective, open and critical.
While the earliest studies concerned themselves with observing and classifying governments and regimes,
comparative politics in the late 19th and 20th century was concerned with studying the formal legal structures
of institutions in western countries. Towards the end of the Second World-War; a number of ‘new nations’
emerged on the world scene having liberated them-selves from colonial domination. The dominance of
liberalism was challenged by the emergence of communism and the powerful presence of Soviet Union on
world system. The concern among comparativists changed in this juncture to studying the diversity of political
behaviours and processes which were thrown up, however within a single overarching framework. The concept
of ‘systems’ and ‘structures functions’ came in vogue. These frameworks were used by western scholars
particularly those in the United States to study phenomena like Developmentalism, Modernization etc. In the
late 1980’s focus on studying politics comparatively, within an overarching framework of system’ declined
and regional systematic studies assumed significance. These studies started focusing again on study of state
(political forms) and power structures within civil society, which had suffered a setback earlier with the arrival
of systems and structures-functions into comparative politics. Collapse of USSR, dominance of liberalism
democracy, capitalism and the emerging concept of globalization in 1980’s led comparativists into adopting
universalistic, homogenizing expressions like ‘transitions to democracy, the global market’ and ‘civil society’.
Some of the social scientist sees resurgence of civil society in terms of challenges to global capitalism which
comes from popular movements and trade union activism throughout the world. Comparative politics lay
emphasis on comparative and analytical study, study of the infrastructure of developed and developing
countries. Modern thinkers of comparative Politics have also favored inter-disciplinary and value–free study.
Comparatives always tried to expand their vision. Comparative politics should realize the limitations of the
comparative method. Study of comparative politics has included many new topics and content into its scope.
The comparative politics is not attached to any particular values rather it is a neutral study and is more worried
about present than about the future. Along with the study of developed political systems of the west, it has also
included the comparative study of the political systems of developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin
America in its scope.
 International Relations
Introduction: Scope and Relevance

In the very beginning of the civilized world the states were mutually interlinked. In
modern times the world has greatly shrunk as a result of scientific and technological
development. As a result, events in one part of the world have an immediate impact on the rest of
the world. Therefore the states maintain regular relations with other states of the world. As an
alone individual is nothing similarly, a state without other state is nothing and in the present
complex life, a state without relations with other cannot survive. Materialistic needs, religion,
economic requirements, industrialization, security matters and trade etc. brought the states
together. Inter-states wars yielded post-war treaties, economic and friendly agreements and
international organizations. All these things are studied by international relations.
International relations are an old subject and can be traced in the old tribes. It was utilized
by the Greeks and Romans in their relations. As a regular subject, international relations took
start in the World War-I era and specially because of the second World War, Cold War between
USA and USSR, disintegration of USSR, New World Order (NWO) of USA, global role of
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) emergence of international organization and
diplomatic relations etc. developed this subject to great extent.
International Relations is the study and practice of political relationships among the world’s
nations, especially their governments. International relations mean interactions between
nongovernmental groups, such as multinational corporations or international organizations such
as the OIC or the United Nations (UN).
International relations is a broad and complex topic both for countries engaged in relationships
with other nations, and for observers trying to understand those interactions. These relationships
are influenced by many variables. They are shaped by the primary participants in international
relations, including national leaders, oilier politicians, and nongovernmental participants, such as
private corporations, and nongovernmental organizations. They are also affected by domestic
political events and non-political influences, including economics, geography, and culture.
Despite all of these other influences, the primary focus of international relations is on the
interactions between nations.
To understand these interactions, experts look at the world as a system of nations whose
actions are guided by a well-defined set of rules. They call this system the interstate system. The
interstate system has existed for less than 500 years and is based on a common understanding of
what a nation is and how it should treat other nations. But recent changes in technology and
international norms have caused some scholars to question whether this system will continue in
the future, or be replaced by some other system of relationships that is not yet known.
From September 1814 to June 1815 representatives of the major European powers
convened in Vienna, Austria, to reorganize Europe following the defeat of French emperor
Napoleon I. The Congress of Vienna, as this conference became known, was a major event in the
history of international relations.
Until the 1970s the study of international, relations centred mainly on international security
studies, i.e. questions of war and peace. Scholars believed a nation’s military power was the most
important characteristic in determining how that nation would relate to others. As a result,
scholars focused on the relative military strength of one nation compared to others, alliances and
diplomacy between nations, and the strategies nations used to protect their territories and further
their own interests.
Since the 1970s the importance of economics in international relations has increased and
the study of international political ‘economy has received increased attention. The primary force
driving the interaction between nations is economic, not military. There is trade and economic
relations among nations, especially the political cooperation between nations to create and
maintain international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund.
In both security studies and international political economy, experts strive to explain
patterns of conflict and cooperation among nations. Conflicts among nations are expected since
their political and economic aims and interests often depart. Cooperation does not refer to the
absence of conflict but to the ability of nations to peacefully resolve their differences in a way
that is acceptable to all parties involved. When cooperation fails, conflicts often escalate into
coercion and ultimately war.
The term ‘International’ was used for the first time by Jermy Bentham in the later part of
the 18th century with regard to the laws of nations. Consequently, the term “IR” was used to
define the official relations between sovereign states. I he economic, social. cultural. political
and military relations amongst the state of the world may also be included in the preview of the
subject. Thus, there are broadly two views regarding the meaning of international relations.
Narrow view: According to this view ‘IR’ includes only “The official relations conducted
by the authorized leaders of the states.” According to this view other relations do not fall in the
domain of IR’
Broad view: Some scholars have taken a broad view of international relations, and included apart
from the official relations between states, all intercourse among states and all movements of
people, goods and ideas across the national frontiers with in its preview.

Definitions of IR
“International relations is the branch of political science that studies relations between countries
of the world.” (Encarta).
“It is not only the nations seek to regulate, varied types of groups-nations, states, governments,
people, region, alliances, confederations, international organizations, cultural organizations,
religious organizations must be dealt with in the study of international relations if the treatment
is to be made realistic.” (Quincy Wright)
“International relations is concerned with the factors and activities, that affect the external
policies and the powers of the basic units into that the world is divided.” (Hoffman).
“International relations is the discipline, that tries to explain political activities across state
boundaries (Trevor Tayor).
It embraces all kinds of relations traversing state boundaries, no matter whether they are
of an economic, legal, political or any other character, whether they be private or official, and all
human behaviour originating on one side of a state boundary
International relations studies foreign relations, diplomacy. agreements and pacts, international
law, international organizations, inter-state interaction, war and peace, international justice and
alliances etc.
pacts, international law, international organizations, inter-state interaction, war and peace,
international justice and alliances etc.

NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The context and nature of International Relations have undergone major changes after the
Second World War. Traditionally, world politics was centred around Europe and relations among
nations were largely conducted by officials of foreign offices in secrecy. The common man was
hardly ever involved, and treaties were often kept secret. Today public opinion has begun to play
an important role in the decision-making process in foreign offices, thus, changing completely
the nature of international relations. Ambassadors, once briefed by their governments, were
largely free to conduct relations according to the ground realities of the countries of their posting.
Today, not only nuclear weapons changed the nature of war and replaced erstwhile the balance
of power by the balance of terror, but also the nature of diplomacy changed as well. We live in
the jet age where the heads of state and government and their foreign ministers travel across the
globe and personally establish contacts and conduct international relations. Before the First
World War a traveller from India to Britain spent about 20 days in the sea voyage. Today, it
takes less than 9 hours for a jet aircraft to fly from Delhi to London, telephones, fax machines,
teleprinters and other electronic devices have brought all government leaders in direct contact.
Hotline communication between Washington and Moscow, for example, keeps the top world
leaders in constant touch. This has reduced the freedom of ambassadors who receive daily
instructions from their governments.
Decolonisation has resulted in the emergence of a large number of sovereign states. The
former colonies of the European Powers, including India, have become important actors on the
stage of international relation. They were once silent spectators. Today, they participate in the
conduct of world politics. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has created 15 members of the
United Nations, instead of the previous three. Some of the very small countries like Nauru may
have no power but they also have an equal voice in the General Assembly. Four very small
countries viz. Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra were admitted to the UN during
1990-93. The total number of UN members has gone up from 51 in 1945 to 185 in 1997. Thus,
international relations are now conducted by such a large number of new nation-states. Besides,
many non-state actors such as multinationalcorporations and transnational bodies like terrorist
groups have been influencing international relations in a big way. With the collapse of the Soviet
Union as a Super Power, the United States has emerged as the supreme monolithic power and
can now dominate the international scene almost
without any challenge. The Non-Alignment Movement ((NAM) still exists but with the
dismemberment of one of its founders (i.e.: Yugoslavia) and the disappearance of rival power
blocs, the role of the 'Third World' has changed along with that of NAM.
Due to increasing human-activities, the relations among various states has been changing
and due to these continuous change in International Relations, the nature of International
Relations has been changing. Due to the changing nature of International Relations, it is difficult
to explain the nature of International Relations. However, these are the following important
points explaining the nature of International Relations.
1. No Single Definitions: International Relations has no single definition. Unfortunately, till
date, no universally accepted definitions of International Relations have been coined because of
its continuous changing nature.
2. Operates in Anarchical System: International Relations operates in an anarchical system.
There is no single organisations to regulate among states. Michel Nicholson says that
International Relations is study of aspects of anarchy, though an anarchy which is not necessarily
chaotic.
3. Concerns with Global issues: International Relations deals with key issues which concerns
public global interest. For example, every country has an interest in stopping global warming,
goal that can be achieved only by many countries act together.
4. Nations as primary actors of International Relations: Politics is a process of interactions
among groups and International politics is primarily a process of interactions among nations.
Nations-states are the key actors but along with the several non-state, transnational and supra-
national groups, these groups also play an important role in International Relations. The primacy,
however, belongs to nations states because these still control all the instruments like coercion
and violence in International Relations.
5. National interest as the objective: National interest is the objective that each nation attempts
to secure in relations with other nations. International Politics basically involves the art of
preserving or securing goals of national interests by using control over the other nations. It is the
process by which each nationrise to safeguard and secure its interests in conditions of conflict
with other nations.
6. Conflicts as the conditions of International Politics: the national interests of various nations
are neither fully compatible nor fully incompatible. The incompatibility of national interest of
various nation is a source of conflict at theinternational level which finds concrete manifestation
in the form of disputes. However, the possibility of making the interests compatible through
accommodation, adjustment and reconciliation leads to some cooperation among nations. As
such, conflicts and cooperation as well as coercion and persuasion are always present in
International Relations.
7. Power as the means: in conditions of conflict, each nation attempts to secure the goals of its
national interest. The means for securing these goals in power. That is why each nation is
continuously engaged in the process of acquiring, maintaining, increasing and using power. The
power that backs a nation’s attempt to secure its national interest called national power. Power in
the context of International relations is conceptualised as national power.
8. Power as the means as well as the end in International Politics: In International Politics,
power is both the means as well as end. Nations always use power for securing the goal of their
nation interests. At the same time, they regard power as a vital part of their national interest and
therefore try to build and keep a reserve of national power. Each nation always works for
maintaining and increasing its National power.
9.International Politics as a process of conflict-resolution among Nations: Conflicts is the
condition of International politics. It is the most important elect of International Politics because
in the absence of conflicts of interests, power can have little function to perform. Conflict is the
very basis of International Relations. It is at the root of both disputes and cooperation among
nations. Conflicts of interests is a reality of International Relations. However, at the same time, it
can’t be denied that the existence of conflict compels the nations with similar goals of national
interests to cooperate with each other.
10. International Politics involves continuous interaction among nations: since, the national
interest of various nations are in conflict with one another, conflict cannot be completely
eliminated from International society. However, at the same time, conflict must be resolved
because unresolved conflicts can lead to war. This necessitates continuous attempts on the part of
nations to adjust their relations with one another. Nations they to achieve this bemoans of their
power and resources.
11.Interaction among foreign Policies: Since international environment is very complex and
dynamic and each nation has to act in conditions characterised by conflict, cooperation,
competition, war, tensions and uncertainties, it is essential for each nation to perform on the basis
of its foreign policy. The relations among nations mostly take the form of interactions among the
foreign policies of the nations.
 Global Politics
‘“The world is always new … however old its roots”’
URSULA K. LE GUIN, The Word for World is Forest (1972)

PREVIEW
How should we study politics? Traditionally, there was a tendency to focus on political
actors and institutions at the local and national levels. Beyond this, students and scholars
in the political sub-field of international relations (IR) tend to consider ‘the international’
as the political space in which these local and national political interests are represented
in the form of interaction between states, regions of states, and a worldwide ‘states-
system’. But since the late twentieth century, the concept of globalization has challenged
these narrow, state-centric ways of thinking about politics. This book is about global
politics, which is to say it is about how politics – struggles over power, how it should be
distributed, and how we might best organise ourselves and live together as societies –
works at the global level.
But what is ‘the global’ when it comes to politics, and why does it matter? How does it
differ from ‘the international’, as a way of seeing or imagining our world? What kinds of
actors, institutions, and processes contribute the most to the globalisation of politics, and
which ones try to hold back its tide, and why? This chapter explores the rise of a global
imaginary in discussions of politics and international relations, considers its implications
for the study and practice of world politics – including issues ranging from state
sovereignty to the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic – and reflects upon continuity and
change in global politics.

KEY ISSUES
• •What is ‘the global’ and how does it relate to ‘the international’?
• •How have the contours of world politics changed in recent decades?
• •What have been the implications of globalization for world politics?
• •How do mainstream approaches to global politics differ from critical approaches?
• •Which aspects of world politics are changed by globalization, and which remain
the same?

This is the version of the chapter accepted for publication in Heywood, Andrew and
Whitham, Ben (2023) Global Politics (3rd Edition). London: Bloomsbury (2023) Re-use
is subject to the publisher’s terms and conditions This version downloaded from SOAS
Research Online: http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/39134
The domain of global politics

FROM ‘THE INTERNATIONAL’ TO ‘THE GLOBAL’?

The aim of this book is to provide an up-to-date, integrated and
forward-looking introduction to global politics . It seeks to be genuinely
global while not ignoring the international dimension of world affairs,
accepting that ‘the global’ and ‘the international’ complement one
another and are not rival or incompatible modes of understanding. In this
view, global politics encompasses not just politics at the ‘global’ level –
that is, worldwide processes, systems and institutional frameworks – but
politics at, and, crucially, across, all levels – the worldwide, the regional,
the national and the subnational (see Figure 1.1). Such an approach
reflects the fact that while, over an increasing range of issues, states
interact with one another in conditions of global interconnectedness and
interdependence, they nevertheless remain the key actors on the world
stage.
However, if the international paradigm, in which world affairs boil
down, essentially, to relations between and among states, no longer
constitutes an adequate basis for understanding, what has changed, and
how profound have these changes been? How have the contours of
world politics changed in recent years? The most significant changes
have been the following:
• • The emergence of new global actors
• • The growth of interdependence and interconnectedness
• • The erosion of the domestic/international divide
• • The rise of global governance.

State: A political institution that successfully claims sovereign

jurisdiction within defined territorial borders.
Focus on . . . Defining global politics?
What does it mean to suggest that politics has ‘gone global’? How does
‘global’ politics differ from ‘international’ politics? The term
‘international’ means between nations, and is today commonly
understood to mean between nation-states or simply ‘states’. The term
‘global’, on the other hand, has two meanings. In the first, global means
worldwide, having planetary (not merely regional or national)
significance. The globe is, in effect, the world. Global politics, in this
sense, refers to politics that is conducted at a global rather than a local,
national or regional level. It therefore focuses primarily on the work of
organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade
Organization (WTO), which have a near universal membership, and on
issues (such as the environment and the economy) where
interconnectedness has gone so far that events and developments affect,
actually or potentially, all parts of the world and so all people on the
planet.
In the second meaning (the one used in this book), global means
comprehensive; it refers to all elements within a system, not just to the
system as a whole. While such an approach acknowledges that a
significant (and, perhaps, growing) range of political interactions now
takes place at the global level, it rejects the idea that the global level has,
in any sense, transcended politics at the national, local or, for that
matter, any other level. In particular, the advent of global politics does
not imply that international politics should be consigned to the dustbin
of history. This is important because the notion that politics has been
caught up in a swirl of interconnectedness that effectively absorbs all of
its parts, or ‘units’, into an indivisible, global whole, is difficult to
sustain.
From state-centrism to the mixed-actor model and interdependence?
 World politics has conventionally been understood in international
terms. Although the larger phenomenon of patterns of conflict and
cooperation between and among territorially-based political units has existed
throughout history, the term ‘international relations’ was not coined until the
UK philosopher and legal reformer, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), used it in
his Principles of Morals and Legislation ([1789] 1968). Bentham’s use of the
term acknowledged a significant shift: that, by the late eighteenth century,
territorially-based political units were coming to have a more clearly national
character, making relations between them appear genuinely ‘inter-national’.
However, although most modern states are either nation-states (see p. 168) or
aspire to be nation-states, it is their possession of statehood rather than
nationhood that allows them to act effectively on the world stage.
‘International’ politics should thus, more properly, be described as ‘inter-
state’ politics. But what is a state? As defined in international law by the
1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a state must
possess four qualifying properties:
• • a defined territory
• • a permanent population
• • an effective government
• • the ‘capacity to enter into relations with other states’.

In this view, states, or countries (the terms can be used interchangeably

in this context); are taken to be the key actors on the world stage, and perhaps
the only ones that warrant serious consideration. This is why the conventional
approach to world politics is seen as state-centric, and why the international
system is often portrayed as a states-system. The origins of this view of
international politics are usually traced back to the Peace of Westphalia
(1648), which established sovereignty (see p. 4) as the distinguishing feature
of the state. State sovereignty thus became the primary organizing principle
of international politics.
State-centrism: An approach to political analysis that takes the state to be
the most important actor in the domestic realm and on the world stage.
States-system: A pattern of relationships between and amongst states that
establishes a measure of order and predictability.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the principle of supreme and unquestionable
authority, reflected in the claim by the state to be the sole author of laws
within its territory. External sovereignty (sometimes called ‘state
sovereignty’ or ‘national sovereignty’) refers to the capacity of the state
to act independently and autonomously on the world stage. This implies
that states are legally equal and that the territorial integrity and political
independence of a state are inviolable. Internal sovereignty refers to the
location of supreme power/authority within the state. The institution of
sovereignty is nevertheless developing and changing, both as new
concepts of sovereignty emerge (‘economic sovereignty’, ‘food
sovereignty’ and so on) and as sovereignty is adapted to new
circumstances (‘pooled sovereignty’, ‘responsible sovereignty’ and so
forth).
However, the state-centric approach to world politics has become
increasingly difficult to sustain. This has happened, in part, because it is
no longer possible to treat states as the only significant actors on the
world stage. Transnational corporations (TNCs) (see p. 94), non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) (see p. 10) and a host of other non-
state bodies have come to exert influence. In different ways and to
different degrees, groups and organizations ranging from ISIS (see p.
XXX), the #MeToo movement (see p. XXX) and Extinction Rebellion
(see p. XXX) to Google (see p. XXX), contribute to shaping world
politics. Since the 1970s, indeed, pluralist theorists have advocated a
mixed-actor model of world politics. However, although it is widely
accepted that states and national governments are merely one category
of actor amongst many on the world stage, they may still remain the
most important actors. No TNC or NGOs, for instance, can rival the
state’s coercive power, either its capacity to enforce order within its
borders or its ability to deal militarily with other states. (The changing
role and significance of the state are examined in depth in Chapter 5.)
Mixed-actor model: The theory that, while not ignoring the role
of states and national governments, international politics is shaped by a
much broader range of interests and groups.
 While the state unquestionably retains a significant degree of power
in global politics as compared to other actors, the so-called ‘billiard ball’
model – according to which, states are essentially discrete, bounded
entities interacting with (or ‘bouncing off’) one another in international
relations – is less sustainable. This model, traditionally advocated by
‘realist’ thinkers has lost ground to the ‘neoliberal institutionalist’s claim
that global politics is in fact characterized by ‘complex interdependence’
(Keohane and Nye, 1977), but also to ‘critical’ explanations that suggest
the international relations are really social relations, and thus were never
entirely contained by the state. The mixture of actors and the range of
issues over which they interact, the non-state and sub-state channels of
interaction, and the increasing primacy of economic activity, have all
brought the global imaginary of a state-centric ‘Westphalian’ order into
question.
CONCEPT

Interdependence
Interdependence refers to a relationship between two parties in which
each is affected by decisions that are taken by the other. Interdependence
implies mutual influence, even a rough equality between the parties in
question, usually arising from a sense of mutual vulnerability.
Interdependence, then, is usually associated with a trend towards
cooperation and integration in world affairs. Keohane and Nye (1977)
advanced the idea of ‘complex interdependence’ as an alternative to the
realist model of international politics. This highlighted the extent to which
(1) states have ceased to be autonomous international actors; (2) economic
and other issues have become more prominent in world affairs; and (3)
military force has become a less reliable and less important policy option.
Some argue that the state’s special status as a global actor is preserved
because it retains what the political sociologist Max Weber famously
called the ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given
territory’ (Weber, 1919). The state’s role as the entity that wages war, and
maintains domestic law and order, is supposed to render it unique. But
even this seems less certain in the early twenty-first century, with
the rise of private military and security companies (PMSCs) – the modern
form of what have been known as ‘mercenaries’ – on the one hand, and the
increasing privatisation of policing and prisons, on the other. In their
international relations, states have increasingly relied on PMSCs in armed
conflicts, such as the US in the Iraq War, while PMSCs have also been
involved as paramilitary and covert forces in attempted coups d’etat. An
example of the latter is the unsuccessful attempt by former US Special
Forces soldiers employed by a PMSC called Silvercorp USA to overthrow
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in May 2020 (these mercenaries
were ultimately captured and jailed by Venezuelan forces). Within states,
meanwhile, armed and state-sanctioned private security firms have offered
everything from the guarding of majority-white ‘gated communities’ in
Johannesburg, South Africa, to the routine running of prisons and
immigration detention centres in the USA and the UK. While states may
retain the greatest quantity, and perhaps quality, of the means of
‘legitimate’ violence, they no longer appear to have a monopoly. The
expanded role of sub-state and private actors in expressions of ‘war power’
and ‘police power’ (Neocleous, 2014) lends further weight to the claim the
we live in a ‘post-Westphalian’, global order characterised by complexity
and interdependence.
‘Billiard ball’ model a way of seeing global politics, particularly among
‘realist’ thinkers, as a set of interactions between territorially-bounded,
discrete states; it is a state-centric model (see p. XXX). Global imaginary:
an ‘imaginary’ is a way of seeing or imagining things. A global imaginary
is a holistic way of imagining social, political, and economic life, at the
level of the whole world rather than the local, national, or even
international.
Focus on . . . The Westphalian states-system
The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is commonly said to mark the beginning
of modern international politics. The Peace was a series of treaties that
brought an end to the Thirty Years War (1618–48), which consisted of a
series of declared and undeclared wars throughout central Europe
involving the Holy Roman Empire and various opponents, including the
Danes, the Dutch and, above all, France and Sweden. Although the
transition occurred over a much longer period of time, these treaties
helped to transform a medieval Europe of overlapping authorities, loyalties
and identities into a modern state-system. The so-called ‘Westphalian
system’ was based on two key principles:
⚫ States enjoy sovereign jurisdiction, in the sense that they have
independent control over what happens within their territory (all other
institutions and groups, spiritual and temporal, are therefore subordinate to
the state).
⚫ Relations between and among states are structured by the acceptance of
the sovereign independence of all states (thus implying that states are
legally equal).

From the domestic/international divide to transnationalism?

One of the key implications of approaching study from the
perspective of ‘the international’ is that politics has a distinct spatial or
territorial character. In short, borders and boundaries matter. This applies
especially in the case of the distinction between domestic politics, which is
concerned with the state’s role in maintaining order and carrying out
regulation within its borders, and international politics, which is concerned
with relations between and among states. In that sense, sovereignty is a
‘hard shell’ that divides the ‘inside’ of politics from the ‘outside’. This
domestic/international, or ‘inside/outside’, divide also separates what have
conventionally been seen as two quite different spheres of political
interaction. Whereas politics ‘inside’ has an orderly and regulated
character, stemming from the ability of the state within the domestic
sphere to impose rule from above, order of this kind is absent from politics
‘outside’, in that there is no authority in the international sphere higher
than the sovereign state. According to John Agnew (1994), such thinking
had created a ‘territorial trap’ within the discipline of international
relations, reflected in three assumptions. First, the state is a clearly
bounded territorial space. Second, domestic and foreign affairs are entirely
different realms. Third, states are ‘containers’ of society, implying that the
boundaries of the state coincide with the boundaries of society.
Such an emphasis on borders and clear territorial divisions have
nevertheless come under pressure as a result of recent trends and
developments, not least those associated with globalization. In particular,
there has been a substantial growth in cross-border
flows and transactions – movements of people, goods, money, information
and ideas. This has created the phenomenon of transnationalism. As state
borders have become increasingly ‘porous’, the conventional
domestic/international, or ‘inside/outside’ divide has become more
difficult to uphold. This can be illustrated by both the substantially greater
vulnerability of domestic economies to events that take place elsewhere in
the world (as demonstrated by the wide-ranging impact of the 2007–08
global financial crisis, and of the 2020 global coronavirus pandemic) and
by the wider use of digital technologies that enable people to communicate
with one another through means (such as mobile phones and the Internet)
that national governments find difficult to control. It is also notable that
issues that are prominent in world affairs, such as environmental politics
and human rights (see p. 311), tend to have an intrinsically transnational
character. However, claims that the modern world is effectively
‘borderless’ are manifestly absurd, and, in some ways, territorial divisions
are becoming more important, not less important. This is evident, for
instance, in the greater emphasis on national or ‘homeland’ security in
many parts of the world since the terrorist attacks of September 11, and in
attempts to constrain international migration by strengthening border and
other immigration controls.
Globalization: The emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness
that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and
decisions that are made, at a great distance from us (see p. 8).
Transnationalism: Political, social, economic or other forms that
transcend or cut across national borders
From international anarchy to global governance?
A key assumption of the traditional approach to international politics, and
especially ‘realist’ thinking (see p. XXX), has been that the states-system
operates in a context of anarchy. This reflects the notion that there is no
higher authority than the state, meaning that external politics operates as an
international ‘state of nature’, a pre-political society. The implications of
international anarchy are profound. Most importantly, in the absence of
any other force attending to their interests, states are forced to rely on
themselves in a system of ‘self-help’ (see p. XXX). If international politics
operates as a ‘self-help system’, the power-seeking inclinations of one state
are
only tempered by competing tendencies in other states, suggesting that
conflict and war are inevitable features of the international system. In this
view, conflict is only constrained by a balance of power, developed either as
a diplomatic strategy by peace-minded leaders or occurring through a happy
coincidence. This image of anarchy has been modified by the idea that the
international system operates more like an ‘international society’ (see p. 9).
Hedley Bull ([1977] 2012) thus advanced the notion of an ‘anarchical
society’, in place of the conventional theory of international anarchy.
Anarchy: Literally, without rule; the absence of a central government or
higher authority, sometimes, but not necessarily, associated with instability
and chaos.
Balance of power: A condition in which no one state predominates over
others, tending to create general equilibrium and curb the hegemonic
ambitions of all states (see p. 262).
However, the idea of international anarchy, and even the more modest
notion of an ‘anarchical society’, have become more difficult to sustain
because of the emergence, especially since 1945, of a framework of global
governance (see p. 462) and sometimes regional governance. This is reflected
in the growing importance of organizations such as the United Nations, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (see p. 475), the World Trade
Organization (WTO) (see p. 537), the European Union (see p. 509) and so on.
The growing number and significance of international organizations has
occurred for powerful and pressing reasons. Notably, they reflect the fact that
states are increasingly confronted by collective action problems; issues that
are particularly taxing because they confound even the most powerful of
states when acting alone. This first became apparent in relation to the
development of technologized warfare and particularly the invention of
nuclear weapons, but has since been reinforced by challenges such as
financial crises, pandemics, climate change, terrorism, crime, migration and
development. Such trends, nevertheless, have yet to render the idea of
international anarchy altogether redundant. While international organizations
have undoubtedly become significant actors on the world stage, competing, at
times, with states and other non-state actors, their impact should not be
exaggerated. Apart from anything else, they are, to a greater or lesser extent,
the creatures of their members: they can do no more than their member states,
and especially powerful states, allow them to do.
Collective action problems: A problem that stems from the
interdependence of states, meaning that any solution must involve
international cooperation rather than action by a single state.
GLOBAL ACTORS . . .
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a private, non-commercial
group or body which seeks to achieve its ends through non-violent means.
The World Bank (see p. 380) defines NGOs as ‘private organizations that
pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor,
protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake
community development’. Very early examples of such bodies were the
Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade (formed by William
Wilberforce in 1787) and the International Committee of the Red Cross,
founded in 1863. The first official recognition of NGOs was by the United
Nations (UN) in 1948, when 41 NGOs were granted consultative status
following the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(indeed, some NGO activists believe that only groups formally
acknowledged by the UN should be regarded as ‘true’ NGOs). A
distinction is often drawn between operational NGOs and advocacy NGOs:
⚫ Operational NGOs are those whose primary purpose is the design and
implementation of development-related projects; they may be either relief-
orientated or development-orientated, and they may be community-based,
national or international.
⚫ Advocacy NGOs exist to promote or defend a particular cause; they are
sometimes termed ‘promotional pressure groups’ or ‘public interest
groups’.
Significance: Since the 1990s, the steady growth in the number of NGOs
has become a veritable explosion. By 2021 5,593 groups had been granted
consultative status by the UN, with estimates suggesting a total of around
50 large (multi-country, multi-mandate) international NGOs and as many
as 300,000 smaller internationally-focused NGOs globally. If national and
local NGOs are taken into account, the number grows
enormously: as of 2021, the USA has an estimated 1.5 million NGOs; in 2017,
Russia reportedly had 224,500 NGOs; and Kenya, to take one developing
country alone, registered 11,262 new NGOs between 2001 and 2019. The major
international NGOs have developed into huge organizations. For example, Care
International, dedicated to the worldwide reduction of poverty, controls a budget
worth more than 970m dollars, Greenpeace has a membership of 2.8m and a
staff of over 2,400, and Amnesty International is better resourced than the
human rights arm of the UN.
There can be little doubt that major international NGOs and the NGO
sector as a whole now constitute significant actors on the global stage. Although
lacking the economic leverage that TNCs can exert, advocacy NGOs have
proved highly adept at mobilizing ‘soft’ power and popular pressure. In this
respect, they have a number of advantages. These include that leading NGOs
have cultivated high public profiles, often linked to public protests and
demonstrations that attract eager media attention; that their typically altruistic
and humanitarian objectives enable them to mobilize public support and exert
moral pressure in a way that conventional politicians and political parties
struggle to rival; and that, over a wide range of issues, the views of NGOs are
taken to be both authoritative and disinterested, based on the use of specialists
and academics. Operational NGOs, for their part, have come to deliver about 15
per cent of international aid, often demonstrating a greater speed of response
and level of operational effectiveness than governmental bodies, national or
international, can muster. Relief- and development-orientated NGOs may also
be able to operate in politically sensitive areas where national governments, or
even the UN, would be unwelcome.
Nevertheless, the rise of the NGO has provoked considerable political
controversy. Supporters of NGOs argue that they benefit and enrich global
politics. They counter-balance corporate power, challenging the influence of
TNCs; democratize global politics by articulating the interests of people and
groups who have been disempowered by the globalization process; and act as a
moral force, widening people’s sense of civic responsibility and even promoting
global citizenship. In these respects, they are a vital component of emergent
global civil society (see p. 156). Critics, however, argue that NGOs are really
self-appointed ‘pressure’ or ‘interest’ groups that have limited democratic
credentials. NGOs have also faced criticism for cynical fund-raising and
campaigning tactics, and for blunting the radical edge of social movements.
Amid a series of recent scandals, some major Western international NGOs have
been found to be
involved in sexual exploitation and violence in developing countries, and
institutionally racist, bullying and abusive employment practices in their
home countries, spawning the social media hashtag campaign
#CharitySoWhite in 2019 (The impact and significance of NGOs is
examined further in Chapter 6.)
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
No development has challenged the conventional state-centric image of
world politics more radically than the emergence of globalization. By the
1990s globalization had become a key ‘buzz word’ from the social
sciences to politics and pop culture, although its use has been in decline
since the mid-2000s. The twenty-first century was supposed to be the
‘global century’, but what is ‘globalization’? Is it actually happening, and,
if so, what are its implications?
CONCEPT
Globalization
Globalization is the emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness
that means that our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and
decisions that are made, at a great distance from us. The central feature of
globalization is therefore that geographical distance is of declining
relevance and that territorial borders, such as those between nation-states,
are becoming less significant. By no means, however, does globalization
imply that ‘the local’ and ‘the national’ are subordinated to ‘the global’.
Rather, it highlights the deepening as well as the broadening of the
political process, in the sense that local, national and global events (or
perhaps local, regional, national, international and global events)
constantly interact.
Defining and debating globalization
Globalization is what W.B. Gallie (1956) would have called an ‘essentially
contested concept’. That is to say that it has many definitions, some of
which overlap and some of which conflict with one another. It has been
variously defined as:
• • ‘[T]he intensification of worldwide social relations that link distant
localities in a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many
miles away and vice versa’ (Giddens 1990)
• • ‘The integration of national economies into the international economy
through trade, direct foreign investment, short-term capital flows, international
flows of workers and humanity generally, and flows of technology’ (Bhagwati
2004)
• • ‘The processes through which sovereign nation-states are criss-crossed
and undermined by transnational actors with varying prospects of power,
orientations, identities and networks’ (Beck 2000)
• • ‘A process (or set of processes) which embody the transformation of the
spatial organization of social relations and transactions’ (Held et al. 1999)
• • ‘A reconfiguration of social geography marked by the growth of
transplanetary and supraterritorial connections between people’ (Scholte 2005)
• • ‘A process of time-space compression – literally a shrinking world – in
which the sources of even very local developments, from unemployment to
ethnic conflict, may be traced to distant conditions or decisions’ (McGrew
2010)
• • [T]he fad of the 1990s, and […] made in America (Waltz 1999)

Globalization is a complex, elusive and controversial term. Recent

analysis of the literature on globalization has suggested its sometimes confused
and contradictory definitions result from the tautology underpinning it: those
who theorise globalisation often do so by reference to claims about the existence
of ‘the global’ (Kamola 2013, 2019). ‘Globalization’ has been used to refer to a
process, a policy, a marketing strategy, a predicament or even an ideology.
Some have tried to bring greater clarity to the debate about the nature of
globalization by distinguishing between globalization as a process or set of
processes (highlighting the dynamics of transformation or change, in common
with other words that end in the suffix ‘-ization’, such as modernization) and
globality as a condition (indicating the set of circumstances that globalization
has brought about, just as modernization has created a condition of modernity)
(Steger 2003). The problem with defining globalization may be that it is not so
much an ‘it’ as a ‘them’: it is not a single process but a complex of processes,
sometimes overlapping and interlocking but also, at times, contradictory and
oppositional. Nevertheless, the various developments and manifestations that
are associated with globalization, or
indeed globality, can be traced back to the underlying phenomenon of
interconnectedness between previously unconnected people and
institutions. Held et al. (1999) thus defined globalization as ‘the widening,
intensifying, speeding up, and growing impact of world-wide
interconnectedness’.
Globality: A totally interconnected whole, such as the global economy; the
social domain created by globalization.
Although globalization theorists have championed particular
interpretations of globalization, these are by no means all mutually
exclusive. Instead, they capture different aspects of a complex and
multifaceted phenomenon. Globalization has been interpreted in three main
ways:
• • Economic globalization (see p. 98) is the process through which
national economies have, to a greater or lesser extent, been absorbed into a
single global economy (examined in greater depth in Chapter 4).
• • Cultural globalization (see p. 151) is the process whereby
information, commodities and images that have been produced in one part
of the world enter into a global flow that tends to ‘flatten out’ cultural
differences between nations, regions and individuals (discussed more fully
in Chapter 6).
• • Political globalization (see p. 122) is the process through which
policy-making responsibilities have been passed from national
governments to international organizations (considered in greater detail in
Chapter 5).

But is globalization actually happening? Although globalization has been a

buzz word in the social sciences, and among politicians and journalists, for
decades, its very existence remains open to question. The most influential
early attempt to outline the various positions on this globalization debate
was set out by Held et al. (1999). They distinguished between three
positions:
• • The hyperglobalists
• • The sceptics
• • The transformationalists.
Hyperglobalism is arguably something of an intellectual ‘straw man’, since
its rather extreme position – that globalization makes the state obsolete – is
found more often in arguments against globalization theory than it is as a
coherent theoretical position of its own. In fact, the one text that is almost
always mentioned in the same breath as hyperglobalism is Keniche Ohmae’s
(1990) The Borderless World. The Borderless World is a book aimed at
corporate managers, but nevertheless became treated as a serious work of
globalization theory, if only because its central arguments are easily
refutable. Ohmae argued that the globalization of trade, led by the ‘Triad’ of
the US, Europe and Japan, meant that ‘national borders have effectively
disappeared’ between these countries. Even in the 1990s this claim was
hyperbolic, but in the twenty-first century, with the reassertion of state power
through the ‘War on Terror’ (see p. XXX), the rise of anti-immigration
politics and increasingly tough and complex immigration regimes, it is
impossible to sustain.
Hyperglobalism: The view that new, globalized economic and cultural
patterns became inevitable as a result of fast-paced information and
communication technological (ICT) innovations in the twentieth century, and
that globalization makes states obsolete, producing a ‘borderless world’.
Globalization skeptics for their part, including many Marxist (see p. XXX)
and realist see p. XXX) thinkers, argue that globalization either does not exist
at all, or that it is not what hyperglobalists and other globalists think it is.
Hirst and Thompson (1999) argue that claims about ‘economic
globalization’, in particular, do not stand up to scrutiny, since ‘free’
transnational capital flows tend to be amongst major powers in general and
USA-Europe-Japan ‘Triad’ in particular. Realist skeptics, on the other hand,
emphasise the fact that what liberal globalists and hyperglobalists call
‘globalization’ may actually be simply expressions of America’s global
‘hegemonic’ power (see p. XXX). On this view, it is US-dominated capital
and US interests that benefit, from the outsourcing of manufacture from West
to East, to the influence of the international organisations that carry out
‘global governance’. For realists, an iron fist of military might lies within the
velvet glove of ‘globalization’ talk; as Kenneth Waltz (see p. XXX) noted of
the fevered globalization theories and predictions that followed the end of the
Cold War: ‘America continues to garrison much of the world and to look for
ways of keeping troops in foreign countries’ (Waltz 2000).
‘Transformationalists’, meanwhile, are supposed to represent a ‘third way’
between those who embrace and those who reject claims about
globalization. A transformationalist position on globalization admits that
there have been profound changes – transformations – as a result of
technological innovation and increased interconnectedness, but take care to
specify these changes closely rather than bundling them up as
‘globalization’.
Anti-globalization politics
Globalization has been subject not only to intellectual critiques by
those who would suggest it does not exist, or is not what we think it is, but
has also been opposed in practice by a range of global political movements
and actors opposed to its perceived ill-effects. There have been two broad
trends in this politics of anti-globalization. The first is associated loosely
with the transnational political Left: activists, politicians, and NGOs
arguing that globalization is really an intensification of the exploitation and
violence done to working class and marginalised people, and to the
environment, around the world. The second is associated with a broadly
right-wing tradition that can, ironically, be characterised as a ‘transnational
nationalist’ movement. This right-wing movement opposes the
immigration and racial mixing enabled by globalization, and laments how
particular social groups it identifies with ‘the nation’ have ‘lost out’ or
been ‘left behind’ by economic globalization.
Left-wing anti-globalization
The first wave of left-wing anti-globalization politics coalesced
around mass demonstrations against the institutions of ‘global governance’
(see p. XXX) at the turn of the millennium. Precipitated by the Zapatista
uprising in Mexico in the mid-1990s (see p. XXX), this transnational social
movement was partly enabled by the rise of the Internet, which provided
new channels for activist organisation and the planning and promotion of
direct action and protest. Major demonstrations included those against the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) at the ‘Battle of Seattle’ in 1999, and at
the ‘Group of Eight’ major economies (G-8) meeting in Genoa in 2001.
Each of these
demonstrations attracted many tens of thousands of protestors from around
the world, campaigning across a huge range of issues, from ecological
protection to the need to replace capitalism with a more humane economic
system. This movement was associated with the World Social Forum
(WSF), an alternative to the World Economic Forum (WEF), which was
seen as a key global governance institution bringing the global economic
and political elite together in Davos, Switzerland each year to discuss the
future of the global economy. The WSF has instead met each year from
2001 in the ‘Global South’ (see p. XXX), initially in Porto Alegre, Brazil,
and brings together activists concerned with achieving ‘global social
justice’ for workers, marginalised and minoritised groups, indigenous
peoples, and the natural environment. As the movement developed in the
2000s and 2010s it became more closely associated with ‘alter-
globalisations’ – recognising that globalisation may be both inevitable and
a force for good, but emphasising that the US-led, corporate, culturally
homogenising, and violently militaristic model of globalisation, associated
with undemocratic and unaccountable elites and their global governance
institutions, is the ‘wrong’ kind of globalization. This broadly left-wing
anti-globalisation movement instead advocates more open global
immigration regime, or even an end to national borders altogether, more
global cooperation to slow or reverse climate change and environmental
degradation, and global cross-racial and working-class solidarities. After
the onset of the 2008 global financial crisis, a series of related global
movements and demonstrations emerged to contest the targeting of the
crisis’s costs at vulnerable populations in the form of ‘austerity’ policies,
often mirroring or overlapping the left-wing anti/alter-globalization
movement. These included the anti-austerity ‘Indignados’ movement in
Spain, the ‘Occupy’ movements, beginning with Occupy Wall Street, in
2011 and spreading to cities around the world, and the rise of leftist anti-
austerity parties like Syriza, which was elected to government in Greece in
2015. Between 2015 and 2020, left-wing veterans of the anti/alter-
globalization and anti-austerity movements, including the US Senator
Bernie Sanders and the British MP Jeremy Corbyn, became ‘mainstream’
political leaders in their respective national legislatures, although both
ultimately failed in their ambitions to be elected to government.
Right-wing anti-globalization
The right-wing anti-globalization movement emerged as a relatively coherent,
though less united and coordinated, global network much more recently. While
the idea of transnational nationalist solidarity might appear contradictory or
oxymoronic, given the investment of nationalist groups in ‘their’ respective
national identities, and their hostility to foreigners, the situation is not so simple.
In fact, historically-speaking, nationalists have been at least as oriented toward
transnational organising and solidarity as liberal and left-wing global actors –
think of the alliances and collaborations between Germany, Italy, and Spain
when those three countries were under fascist rule, for example, and of the
‘Axis’ powers’ alliance in the Second World War (see p. XXX). In the 2010s,
parallel to the anti/alter-globalization Left’s anti-austerity movement, there
emerged an increasingly widespread and successful transnational right-wing
movement, which argued against globalization and especially against
‘globalism’ (see p. XXX). These consisted of local, national, and regional-level
movements in Europe and North America, including organisations and political
parties like the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in Britain, Alternatif fur
Deutshland (AfD) in Germany, Generazione Identitaria (Generation Idenity) in
Italy, and the movement around the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump in
the USA. Outside of the ‘West’ (see p. XXX), similar movements emerged
around the political leadership of Narendra Modi in India and Jair Bolsonaro in
Brazil. While, like those involved in left-wing anti-globalisation movements,
these global political actors differ over the details of precise political goals and
methods, they are united by the claims that ‘their’ people have lost out in
various ways through globalization and liberal, globalist policy, and by their
advocacy of racially or ‘ethnically’ defined concepts of national identity. Their
politics at both the national and the global level tends to centre on the
demonization of the political Left, and of racialized, gendered and sexual
minorities, and especially on opposition to ‘mass’ immigration. If the first wave
of left-wing anti-globalisation politics was enabled by the dawn of the Internet –
a technology so shrewdly exploited by the Zapatistas and other parts of the anti-
capitalist Left – then the more right-wing turn against globalization could not
have happened without social media. The transformative effects of social media,
as Internet content began to be created by individual users rather than
predominantly by big businesses, were so dramatic that the term ‘Web 2.0’ was
coined to describe the new social media model. Political organising and political
argument in general became core features of social media, with platforms like
Twitter becoming especially politicised. While both Left and Right organise and
propagandise through social media, the transnational anti-globalization Right was
really born through these platforms, which allowed disparate and distant right-wing
activists to communicate and organise around the shared views discussed above,
across their otherwise very different national and local contexts.
Globalism, worlding, and worldism: imagining global politics
A popular slogan associated with the first wave of anti-globalisation movements
(see p. XXX) was ‘think global, act local’. This emphasised the need for people to
be conscious of globalisation (and what its critics view as the exploitation and
inequality it perpetuates and extends), but to direct their anti-globalization activism
at their local contexts. Apart from the comparatively straightforward case for
studying the global as a ‘domain’ of politics, on the grounds that the national,
regional, and international domains no longer capture everything that constitutes
‘the political’, there is a wider question around what it means to ‘think global’. It is
now widely argued that one of the key drivers of globalisation and the emergence
of ‘the global’ as a political space is imagination. This doesn’t mean that global
politics are not ‘real’, but rather that the increased focus on the global is the result
of an imaginative shift in societies across the world, from the level of our own
local and national contexts – the things that matter to us at a relatively ‘micro’
level – to more ‘macro’-level imaginaries.
Studying global politics is, in this sense,
first of all about ‘thinking international
relations differently’ (Tickner and Blaney,
2012), moving away from the traditional
focus on inter-state relations. Isaac
Kamola (2019) argues that the process of
‘making the world global’, which consists
first of all in the social construction (see p.
XXX) of a ‘global imaginary’, is closely
linked to the rise of neoliberalism (see p. Prepared by:
XXX) in the 1980s and 1990s. The rise of
‘the global’, on this view, results from the ALEJANDRO T. BALBUENA, J.D.
increasing influence of multinational CAS Faculty, JRMSU – Dipolog
corporations, university business schools, Campus
international financial institutions, and
politicians advocating market-driven
politics, all of whom pushed a ‘globalist’
way of seeing the political that was
attached to their particular vision of the
global economy. [THEORIST] L.H.M.
Ling (1955-2018)