Structural and Interest Based Theories of Politics

Structural and Interest Based Theories of administrationWhat be the principal(prenominal) dissentences betwixt morphologic and interest-based explanations in relative degree politics? equivalence and discuss their features using empirical examples.At the heart of the field of proportional politics lie a variety of theoretical frameworks, each of which attempts to invoke our apprehensiveness of what is important in relation to explaining governmental phenomena. The aim of this experiment is to examine and comp are the features of the structural and interest-based progresses, through the use of empirical examples. As regards its structure, the essay go away begin by providing a definition of the relative method. Following on will be a brief interchange on its uses and a cost-benefit depth psychology of using such an approach. After all, it is the comparative method that will radiation diagram the basis of the discussion to follow. The essay will subsequently identif y the main differences between structural and interest-based explanations in comparative politics. Due to the lack of space, the ways in which they complement unitary some other will be omitted. Finally, the essay will conclude by reason that the main differences between structural and interest-based approaches revolve around their explanations on the causes of policy-making developments, and their focuses on the individual.In order to fully appreciate the main differences between the structural and interest-based explanations in comparative politics, it is first important to develop an understanding of the comparative method in its own right. Although widely used in the field of political science, the comparative method is far from straightforward to define. It is an snitch term to which various definitions have been applied over the years. According to the political scientist Arend Lijphart, the comparative method can be defined as the summary of a small number of cases, ent ailing at least two observations, solitary(prenominal) too few to permit the application of conventional statistical abridgment. (Collier, 1993 106) In practice, this refers to what is known as a small N abbreviation, within which there are two basic research be afters most similar systems design (MSSD), and most unlike systems design (MDSD). As a rule of thumb, the reason, otherwise known as mill Method of Difference, involves the use of less than 20 cases (states) that are as similar as assertable. The logic behind this methodological analysis is that the much homogeneous the cases under investigation, the easier it ought to be to pinpoint the factors noticeable for the differences between them. Faure (1994) argues that the most similar systems design is the prevailing method (but not the only one) in comparative politics. (Faure, 1994 310) By contrast, the latter, otherwise known as Mills Method of Similarity, involves the use of less than 20 cases that are as differen t as possible, the purpose of which is to communicate the vigorous nature of the correlation between dependent and independent variables. Such a method assumes that by proving that the observe correlations hold true in different domestic settings, the line of argumentation should be better corroborated.There are galore(postnominal) uses of the comparative method. In addition to the case study approach, the experimental method, and the statistical method (Lijphart, 1971 682), political scientists draw upon the comparative method to assist them in the devising of hypotheses (suggested explanations of something), the interrogatory of hypotheses (which are proven or refuted), and the uncovering of empirical regularities and the identification of outliers (Gherghina, 2017 14).The comparative method is by no means faultless though an analysis of its merits is required in order to licence why it has stood the test of prison term in the field of political science. One of the main prop onents of the comparative method, the aforesaid(prenominal) Arend Lijphart, deduces that given inevitable scarcity of time, energy, and financial resources, the intensive analysis of a few cases may be more promising than the superficial statistical analysis of many cases. (Collier, 1993 107) His inference substantiates the argument that a detailed analysis of a small number of states is a more effective than a brief analysis of a large number of states as a moderate of various limitations already touched upon. However, that is not to say the comparative method is without its faults. Indeed, one of the inherent problems picked up on by academics is that of many variables, few cases (Lijphart, 1971 685).Now that we have developed an understanding of the comparative method, it is possible to observe the ways in which structural and interest-based explanations differ.It can be argued that one of the main differences between structural and interest-based explanations in comparative po litics is in relation to the causes of political developments. The crux of the formers argument revolves around the idea that big factors in other words, factors that are observable at the level of smart set or variables to put it more simply, factors that are liable to vary or change are the ultimate causes of political events. The most prevalent big factors or variables employed in the structural approach include a countrys level of economic development, social inequality, educational inequality, conduct expectancy, degree of urbanisation, pagan fractionalisation that is, the quantity and size of ethnic groups within a society), and religious composition. (Gherghina, 2017 10) To demonstrate the structural approach in practice, we can apply the example of the new-fangledization conjecture. Broadly speaking, the modernisation theory associated with the work of the political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset argues that democratisation is the go away of modernisation. Modernisation incorporates many of the variables already touched upon, including urbanisation. In laymans terms, the more modern a society compels, the more likely a society is to become democratic. This is the case because these changes enable middle-class elites to mobilise the working class to take the field for political rights for all (Gherghina, 2017 11). From the 18th century onwards Lipset carried out an analysis of several countries, from which he was able to conclude that this does indeed hold true. Among the countries that followed the theory proposed by Lipset were the United Kingdom during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, and, more recently, Taiwan in the 20th century. This vividly illustrates the extent to which the structural approach can be useful with regards to explaining political developments and their causes, albeit it does not take into account its visible shortcomings. Nonetheless, by putting into practice the example, it is copiously clear that the structural approach considers the causes of political developments to be disconnected from the dynamic of the political process.That, in stark contrast, to the interest-based approach in which individual decisions on the basis of quest to maximise self-interest (Hague et al, 2016 76) are seen to account for political developments. It is worth stressing that interest-based explanations do not only refer to financial optimisation, but also to a plethora of valued entities, such as authority and the accomplishment of ideologic objectives.To illustrate the interest-based approach in practice, we can apply the example of political scientist William Rikers minimal winning calculus theory. It holds that in the aftermath of a oecumenical election in which no single party has been able to form a majority government, party leaders will seek to action two criteria. First, they will seek to seek to form a coalition with parties that are ideologically similar to them on the politic al spectrum. Second, they will do so in such a way so as not to involve more politicians than is necessary to secure a parliamentary majority. This is evidenced by the 2010 UK general election. As Figure 1 vividly illustrates, the Conservatives, under the leadership of David Cameron, fell 19 seats short of a majority. As a result, they followed the aforementioned criteria to decide which party they wished to go into coalition with. Based on the first set of criteria, Cameron opted to go into coalition with chip off Cleggs Liberal Democrats as opposed to Gordon Browns Labour, in light of the fact that that the formers ideals were more closely aligned with those of their own than the latters, as Figure 2 (YouGov, 2014) makes abundantly clear. In addition, based on the second set of criteria, the Conservatives chose the Liberal Democrats as their coalition partners by taking into account the fact that the latter won over 200 fewer seats than Labour (see Figure 1), frankincense making it less likely that disagreements over the implementation of policies, for example would pursue in government. Hence, at the core of interest-based explanations is the idea that individuals perceived self-interest is the tearaway(a) force behind political decisions and, on the whole, political developments are the result of such individual decisions.Furthermore, the structural and interest-based explanations can be contrasted in terms of their focus. According to Mahoney, at the core of structuralism is the concern with objective relationships between groups and societies. (Hague et al, 2016 83) By contrast, the latter is focused on people. (Hague et al, 2016 84) Thus, the latter focuses on the individual, whereas the former pays attention to networks.To summarise, this essay has examined the main differences between structural and interest-based explanations in comparative politics, through the use of empirical examples, and concluded that the grounds on which they differ are m ultitudinous. However, one of the main differences is in relation to how they explain the causes of political developments. Whereas structural explanations conclude that factors external to political life, such as life expectancy, are seen to account for political developments, interest-based explanations adopt the perspective that political developments are shaped by individual decisions, on the basis of what is best for them at a particular point in time. In that sense, another of the main differences between structural and interest-based approaches is that the former places a lot of emphasis on networks unlike the latter where the entirety of its focus lies with the individual.BibliographyBBC News Website (2010) Election 2010 Results http// intelligence information.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/default.stm accessed 26th February 2017Collier, David (1993) The Comparative Method in Finifter, Ada W. and American Political acquaintance intimacy Political Science the state of the objurgate II Washington DC American Political Science AssociationFaure, Andrew (1994) Some Methodological Problems in Comparative Politics Journal of supposed Politics Vol. 6 No. 3 pp. 307-322Gherghina, Sergiu (2017) The Comparative Method in Introduction to Comparative PoliticsGherghina, Sergiu (2017) Theoretical Frameworks in Comparative Politics in Introduction to Comparative PoliticsHague, Rod Harrop, Martin and McCormack, John (2016) Chapter 5 Theoretical Approaches in Comparative Government and Politics An Introduction tenth Edition, Basingstoke Palgrave MacmillanLijphart, Arend (1971) Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method The American Political Science Review Vol. 65 No. 3 pp. 682-693YouGov Website (2014) Britains Changing Political Spectrum https//yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/23/britains-changing-political-spectrum/ accessed 26th February 2017 Appendices