Political science - IPLE, Appunti di Scienza Politica

Scarica Political science - IPLE e più Appunti in PDF di Scienza Politica solo su Docsity!

Political Science

Professor Fabio Franchino

A.Y. 2020/

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

• Comparative politics is a subfield of political science. Scholars have come up with at least three different ways of defining the subfield of “comparative politics”: Þ Comparative politics is the study of political phenomena that are predominantly within country relationships. International politics is the study of political phenomena that are predominant between country relationships. Þ Comparative politics is the study of politics in every country except the one in which the student resides: this is why American politics is treated as a separate subfield of political science in the United States. Therefore, this is not a good definition. Þ Comparative politics is the study of political phenomena through the comparative method. The comparative method dates back to Aristotle’s attempt to classify different constitutional forms and compare them. However, comparison is central to any and all scientific endeavor, and as a result his definition equates comparative politics with political science more generally.

A theory is a set of logically consistent statements that tell us why the things that we observe occur through finding a causation process. Theories are often referred to as models, which can be either formal or informal. The essence of a good model is that it can simplify the world. To create a theory it is useful to think of a puzzle as the end result of some previously unknown process. We then speculate about what hidden process might have produced that specific result. In effect, we try to imagine a prior world such that – if it existed – it would have produced this otherwise puzzling observation. This becomes our model.

3. Implications / hypotheses This step of the scientific process requires that we deduce different implications other than those we set out to explain in the first place. There is no way a model can ever be falsified if only the observations that were employed to develop the model in the first place are used to test it: to actually test the model and allow for the possibility that it will be falsified, we will have to find other implications that can be deduced from it. Good models provide many different implications.
4. Observation of the world / testing hypotheses The fourth step is to examine whether the implications of the model are consistent with the observation. We should conduct difficult tests and not seek to dogmatically confirm the implications: basically we need to look for a proof that demonstrates that our theory could be falsified. It is standard practice to stop and ask if other models – models that describe different processes
   • might also explain the phenomena of interest. When this is the case, it is incumbent upon the scientist to compare the implications of those other models with the implications of their own model. The trick for a researcher is to identify the points of conflict between different models and identify relevant observations in the real world that will help them decide between them. This is what scientists refer to as a critical test.
5. Evaluation If we observe the implications deduced from our theory, then we say that our theory is corroborated, not proven. We then continue to look for evidence that would contradict our theory. If we fail to observe the implications deduced from our theory, then our theory is probably wrong and so we return to theory construction.

• Science is just one way to explain things. However, its way of being tentative, objective, and public assures some traits: Þ Its tentative nature invites criticism and hence improvement.

Þ Its objective nature means that incorrect ideas cannot be protected based on the authority of the person articulating the idea: this helps avoiding conflict. Þ Its public nature mean that anyone can challenge and evaluate claims: this makes it faster to find errors.

Introduction to Logic

• In order to better appreciate the important connection between theory construction and theory testing, it is useful to devote some time to the study of logic.
• An argument is a set of logically connected statements, typically in the form of a set of premises and a conclusion, with premises being statements presumed to be true within the context argument leading to a conclusion, and conclusions being claims that are thought to be supported by the premises. An argument is valid when accepting the premises compels us to accept its conclusion, while it is invalid if, when we accept the premises, we are free to accept or reject its conclusions. One way to represent an argument is in the form of a categorical syllogism that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion: Þ The major premise is typically a conditional statement such as “If P, then Q.” The “If” part is called the antecedent. The “then” part is called the consequent. Þ The minor premise consists of a claim about either the antecedent or the consequent of the conditional statement. Þ The conclusion is a claim that is thought to be supported by the premises. Four types of conditional arguments can be represented by a syllogism, but which of these are valid?

Summing up:

• This introduction to logic tells us quite a lot about the way scientists should test their theories: scholars typically evaluate their theories by examining the real world to see if the implications of their theories are true, based on the premise “if a theory is true, then its implications will be true”. There is an asymmetry in the logical claims that can be made on the basis of confirming and disconfirming cases: when an implication of our theory is confirmed, the most we can say is that the theory may be correct. However, when an implication of our theory is disconfirmed, we are compelled to conclude that our theory is wrong. At this point it is natural to deduce that we are logically justified in having more confidence when we reject a theory rather than when we do not. All our knowledge remains tentative and cannot ever be proven.

Deductive Learning, Inductive Learning, and Methods

• Deductive learning formulates expectations based on a theory and then finds observations. Inductive learning starts with observations and then finds patterns that can be used to generate explanations. Induction is problematic because it relies on affirming the consequent, and this way the theory is never really exposed to potential falsificationism.
• Scholars who employ the comparative method collect observations of the world and then use them to develop general laws or theories that have the goal of identifying the causes of political events. But what exactly is a cause?

A cause is a necessary or sufficient condition for something to happen. Þ A necessary condition is a circumstance in whose absence the event in question cannot occur: Y never happens unless X happens. If Y then X, or if no X then no Y. Example: Oxygen (cause) is a necessary condition for fire (effect). Þ A sufficient condition is a circumstance in whose presence the event in question must occur: Y always happens if X happens. If X then Y, or if no Y then no X. Example: Jumping (cause) is a sufficient condition for leaving the ground (effect).

• A common method employed by political scientists to learn about the world is called comparative method or Mill’s method. It is based on the systematic search for necessary, sufficient, and necessary and sufficient conditions. Mill proposed two main methods: Þ Method of agreement (when the cases agree on the phenomenon to be explained) Suppose we want to learn about the causes of democracy and therefore that we go look at three democracies to see what we can learn. These are our observations: o Ethnic homogeneity is not a necessary condition (Belgium is heterogeneous). o Having a parliamentary system is not a necessary condition (United States is a presidential system). o Wealth (GPD per capita) is the only surviving potential necessary condition for democracy. However, we can be confident of this only to the extent that we have identified all potential causes. What is the causal relationship between wealth and democracy? Is wealth a necessary condition for democracy? If we took a dictatorship and made it rich, would it become a democracy? To confirm that wealth is not a sufficient condition we would need to observe a wealthy country that is not a democracy ➜ we then need to use the method of difference, which requires that the phenomenon to be explained is present in one case, but not the other

greater measure of confidence in our theory because it withstood the very real chance of being falsified. On the other hand, if our observations are inconsistent with our theory we can conclude that it is wrong.

Myths About Science

• “Science leads to certain and verifiable truth” ➜ Science only presents tentative statements about what seems reasonable in light of the best available logic and evidence.
• “Science can be done only when experimental manipulation is possible” ➜ Theories only need to be falsifiable, and there is no claim that the tests of these theories need to be carried out in an experimental setting. If this was to be true, it would mean that we cannot research dinosaurs because they are extinct.
• “Science is value neutral” ➜ The pursuit of knowledge is closely related to attempts by people to change the world: the only thing that can be considered neutral is the scientific method in itself. The lack of diversity in most scientific disciplines, whether in terms of gender, race, income, class, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and so on, along with the power structure that exists in many societies, means that some research areas are less studied than others and that certain viewpoints are excluded or less privileged than others when it comes to interpreting scientific evidence. In effect, the knowledge that is produced by science is socially constructed. The fact that scientists may not be value neutral means that we should be very clear about the limits of our knowledge.
• “Politics cannot be pursued in a scientific manner” ➜ The study of politics uses the scientific method as it generates falsifiable hypotheses, it generates scientific statements, and the theories can be tested.

CHAPTER 3: WHAT IS POLITICS?

• Politics is the subset of human behavior that involves the use of power or influence. Power is necessary when people cannot accomplish their goals without trying to influence the behavior of others, and without trying to wrestle free of the influence of others.

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

• To understand the central characteristics of politics we use a reformulation of Albert Hirschman’s 1970 classic Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States whose two actors are the state and the citizen. What would you do when there is a negative change in your environment? Þ Exit: accept that there has been a deleterious change in your environment and alter your behavior to achieve the best outcome possible given your new environment. Þ Voice: use your “voice” (complain, protest, lobby, take direct action) to try to change the environment back to its original condition. Þ Loyalty: accept the fact that your environment has changed and make no changes to your behavior. When are these political? The decision whether to respond with exit, voice, or loyalty is a political decision. Voice requires influence, as in order to change one’s environment one typically needs to change the behavior of other people. Sometimes going on strike is not even needed to influence the legislators, because they will be influenced just by the possibility that someone will strike. This means that politics does not begin when voice is chosen, as it begins with the possibility to do something different than voice itself.

A subgame is the part of a game beginning at one choice node and including all succeeding choice nodes. Note that the Exit, Voice, Loyalty game has three subgames (one of which includes the whole game), because there are three choice nodes.

• So, what does the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty game look like? Example: A deleterious shock resulting in a transfer of some benefit from the citizen to the state took place. Citizens must decide whether to: Þ Accept change and act the same way he or she always has–remain loyal (L). Þ Accept change, change one’s behavior, and exit (E). Þ Try to get benefit back through use of voice (V). The citizen has to choose whether to exit, use voice, or remain loyal. If the citizen uses voice, then the government has to choose whether to respond positively or to ignore it. And if the government ignores the citizen’s voice, then the citizen will have to choose whether to exit or to remain loyal. o The citizen’s response depends on the expected response of the state: o The state’s response depends on its expectations of the citizen’s response:

c is the cost of voicing ➜ the citizen pays it even when the benefit comes back to her. We assume that E < 1 – c because if it were greater, E would always be more convenient than voicing. At this point, we typically solve extensive form games like this for a particular type of Nash equilibrium called Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium, or SPNE. An SPNE is a set of strategies such that each player plays a Nash equilibrium in every subgame. We find SPNEs by using a method called “backward induction”: players in the game care about the consequences of their choices and, therefore, think ahead, meaning that they try to anticipate how the other player will respond to their choices. Backward induction involves starting at the end of the fame and reasoning backward. What would the other player do if I choose X? What would the player do if I choose Y?

This was the case of a scenario 1 in which it was assumed that E > 0, E < 1 – C, and that L > 1. The equilibrium is (Voice, Exit; Respond), the outcome is that the citizens uses Voice and that the state responds. As regards to the payoffs, the citizen gets 1 – C, while the state gets L. You are probably wondering why we bother to list what the citizen does at her second choice node given that the citizen never actually gets to make a choice at this node because the government chooses to respond positively earlier in the game. Ask yourself, however, why exactly the game never reaches this node. In other words, why does the government choose to respond positively to the citizen’s use of voice rather than ignore it? The answer to this question is that the government chooses to respond positively because it anticipates that the citizen will exit at her second choice node it chooses to ignore her. Scenario 2: the citizen has no credible exit threat (E < 0), and the state is dependent (L > 1): Equilibrium: (Loyal, Loyal; Ignore). Þ If E < 0, exiting is costlier than remaining loyal in both cases. Þ Remaining loyal in the first choice node is more convenient than voice because the payoff is 0 rather than 0 – c. Þ The state will ignore because for the citizen it is more convenient to be loyal. Scenario 3: the citizen has credible exit threat (E > 0) and the state is autonomous (L < 1): Equilibrium: (Exit, Exit; Ignore). Þ Since E > 0, exiting makes more sense because (E – c) > (0 – c). Þ Since L < 1 ➜ L < (1 + L), so the state will Ignore. Þ As E > 0, the citizen will Exit. The correct way to write down equilibria is (1. the citizen’s first action , 2. the citizen’s second action ; 3. the state’s first action).

Scenario 4: the citizen has no credible exit threat (E < 0) and the state is autonomous (L < 1): Equilibrium: (Loyal, Loyal; Ignore). Þ As E < 0 ➜ (E – c) < (0 – c), so the citizen will remain Loyal. Þ Since L < 1➜ L < (1 + L), so the state will Ignore. Þ As E < 0, the citizen will remain Loyal.

• Several important conclusions about the power relationship between government and citizens can be learned from this game. Þ The state is willing to back down under only two conditions: 1. The citizen has a credible exit threat. 2. The state is dependent on the citizen. However, having a credible exit option is not sufficient to be able to influence the government, as an autonomous government will never respond positively even if the citizen has a credible exit threat. Þ If the citizen does not have a credible exit threat, then the state can take things from the citizen and the citizen can do nothing about it. It can be argued that the Democratic Party in the United States has not done enough to take account of the concerns of African American voters. However, the Democrats clearly rely on African Americans voters: without their vote they have little chance of winning national office as things stand. But is there another party that African Americans could credibly threaten to vote for instead of the Democrats? Some might argue that the fact that African Americans rarely vote for the Republican Party sends a signal to the Democratic Party that African Americans have no credible exit threat. Observing this signal, the Democratic Party can – to

Some even argue that the use of veto is a sign of weakness, because if the veto of the president can be anticipated by Congress, passing the act becomes a way to challenge him. Þ Finally, the EVL Game is noteworthy for what it does not explain as for what it does. Notice that in the game as it stands, citizens use voice only when they expect it to be effective. This means that the model cannot explain why we sometimes see governments being unresponsive to the demands of their citizens. One reason governments might ignore their citizens is that the citizens may not view the use of voice as costly. Another reason has to do with information: we assume that there is complete information (each player knows everything about the preferences of the other operators), but perhaps this might not be the case.

• Example: Why is it that the U.S. government acted quickly and enthusiastically when bailing out New York banks during the recent financial crisis but acted much more slowly in bailing out troubled car manufacturers? On October 3, Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which authorized the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to help banks. Somewhat reluctantly, in December Bush authorizes that US$13.4 billion of the TARP money would be made available to auto manufacturers. Moreover, the government was much more willing to provide aid to banks, but not the auto manufacturers. What can the Exit, Voice, Loyalty game teach us about this puzzle? The state was dependent on the support of both the financial sector and the automobile manufacturers. The two sectors, however, differed on the credibility of their exit threats: the financial sector can easily move around its assets, while the relatively fixed nature of the automakers’ assets means that they could not credibly commit to exiting (at least in the short-term). Governments will anticipate the needs of those with liquid assets (banks) and will be unresponsive to those with immobile assets (manufacturers).

CHAPTER 4: THE ORIGINS OF THE MODERN STATE

Þ The state “is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” [Max Weber] Problem 1: The use of force might be perceived as illegitimate, especially when there are abuses of power. In the minds of those who abuse of their power, the state’s use of force need not always to be legitimate. It is because of these that subsequent scholars have largely dropped any reference to legitimacy in their definition of the state. Problem 2: Does it really have a monopoly, though? What about organized crime? Evidently, the state has no real monopoly as it is challenged by organized crime. It is for this reason that subsequent scholars have tended to shy away from using the term monopoly when defining the state’s use of physical force. Þ “A state is an organization with a comparative advantage in violence, extending over a geographic area whose boundaries are determined by its power to tax constituents.” [Douglas North] The “comparative advantage in violence” part solves problem 2 of Weber’s definition. However, the taxation element might be a little redundant as some states do not rely on taxation as much as they do on other aspects. Þ States are “relatively centralized, differentiated organizations, the officials of which, more or less, successfully claim control over the chief concentrated means of violence within a population inhabiting a large, contiguous territory.” [Charles Tilly] Two common factors are present in all these definitions: a given territory, and the credible use of force or the threat of force to control the inhabitants. Therefore, we can say that a state is an entity that uses coercion and the threat of force to rule in a given territory. Coercion may be justified in different ways, it may be used for different purposes and with different effects, but as a matter of fact all states use it. Unlike other social organizations the state is “a violence enterprise” [Lane]: as all states use the threat of force to organize public life. However, states never perfectly monopolize force, and they never perfectly enforce their will.

Failed States - Somalia

• A failed state is a state-like entity that cannot coerce and is unable to successfully control the inhabitants of a given territory.