Comp-post: Chilcote (1994)

Chilcote is a great survey of the field, and deeper than the Lichbach and Zuckerman volume, though not as current. Not to be read cover to cover if one is studying for the comps, but this outline gives some sense of what Chilcote covers, where you can find it, and what to skip over for the time being. You will probably want to be even choosier than was I. By no means a fully annotated outline, but a starting point. –Erik

Outline of Chilcote (1994)

Chilcote, Ronald H.  1994.  Theories of Comparative Politics (2nd ed).  Boulder: Westview Press.

See also: Chilcote, Ronald H.  1994.  Theories of Comparative Politics.  Boulder: Westview Press.

Chapter 1 – Comparative Inquiry (1994)

  • Appendices examining terminology of comp pol and a survey of the literature.
  • Distinguish between comparative govt and comp pol
  • Draws upon many theories and methods of other disciplines – pol classics, 20th-cent pol contributors, anthropology, sociology, econ and pol econ (esp. pol econ)
  • Heightened interest following WWII – problems of standardization, defining the field
  • Value-free investigation – emulating natural scientists to heighten understanding
  • State and systems theories – beginning in early 1950s – Easton, Almond, Deutsch, Schmitter and Wiarda, Skocpol
  • Culture theories – Beginning in 1960’s – Almond and Verba, Pye and Verba, Coleman – 1970’s shift to political socialization – 1980’s focus on individual choice – Zaretsky
  • Developmental theories – 1965 onward – Almond, Almond and Powell, Organski, Kohn, Deutsch, Emerson, Silvert, Levy, Apter, Huntington, Caldwell, Marini, and Cardoso.
  • Class theories – Inkeles and Smith; Verba, Nie, & Kim, Pareto; Mosca, Poulantzas, and  E.O. Wright
  • Political economy theories – Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes

Chapter 2 – Ideology and Issues of Comparative Politics (1994)

  • Incisive critique of the profession’s patronage by the government and military, and relevant to the 1960s ferment, but a bit distracting for comp studiers. Recommendation: Bookmark and read with glass of wine after the comp is over.

Chapter 3 – Science of Politics (1994)

  • Traditional approach – in early 20th century became ironically noncomparative
  • Behavioralism – became dominant in 1950s and 1960s – “behavioral credo” (regularities, verification, techniques, quantification, values, systematization, pure science, integration)
  • Postbehavioralism (Marxist?) – 1960s – revolt against the rigorously scientific approach to poli sci – substance precedes technique, behaviorism is ideologically conservative and limited to abstraction, science cannot be evaluatively neutral, intellectuals must bear the responsibility of their society, the intellectual must apply knowledge to work, and the intellectual was obliged to involve herself in the day’s struggles
  • Paradigms (Kuhn 1962) – preparadigmatic phase, paradigmatic phase, crisis phase, phase of scientific revolution
  • Kuhn’s typology not necessarily applicable to comp poli sci, but struggles for dominance between approaches are evident – tendency to burn down approaches and discard everything associated, rather than salvaging the useful from the bad.
  • “Methodological pluralism” (59)
  • Influence of positivist thought
  • Influence of historicist thought

Chapter 4 – Marx and Weber as Precursors (1994)

  • Comte – positivist roots of soc science
  • Weber – assimilation of positivism into liberal soc theory
  • Durkheim – foundations of systemic theory
  • Marx and Weber –search for a dominant paradigm
  • Giddens synthesized Durkheim, Marx, and Weber
  • Dialectic – thesis (dominant viewpoint), antithesis (contrary viewpoints developed by the thesis’ own contradictions and shortcomings), and synthesis (a new viewpoint for society; result of the violent clash of thesis and antithesis)
  • “For Weber, history was valuable for its heuristic properties: history reveals the principles of cause and effect for the particular subjects under study, but history is incapable of producing laws of causation.” (87)
  • Weber said that objectivity is essential for soc science
  • Construction of ideal types
  • Marx and Weber adopted methodologies from their time, but rejected many of the theories and paradigms that had grown out of previous applications of those methodologies.
  • Marx methodologically as Hegelian and Weber methodologically as Kantian
  • Weber claimed that revolution was not needed for the advancement of the working class

Chapter 5 – Theories of System and State (1994)

  • Mainstream Theories of System (121)
    • Understanding the Systems Terminology
    • Origins and Orientations of Systems theory
    • Systems as Organic or Psychological: David Easton and General Systems Theory (126)
      • Easton’s Framework
      • Systems as Structure and Function: Gabriel Almond and his Precursors (132)
  • Criticisms of Almond and Structural Functionalism
  • Alternative Perspectives of System (139)
    • System in a Dialectical Materialist Perspective
    • Systems Analysis in a Socialist Society
    • Directions for a Radical Understanding of Systems Theory
    • Implications of Approaches to Systems Theory
    • Toward a Theory of the State (149)
      • Mainstream theories of the state
        • Pluralist capitalist perspective
        • Institutional perspective
        • Corporatist perspective
        • Bureaucratic authoritarian perspective
  • Mainstream Theories of the State (Pluralist capitalist; Institutional; Corporatist; Bureaucratic-authoritarian)
  • Alternative theories of the state (Pluralist-socialist; Instrumentalist; Structuralist;  Feminist)

Chapter 7 – Theories of Development and Underdevelopment (1994)

  • “Development is often referred to as modernization.”
  • “Modernization is sometimes also associated with socialism, usually in social-democratic regimes”
  • “Development may be understood in terms of human needs”
  • 6 themes of development (Political development; Development of nationalism; Modernization; Underdevelopment; Dependency; Imperialism)
    • Political development (217)
      • Bryce (1921), Modern Democracies
      • Friedrich (1937), Constitutional Government and Democracy
      • Hayes (1960), Nationalism
      • Kohn (1968), Age of Nationalism
      • Types of nationalism – indigenous, traditional, symbolic, humanitarian, liberal, integral, bourgeois, technological, radical (220-221)
      • Modernization (222)
        • Stage theory and Modernization
        • Modernization and decay of Society
        • Politics of Modernization (225) – Apter
        • Criticism of Mainstream Theories (226)
        • Underdevelopment (230)
          • Dependency (235)
  • Lack of a Unified Dependency Theory: A Critical Assessment (244)
  • Imperialism (250)
    • Hobson: Domestic Underconsumption as a Cause of Imperialism (253)
    • Schumpeter: Withering Away of Imperialism (255)

Chapter 8 – Theories of Class: From Pluralist Elite to Ruling Class and Mass (1981)

  • class is intertwined with analyses of the state, and the central cleavages between the conceptions of the two can be traced to differences between Marx and Weber
  • Pluralism (350) – view that power is distributed throughout society
  • elitism holds that a minority makes the decisions for the majority
  • Pareto’s (1966) circulation of elites
  • Mosca (1939) – “a class that rules and a class that is ruled”
  • Pluralism and Polyarchy
  • Dahl (1971) – polyarchy is marked by “subsystem autonomy and organizational pluralism” (353) — fundamental role of interest groups; power is segmented and dispersed
  • Pluralism and Socialism – Dahl (1978) contends that socialist societies can also be pluralistic — “Given the propensity of U.S. social scientists to favor pluralistic consensus, discussions of conflict rarely, if ever seriously, relate to class.” (355)
  • Marxist conception of society as a creature of classes and class conflict; pluralist conception of capitalists and other classes as simply interest groups in which the dispersal of power varies. (356)
  • Instrumentalism (357) – the state is the tool of the capitalist class
  • Legacy of Power Structure in the Community – these studies portray power as the domain of a ruling family or class in a community (roundly contested by pluralists)
  • Power Structure and Instrumentalism: Mills and Domhoff
  • Mills (1957) – concentration of power in the US; this power is “self-perpetuating” and unchecked
  • Domhoff (1967) – affirmed the dominance of US society by a “leadership group”
  • Marxist Instrumentalism: Miliband  (1969) –  “the class that owns and the class that works” (362); “The state was above all the coercive instrument of a ruling class, itself defined in terms of its ownership and control of the means of production.”  (Milliband 1969: 5)
  • A Critical Overview of Instrumentalist Theory –fundamental role of class dynamism to Marxist interpretations
  • Weberian emphasis on the market as the definition of relations, which foreshadows pluralism (common ground of the market)
  • Structuralism (364) – the state as a result of the pulls of capitalism generally rather than a specific tool of the capitalist class
  • Structuralism in Marx and Levi-Strauss
  • Political Structuralism: Gramsci, Althusser, and Poulantzas
  • Economic Structuralism: Sweezy and Baran and O’Connor
  • Class Analysis of the Modern World System: Wallerstein — class is linked to the world economy, which consists of a market, states, and three levels of involvement (core, periphery, semiperiphery); class struggle is a result of the interaction between the three levels; move beyond confining class to a position within nations
  • Critical Views of Structuralist Theory
  • economic structuralism limits the role of the state
  • political structuralism overemphasize the repressive institutions of the state
  • thin structuralism cannot lead to an understanding of society or revolutions because the state can only be a repressive entity – therefore what can replace it? Anything more than anarchy?
  • Statism and Class Struggle (377) — structures within the state as resulting from class struggle; structures mediate demands on the state and class struggle; capitalists seek to limit the state to a role that solely produces conditions favorable for accumulation of wealth; inherent, perpetual contradiction between the structures of the state

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s