In Search of Theoretical Frameworks for Comparative Research

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks for Comparative Research Vladimir Gel’man (European University at St. Petersburg / University of Helsinki) International Workshop Comparative Methods in History and Social Sciences Perm, Center for Comparative History and Political Science, September 2013

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • Do we need a theoretical framework before we start our research? • “No” – the radical response of “grounded theory” approach (travel by intuition, without a map), popular among sociologists: lack of a priori theoretical framework open new opportunities for research findings; • But: • - risks of “invention of the wheel” (anthropological observation at the polling station in provincial Russia); • - risks of inappropriate data collection; • - risks of wasting time and efforts; • In most research ventures in history and political science, theoretical framework is needed – especially in comparative studies (otherwise, there is a risk of comparing apples and kangaroos)

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • What is a “theory” in social research? • A major set of logically connected and empirically verifiable and/or falsifiable research statements, which is recognized as a “theory” by the meaningful segment of the global academic community (Radaev, 2000); • “Conspiracy theory” – not a theory; • Geopolitical theory in IR studies – not a theory; • Marxist class theory – a theory (? )

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • Classification of theories: • holistic (universal) vs. partial – Marxism or rational choice theories; • macro-theories, mid-range theories, micro-theories (“ladder of abstraction” – Sartori, 1970). • Theory as a toolbox (Radaev, 2000) – similarly to digging holes (the use of shovel or excavator); • In most cases we use standard toolboxes (theory-testing) but often need to adjust them for digging of our holes, although sometimes have to construct a new tool (theory -building)

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • What is a “good theory” (for our research)? • 1) big explanatory power (e. g. , it can explain a large part of the observed phenomena – e. g. , socio-economic modernization as an explanation of democracy (Przeworski et al. , 2000)); • 2) wide-ranging application beyond initial tasks (a shovel which can also dig other holes than we need – e. g. , a “free-rider” problem in collective action (Olson, 1965)); • 3) simplification of understanding the real world (a classical Marxist theory of class struggle – the most well-known example); • 4) clear explanation and logical boundaries (we have to understand when theory works well and when its use is inappropriate – e. g. , how to overcome “free-riding”); • 5) explaining important and broad set of relevant scholarly issues (this is why there is no “theory of the first thirty minutes of the French revolution”)

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • 6) falsifiability – theory should be recognized as false if some conceivable observation is true (Popper, 1934) – e. g. , “all swans are white”; • But: one should distinguish falsification of theory from falsification of data; • “Research program” (Lakatos, 1970) – a hard core of theory (e. g. , set of basic statements) and auxiliary hypotheses (e. g. , extended set of arguments in its favor); • New empirical data could undermine auxiliary hypotheses but not the hard core of theory (it could be falsified only through replacement by another theory); • 7) prognostic power – is it necessary for a “good theory”?

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • How to use existing theories and when we need to invent a new one? • Different stages of “research cycle”: • (1) theory testing – comparing explanatory power of existing theories (usually based upon large-N quantitative research); • (2) crucial case – a situation when none of existing theories can explain a particular phenomenon (e. g. , stability of democracy in India); • (3) theory building – construction of a new theory upon re -formulation or (more often) adjustment of research statements with the use of data

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • How theories evolve over time? • The case of Marxist theory of class struggle: • (1) classical stage – “Communist manifesto” (Marx, Engels, 1848): a zero-sum conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat as two major classes; • (2) updated version – “The Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Napoleon” (Marx, 1852): a case study of French revolution and counter-revolution (a more nuanced analysis the logic of inter-class alliances and their breakup – petite bourgeoisie as a traitor of revolution; the role of ideology and organizations); ad hoc approach

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • (3) revised version – “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy” (Moore, 1966): • a comparative analysis of eight cases (Britain, France, Germany, United States, Russia, India, China and Japan) • an enlarged set of classes (landowners, bourgeoisie, proletariat and peasantry): • Research question: why socio-economic changes caused democracy in some countries, and dictatorships in others? • Answer: a key role of bourgeoisie as a pivotal member of inter-class alliances (“no bourgeoisie, no democracy”) • But: why bourgeoisie choose different allies in different countries?

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • (4) extended version – “Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy” (Acemoglu, Robinson, 2006): • A formal mathematical model and empirical statistical (large-N) analysis: • three major classes: elites, middle class, and lower class; • Research question: why socio-economic changes caused democracy in some countries, and dictatorships in others? (the same as those in Moore (1966)); • Answer: due to a redistributive nature of democracy, alliances of middle classes depends upon degree of inequality: if inequality is relatively low, then the middle class aligned with lower classes for democracy at the small price, otherwise the middle class aligned with elites against democracy, because it is too costly for them (Britain vs. Argentine);

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • • How to build a theory? deductive vs. inductive approaches (1) inductive approach – usually based upon: crucial case studies (“deviant case analyses” – e. g. , democratic stability in India or party/political competition in Sverdlovsk oblast) • comparative case studies (e. g. , the role of pension provision in economic growth: Chile vs. Sweden); • counterfactual analysis (e. g. , could WWII occur if Hitler committed suicide in 1930? )

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • (2) deductive approach – through the careful selection of appropriate tools for analysis: • Research puzzle: why Stalin won over Trotsky? • Search of toolbox: why some dictators hold power more successfully than others? (thinking as a social scientist) • Possible (not necessarily correct) answer: based upon “The Logic of Political Survival” (de Mesquita et al. , 2003), one might argue that Stalin was more successful in building a “winning coalition” due to its non-ideological nature (vis-à-vis his rival, who lost); • Testing: a need of gathering and quantitative large-N analysis of data

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • Major methodological problems of the use of theories in comparative research: • (1) comparability problem (Sartori, 1970) – how to avoid “conceptual stretching” and not to fall from the ladder of abstraction; • (2) “too many variables – too few cases” (Lijphart, 1971) (e. g. , studies of social revolutions); • (3) Galton’s problem – to what extent units of comparative analysis are independent from each other and not caused by a single external factor (e. g. , all Communist governments in Eastern Europe were modeled by the Soviet Union in the same way);

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • (4) Over-determination problem (problem of “Orient Express” – a crime novel by Agatha Christie (1934)): too many factors are responsible for explaining the same phenomenon (Lopez, 1992) (e. g. , why present-day Russia is a non-democracy? ); • (5) Measurement problem – how to measure some variables (in some instances, standard tools are not always appropriate – e. g. , an analysis of party system fragmentation under presence of dominant parties – Golosov (2010)); • (6) Eternal problem of interpretation (is the glass half-full or half-empty – e. g. , an analysis of “hybrid” political regimes (Bogaards, 2009)); • … and numerous other problems

In Search of Theoretical Frameworks… • Thanks for your attention! • Comments are welcome (gelman@eu. spb. ru)