AREND LIJPHART

University of Leiden

Among the several fields or subdisciplines into which the discipline of political
science is usually divided, comparative politics is the only one that carries a
methodological instead of a substantive label. The term comparative politics
indicates the how but does not specify the what of the analysis. The label is
somewhat misleading because both explicit methodological concern and implicit
methodological awareness among students of comparative politics have generally
not been very high.1 Indeed, too nmny students of the field have been what
Giovanni Sartori calls unconscious thinkers unaware of and not guided by the
logic and methods of empirical science, although perhaps well versed in
quantitative research techniques. One reason for this unconscious thinking is
undoubtedly that the comparative method is such a basic, and basically simple,
approach, that a methodology of comparative political analysis does not really exist.
As Sartori points but, the other extreme -that of the overconscious thinkers,
whose standards of method and theory are drawn from the physical paradigmatic
sciencesis equally unsound.* The purpose of this paper is to contribute to
conscious thinking- in comparative politics by focusing on comparison as a
method of political inquiry. The paper will attempt to analyze not only the inevitable
weaknesses and limitations of the comparative method but also its great strengths
and potentialities.
In the literature of comparative politics, a wide variety of meanings is attached to
the terms comparison and comparative method. The comparative method is
defined here as one of thebasic methodsthe others being the experimental,
statistical, and case study methodsof establishing general empirical
propositions. It is, in the first place, definitely a method, not just a convenient
term vaguely symbolizing the focus of ones research interests.3 Nor is it a special
set of substantive concerns in the sense of Shmuel N. Eisenstadts definition of the
comparative approach in social research; he states that the term does not properly
designate a specific method . .., but rather a special focus on cross-societal, Institutional, or macrosocietal aspects of societies and social analysis.4
Second, the comparative method is here de-. fined as one of the basic scientific
methods, not the scientific method. It is, therefore, narrower in scope than what
Harold D. Lasswell has in mind when he argues that for anyone with a scientific
approach to political phenomena the idea of an independent comparative method
seems redundant, because the scientific approach is unavoidably
comparative.,,<J Likewise, the definition used here differs from the very similar
broad interpretation given by Ga-briel A. Almond, who also equates the

comparative with the scientific method: It makes no sense to speak of a

comparative politics in po-litical science since if it is a science, it goes without
saying that it is comparative in its ap-proach.6
Arthur L. Kalleberg, The Logic of Comparison:
A Methodological Note on the Comparative Study of Political Systems, World
Politics, 19 (October 1966), p. 72.
4 Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, Social Institutions: Com-parative Study, in David L. Sills,
ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (N<ew York: Macmillan & Free
Press, 1968), Vol. 14, p. 423. See also Eisenstadt, Problems in the Comparative
Analysis of Total Societies,* Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology
(Evian: International Sociological Association, 1966), Vol. 1, esp. p. 188.
Harold D. Lasswell, The Future of the Comparative Method,** Comparative
Politics, 1 (October, 1968), p. 3.
Gabriel A. Almond, Political Theory and Po-litical Science,** American Political
Science Review, 60 (December, 1966), pp. 877-78. Almond also ar-gues that
comparative politics is a movement in political science rather th^n a
subdiscipline. See his
Third, the cpmparative method is here regarded as a method of discovering
empirical relationships Among variables, not as a method of measurement. These
two kinds of methods should be clearly distinguished It is the latter that Kaileberg
lias in mindi when he discusses the logic of comparison/ He defines the
comparative method as a form of itieasurement; comparison means
nonmetrical ordering,-' or in other words, ordinal measurement.7 Similarly,
Sartori is thinking in terms of measurement on nominal, ordinal (or comparative),
and cardinal scales when he describes the conscious thiiiker as the man that
realizes the limitations of not having a thermometer and still manages to say a
great deal simply by saying hot and cold, warmer and cooler.8 This important
step of measuring variables is logipaily prior to the step of finding relationships
among them. It is the second of these steps to which the term comparative
method refers in this pap?r.
Finally, a clear distinction should be made between method and technique. The
cpmparative method is a broad-gauge, general method, not a narrow, specialized
technique. In this vein, Gurinar Heckscher cautiously refers to the method (or at
least the procedure) of compari-son,-*9 and Waiter Goldschmidt prefers the term
comparative approach, ibepause it lacks the preciseness to call it a rhethbd,^ The
cpmparative ixibthod may also be thought of as a basic research strategyf in
contrast with a mere tactical aid to research. This will become clear in the
discussion that follows.

The Experiment#!, Statistical, and Comparative Methods

The nature of the comparative method can be understood best if it is compared arid
contrasted with the two other fundamental strategies of research; these will be
referred to, following Neil J. Sriieisers example, as the experimental and the
statistical methods.11 All three methods (as well as certain forms of the case study
method1*) aim at scientific explanation, which consists of two basic elements: (1)
the establishment of general emjpirical relationships among two or more
variables,13 while (2) all other variables are controlled, that is, held constant. These
two elernents are inseparable: one cannot be sure that a relationship is a true one
unless the influence of other variables is controlled, The ceteris paribus condition is
vital to empirical generalizations.
The experimental method, in its simplest form, uses two equivalent groups, one of
which (the experimental group) is exposed to a stim-ulus while the other (the
control group) is not. The two groups are then compared, and any difference can be
attributed to the stimulus. Thus pne knows the relationship between two variables
with the important assurance that no other variables were involved* because in all
respects but one the two groups were alike. Equivalencethat is, the condition that
the cetera are indeed pariac&vi be achieved by a process of deliberate
randomization. Thp experimental method is the most nearly ideal method for
scientific explanation, but unfortunately it
u For thes idea of discussing the comparative method in relation to these qtheir
basic methods, I am in* deb ted tp Neil J. Shielsers outstanding and most enUghtehing article *Note$ on the Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Economic
Activity,*' Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology (Evian:
Internatibhal Sociological Association, 1966), Vol. 2, pp. 101-17, For other general
discussions of the comparative method, see L$o Moulin, La M6th- ode comparative
eri Science Politique, Revue Internationale d'Htstoire Politique et CoristUutionelle,
7 (January-Jurie, 1957), pp. 57-71; S. F. Nadel, The Foundations of Social
Anthropology (London; Cohen arid West, 1951), pp. 222-55; Maurice Duverger,
Afttftodes des Sciences Sociales (3rd ed Paris: Pfe&ses Universitaires de France,
1964), pp. 375-99; John W. Mf Whiting, This Crbss-pultural Method,M in Gardner
Liiidzey, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology (Reading, Mass.: Addisbn-XVesley,
1954), Vol. 1, pp. 523-31; Frank W. Moore, ed., Readings in Cross-Cultural
Methodology (New Haven, Conn.: HRAF tvess, 1961); Adam Przeworski and Henry
Teune, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York: Wiley-Iriterscicnce, 1970);
arid Robert T. Holt and John E. Turner, The Methodology of Comparative
Research,* m Holt and Turner, eds., The Methodology of Comparative Research
(New York: Free Press, 1970), pp. 1-20.
M The case study method will be discussed below.

** Eugene J. Meehan, The Theory and Method of Political Analysis (Homewood, IU.:
Dorsey Press,
. He expresses this idea in three short sentences: Science seeks to establish
relationships (p. 35); Science ... is empirical (p. 37); Science is a generalizing
activity (p. 43).
can only rarely bfe used in political science because of practical and ethical
impediments.
An alternative to the experimental method is the statistical method. It entails the
conceptual (mathematical) manipulation of empiricially observed datawhich
cannot be manipulated sit- uationally as in experimental designin order to
discover controlled relationships among vari-ables, It handles the problem of control
by means of partial correlations. For instance, when one wants to inquire into the
relationship between political participation and level of education attained, one
should control for the in-fluence of age because younger generations have received
more education than older generations. This can be done by partialihg^dividing
the samjple into a nuhiber of different age groups and looking at the correlations
between participation and education within each sepa-rate age group. Paul F.
Lazarsfeld states that this is such a basic research procedure that it is applied
almost automatically in empirical research. Whenever an investigator finds himself
faced with the relationship between two variables, he immediately starts to crosstabulate, i.e., to consider the role of further variables.1*
The statistical method can be regarded, therefore, as an approximation of the
experimental metlipd. As Ernest Hagel emphasizes, every bi'aiach of inquiry
aiming at reliable general laws concerning empirical subject matter must employ a
procedure that, if it is not strictly controlled experimentation, Has the es-sential
logical functions of experiment in iri- quiry,15 The statistical method does have
these essential logical functions, but it is not as strong a method as experimentation
because it cannot handle the problem of control as well. It cannot control for all
other variables, merely for the other key variables that are known or suspected to
exert influence. Strictly speaking,
?

Lazarsfeld, Interpretation of Statistical

Relations as a Research Operation, in Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg, eds., The

Langucige of Social Research: A Readier in the Methodology of Social Research
(Glericoe, IU.: Free Press, 1955), p. 115. Howler, control by means of partial
correlations does not allow' for the effects of measurement error or unique factor
cpnjjppnems; see Marilynn B. Brewer; William D. Cranp ttnd Donald T. Campbell,
4<Testirig a, Single- Factor I^odel as an Alternative to the Misuse of Par- tial
Correlations in Hypothesis-Testing Research, Sod- omefry, 33 (March, 1970), pp. 111, Moreover, par- j elatibns do hpt resolve the problem of the codiirusion of
characteristics, known in anthropology fs. Galtons problem; see Raoul Naroll, Two

Solutions to Galtons Problem, Philosophy of Science, 28 (January, 1961), pp. 1539, and Przeworski and Teune, op, cit.t pp. 51-53.
15 Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York; Harcourt, Brac6, and World,
1961), pp. 452f.
even the experimental method does not handle the problem of control perfectly,
because the investigator can never be completely sure that his groups are, actually
alike in every respect.16 But experimental design provides the closest
appi'oximation to this ideal. The statistical method, in turn, is an approximationnot
the equiyaientof the experimental method. Con-versely, one can also argue, as
Lazarsfeld does, that the experimental method constitutes a special form of the
statistical method, but only if one adds that it is an especially potent form.17
The logic of the comparative method is, in accordance with the general standard
expounded by Nagel, also the same as the logic of the experimental method. The
comparative method resembles the statistical method in all respects except one.
The crucial difference is that the number of cases it deals with is too small to permit
systematic control by means of partial correlations. This problem occurs in statistical operations, too; especially when one wants to control simultaneously for
many variables, one quickly runs out of cases. The comparative method should
be resorted to when the number of cases available for analysis is so small that
cross-tabulating them further in order to establish credible controls is not feasible.
There is, consequently, no clear dividing line between the statistical and
comparative methods; the difference depends entirely on the number of
cases.18 It follows that in many re,# For instance, if the groups are made equivalent by means of deliberate
randomization, the investigator knows that they are alike with a very high degree of
probability, but nipt with absolute certainty. Moreover, as Hubert M. Blalock, Jr.,
states, so-called forcing variables cannot be controlled by randomization. See
his Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1964), pjp. 23-26. In general, Blalock emphasises the underiymg
similarity between the logic of making causal inferences on the basis of
experimental arid nonexperimental designs (p. 26),
17 Lazarsfeld, Iiitferpfetation of Statistical Relations as a Research Operation, p.
119. Talcptt Paribus makes a, similar statement with regard to the comparative
method: Experiment is . . . nothing but the comparative method where the cases to
be compared are produced to order and urfder controlled conditions.* See his The
Structure of Social Action (2nd ed., New York: Free Press, 1949), p. 743. Another
advantage of the experimental method is that the time variable is controlled, which
is (especially importpt if one seeks to establish causal relationships. In statistical
design, this control can be approximated by means of the panel method.

M In order to highlight the special problems arising from the availability of only a
small number of cases, the comparative method is discussed as a distinct method.
Of course, it can be argued with equal justice that the comparative and statistical
methods should be regarded as tWo aspects of a single method. Many authors use
the term comparative method* in the search situations, with an intermediate
number of cases, a combination of the statistical and cpmparative methods is
appropriate. Where the cases are national political systems, as they often are in
the field of comparative politics, the number of cases is necessarily so restricted
that the comparative method has to be used.
From the vantage point of the general aims and the alternative methods of scientific
inquiry, one can consider the comparative method in proper perspective and
answer such questions as the following, raised by Samuel H. Beer and by Harry
Eckstein: Can comparison be regarded as the social scientists equivalent of the
natural scientists laboratory?19 and: Is the comparative method in the social
sciences . . . really an adequate substitute for experimentation in the natural
sciences, as has sometimes been claimed?20 The answer is that the com-parative
method is not the equivalent of the ex-perimental method but only a veiy imperfect
substitute. A clear awareness of the limitations of the cpmparative method is
necessary but need not be disabling, because, as we shall see, these weaknesses
can be minimized. The conscious thinker in comparative politics should realize the
limitations of the comparative method, but he should also recognize and take
advantage of its possibilities.
broad sense of the method of multivariate empirical, but npi^periraehtal,
analysis, /.*. including both the comparative arid statistical methods as defined in
this p#per, This is how A. R. Radcliffe-Brown uses the term when he argues that
only the comparative method can give us general propositions. (Brown, The
Comparative Method in Social Anthropology, Joiirnpl of the Rdyat Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 81 [1951], p. 22.) femile Durkheim also follows
this usage When he declares that "comparative sociology is not a particular br^ch
of spciolcigyj it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descriptive and
aspires to account for facts.* (Durkheim, Th& KuUs of '':S$&olpgtefli Method,
translated by Sarah A, Sbipvay arid John H. pueller, [8th ed,, Glencpe, 111.: Frde
Presis, 193&L. p. 139.) See also the statements by Lasswell arid Almphd cited
above. Rpdnij?y Needham combines the two terms, and speaks of large-scale
statistical comparison, Le., the statistical method. (Needham, Notes on Comparative Method and Prescriptive Alliance, Bifdragen tot de TaaU, Land* eh
Voikenfciiride, 118 [1962], pp. 160- 82.) On the other hand, E. 15. Evans-Pritchard
uses exactly the same terminology as used by Smelser and as adopted in this
paper, when he iriakes a distinction between small-scale comparative studies* arid
large- scale statistical dries.** See his The Comparative Meth-od in Social
Anthropology (London: Athlone Press, 1963), p. 22.

19 Samuel H. Beer, The Comparative Method and the Study of British Politics,**
Comparative Politics, 1 (October, i968), p. 19.
20'Harry Eckstem, A Perspective on Comparative Politics, Past and Present, in
Eckstein and David E. Apter, eds., Comparative Politics: A Reader (New York: Free
Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 3.
The Comparative Method: Weaknesses and Strengths
The principal problems facing the comparative method can be succinctly stated
as: many variables, small number of cases. These two problems are closely
interrelated. The former is common to virtually all social science research regardless
of the particular method applied to it; the latter is peculiar to the comparative
method and renders the problem of handling many variables iapi*e diffipult to spive.
Before turning to a discussion of specific sug-gestions for minimizing these
problems, two geheral comments are in order. First, if at all possible one should
generally use the statistical (or perhaps even the experimental) method in-stead of
the weaker comparative method. But often, given the inevitable scarcity of time,
energy, and financial resources, the intensive comparative analysis of a few cases
may be more promising than a more superficial statistical analysis of many cases.
In such a situation, the most fruitful approach would be to regard the comparative
analysis as the first stage of research, in which hypotheses are carefully
formulated, and the statistical analysis as the second stage, in which these
hypotheses are tested in as large a sample as ppssible.
In one type of comparative cross-national research, % is logically possible and
may advantageous to shift from the comparative to the statistical method. Stein
Rofekan distinguishes two aims of cross-national analysis. One is the testing of
"macro hypotheses* concerning the liiterfelatiohs of structural elements of total
systems; here the number of cases tends t6 be limited, and one has to rely on the
comparative method. The other is micro replications, designed to test out in
other national and cultural settings a proposition already validated in one
setting.21 Here, too, one can use the comparative method, byt if the proposition
in question focuses on individuals as uhits of analysis, one can also use the
statistical method; as Merritt and Rokkan point out, instead of the one- nation,
one-case approach, nationality can simply be treated as an additional variable on a
par with other individual attributes such as oc-cupation, age, sex, type of
neighborhood, etc.22
n Stein . Rokkan, Comparative Cross-National Research: The Context of Current
Efforts,** in Richard L. Merritt and Rokkan, eds., Comparing Nations: The Use of
Quantitative Bata, in Cross-National Research (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1966), pp. 19- 20. Rokkan specifically recommends the use of paired comparisons
for this purpose; see his Methods and Models in the Comparative Stiidy of Nation-

Building, in Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of

the Processes of Development (Oslo: Universitetsfdrlfiiget, 1970), p. 52.
Merritt and Rokkan, op, cit., p. 193.
Terenpe K, Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein make a similar d^iincjtipn between
truly cross- national studies in which total systems are the units of analysis, and
multi-national but cross- TH'dividual reseaifcTi?^
The second general comment concerns a dangerous but tempting fallacy in the
applica-tion of the comparative method: the fallacy of attaching top much
significance to negative findings. The comparative method should not lapse into
what Johan Qaltung calls the traditional quotation/ illustration methodology,
where cases are picked that are in accordance with the hypothesis-r-and hypotheses
are? rejected if one deviant case is found All cases should, of course, be selected
systematically, and tjhe scientific search should be aimed at probabilistic, not
universal, generalizations. The erroneous tendency to reject a hypothesis on the
basis of a single deviant case is rare when the statistical method is used to analyze
a large sample, but in the comparative analysis of a small number of cases even a
single deviant finding tends to loom large. One or two deviant cases obviously
constitute a much less serious problem in a statistical analysis of very many cases
than in a comparative study of only a few perhaps less than tencases. But it is
never-theless a mistake to reject a hypothesis because one can think pretty
quickly of a contrary case.25' Deviant cases weaken a probabilistic hypothesis,
but they can only invalidate it if they turn up in sufficient numbers to make the
hypothesized relationship disappear alto-. gether.2
Terence K, Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein, The CpmparatiYe Study of National
Societies, Social Science Information, 6 (October, 1967), pp. 27- 33 (italics
added). See also Przeworski and Teune, op. cit., pp. 3.4r43,
He adds: This is a very naive conception of social science propositions; if only
perfect correlations should be permitted social science wbuld hot haVe come very
far, Johan Galtunfe, Theory ia'nd Methods of Social Research (Oslo:
Uniyersitet^forliaget, 1967), p. 505. The functions of deviant case analysis will be
discussed below.
33 W, J, M. Mackenzie, Politics and Social Science (Harrnondsworth: Penguin Books,
1967), p. 52, I have beeri guilty of committing this fallacy myself. In my critique of
Giovanni Sartori1? proposition relating political instability to extreme mutyipartism
(systems with six or more significant parties), one of my arguments consists of the
deviance of a single historical case: the stable six-party system of the Netherlands
during the interwar years. See Arend Lijphart, Typologies of Democratic
Systems/* Comparative Political Studies, 1 (April, 1968), pp. 32-35.

^It is clearly incorrect, therefore, to argue that on logical grounds a probabilistic

generalization can never be invalidated; cf. Guenter Lewys statement: To be sure,
a finding of a very lare number of . . . [deviant cases] would cast doubt tipori the
value of the
After these introductpry observations, let us turn to a discussion of specific ways
and means of minimizing the many variables, small N problem .of ,the.
comparative method.- These may be divided into four categories:
Increase the number of cases as much as possible. Even though in most situations it
is impossible to augment the number of cases sufficiently to shift to the statistical
method, any enlargement of the sample, however small, im-proves the chances of
instituting at least some control.27 Modern comparative politics has made great
progress in this respect as a result of the efforts of the fields innovators to fashion
universally applicable vocabularies of basic politically relevant concepts, notably
the ap-proaches based on Parsonian theory and Gabriel Af Almonds functional
approach.28 Such a restatement of variables in comparable terms makes many
previously inaccessible cases available for comparative analysis, In addition to
extending the analysis geographically, one should also consider the possibilities of
longi-tudinal (cross-historical) extension by including as many historical cases as
possible.29
It was the promise of discpvering universal laws through global and longitudinal
comparisons that made Edward A. Freeman enthusiastically espouse the
comparative method almost
proposition, but logically such evidence would not compel its withdrawal. The test of
the hypothesis by way of a cohfrphtation with empirical or historical data remains
inconclusive. JLeyvy, Historical Data in Comparative Political Analysis: A Note on
Some Problems of Theory, Comparative Politics, 1 (Octo- . ber, 1968), p. 109.
aT Furtherinore, unless one investigates all available cases, one is faced with the
problem of how repre-sentative one's limited sample is of the universe of cases.
On the necessity of* establishing general concepts not tied to particular cultures,
see Siiielser, op, cit,, pp. 104-09; Nadel, op. cit, pp. 237-38; Douglas Oliver and
Walter B, Miller, Suggestions for a More Sykt&atic Method of Comparing Political
Units, American Anthropologist, 57 (February, 1955), pp,
118-21; and Nico Frijda and Gustav Jahoda, On tJie Scbpe and Methods of CrossCultural Research, International journal of Psychology, 1 (1966), pp. 114- 16. For
critiques of recent attempts at terminological innovation in comparative politics, see
Sartori, Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics; Robert T. Holt and John M,
Richardson, Jr., The State of The* ory in Comparative Politics (Minneapolis: Center
for Comparative Studies in Technological Development and Social Change, 1968);
Robert E. Dowse* A Functionalists Logic,0 World Pdlitics, 18 (July, 1966), pp. 607-

23; and Samuel E. Finer, Almond's Concept of The Political System: A Textual
Critique, Gov- ernment and Opposition, 5 (Winter, 1969-70), pp. 3-21.
w Michael Haas, Comparative Analysis, Western , Political Quarterly, 15 (June,
1962), p. 298n. See also Lewy, op, cit.t pp. 103-10.
a century ago. In his Comparative Politics, published in 1873, he called the
comparative rnethod the greatest intellectual achievement of his time, and stated
that it could lead to the formulatipc of analogies . . , between the po-? litical
institutions of times and countries most remote frpm pne another.-' Comparative
politics could thus discover a World in which times and tongues and nations
which before seemed parted poles asunder, now find each . ojie its own place, its
own relation to every other;*3? The field of cpihparative politics has not yet
achieved-r-and may never achievethe goals that Freeman set for it with such
optimism, But his words can remind us Of the frequent utility of extending
comparative analyses both geographically and historically. (The value of this
suggestion is somewhat diminished, of course, because of the/serious lack of
information concerning most political systems; for historical cases in particular this
problem is often irremediable.)
.
Reduce the "property^space of the analysis. If the sample of cases cannot
be increased, it may be possible to combine two or
i more variables that express an essentially sirni- I lar uncterlying characteristic into
a single variable. Tmis the number of cells in the matrix representing the
relationship is reduced, and the number of cases in each cell increased correspondingly, Factor analysis can Often be a J useful technique to achieve this
objective. Such adduction of what Lazarsfeld calls the prpp- erty-space increases
the possibilities of further cross-tabulation and control without increasing the
sample itself.31 It may also be advisable in certain instances to reduce the number
of classes into which the variables are dividend (for instance, by simplifying a set of
several categories into a dichotomy), and thus to achieve the same objective of
increasing the average number of cases per 011. ifihe latter procedure, however,
has the disadvantage of sacrificing a part of the information at the investigators
disposal, and should not be used lightly.
Focus the comparative analysis on comparable cases. In this context,
comparable means: similar in a large number of im-portant characteristics
(variables) which one wants to treat as constants, but dissimilar as far
10 Edward A. Freeman, Comparative Politics (London: Macmillan, 1873), pp. 1, 19,
302. See also Gideon Sjpberg's argument in favor of global comparative research:
The Comparative Method in the Social Sciences, Philosophy of Science, 22 (April,
1955) , pp. 106-17.

M Lazarsfeld arid Barton, op. cit., pp. 172-75; Barton, The Concept of PropertySpace in Social Research," in Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg, op* cit., pp. 45-50.
as those variables are concerned which one wants to relate to each other. If such
comparable cases can be found, they offer particularly good opportunities fpr the
application of the comparative method because they allow the establishment of
relationships among a few variables while many other variables are controlled,82
As Ralph Braibanti states, the movement from hypothesis to theory is contingent
upon analysis of the total range of political systems,33 but it is often more
practical to accord priority to the focus on a limited number of comparable cases
and the discovery of partial generalizations.
Whereas the first two ways of strengthening the comparative method were mainly
concerned with the problem of small N, this third approach focuses on the
problem of many variables. While the total number of variables cannot be
reduced, by using comparable cases in which many variables are constant, one can
reduce considerably the number of operative vari-ables and study their
relationships under con-trolled conditions without the problem of running out of
cases. The focus on comparable cases differs from the first recommendation not
only in its preoccupation with the problem of many variables rather than with
small N, but also in the fact that as a byproduct of the search for comparable
cases, the number of cases subject to analysis will usually be decreased. The two
recommendations thus point in fundamentally different directions, although both
are compatible with the second (and also the fourth) recommendation.
This form of the comparative method is what John Stuart Mill described as the
method . of difference and as the method of concomi-tant variations. The
'method of difference con-sists of comparing instances in which [a] phe-nomenon
does occur, with instances in other respects similar in which it does not. The
M Smelser, op. cit., p. 113. Holt and Turner refer to this strategy as the process of
specification (op. cit., pp. li-* 13). It is probably also tvhat Eisenstadt has in mind
when he mentions the possibility of constructing special jntepsiye 'comparisons of
a quasi- experimental nature* (op. cit., p. 424). See also Erwin JC. Sch^uch,
Society as Context in Cross-Cultural Comparison/' Social Science information, 6
(October, 1967), esp. pp. 20-23; Mackenzie, op. cit., p. 151; Fred Eggan, Social
Aiithbjpology and tine Method of Controlled Cornparison,-* American
Anthropologist, 56 (October, i954), pp. 743-63; and Erwin Ackerknecht, On the
Comparative Method in Anthropology, in Robert F, Spencer, ed., Method and
Perspective in Anthropology (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954),
pp. 117-25.
Ralph Braibanti, Comparative Political Analytics Reconsidered," Journal of Politics,
30 (February, 1968), p. 36.

method of concomitant variations is a more so-phisticated version of the method of

difference: instead of observing merely the presence or absence of the operative
variables, it observes and measures the quantitative variations of the operative
variables and relates these to each other. As in the case of the method of
difference, all other factors must be kept constant; in Mills words, "that we may be
warranted in inferring causation from concomitance of variations, the concomitance
itself must be proved by the Method of Difference.34
Mills method of concomitant variations is often claimed to be the first systematic
formulation of the modern comparative method.35 It should be pointed out,
however, that Mill himself thought that the methods of difference arid of
conqOmitaiit variations could not be applied in tlie social sciences because
sufficiently similar cases could not be found, fie stated that their application in
political science was completely out of the question and branded any attempt to
do so as a "gross misconception of tlie mode of investigation proper to political
phenomena.36 Diirkh^im agreed with Mills negative judgment: The absolute
elimination of adventitious elements is an ideal which cannot r(gaily be
attained; . . . one can never be even approximately certain that two societies agree
or differ in all respects save one,87 These objections are founded on ^ too
exacting scientific standardwhat Sartori calls over- conscious thinking. It is
important to remember, however, that in looking for comparable cases, this
standard should be approximated as closely as possible.
The area approach appears to lend itself quite well to this way of applying the
comparative method because of the cluster of character-istics that areas tend to
have in common and that can, therefore be used as controls.38 But opinions on the
utility of the area approach
u John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic (8th ed., Loadpn: Longmans, Green, Reader,
and Dyer, 1872), Booi lll, chapter 8.
T'Tadel, op. ciu, pp. 222-23; Kenneth E. Bock, The Comparative Method of
Anthropology Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8 (April,
, p. 272.
* ilill, <>p. cit., Book VI, chapter 7; see also Book III, chapter 10.
*T iptirkheim, op. cit., pp. 129^-30. But he hailed the method of concomitant
variations, which he evidently interpreted to mean a combination of the statistical
and comparative methods, as the instrument par excellence of sociological
research (p, 132). See also Franjois Bourricaud, Science Politique et So- ciolojgie:
Reflexions duri Sociologue, Revue Francajse de Science Politique, 8 (June, 1958),
pp. 251-63.

"If the area approach is often preferable to research efforts with a global range in
order to maximize comparability, the era approach may be preferable to
longitudinal analysis for the same reason. Cf. the differ sharply: Gunnar Heckscher
states that area studies are of the very essence of comparative government,
and points out that the number of variables, while frequently still very large, is at
least reduced in the case of a happy choice of area.39 Roy C. Macridis and Richard
Cox also argue that if areas are characterized by political as well as non-political
uniformities, the area concept will be of great value, since certain political
processes will be compared between units within the area against a common
background of similar trait configuration; they cite Latin America as an example
of an are$ offering the prospect of fruitful intra- area cp^parispn. - 40 On the
other hand, E>ank- wart A Rustow declares in a recent article that area. study is
alihost obsolete, and he shows little faith in it as a setting for manageable
comparative study. He argues that mere geo-graphic proximity does not
necessarily furnish the best basis of comparison, and furthermore that
comparability is a quality that is not inherent in any given set of objects; rather it
is a quality imparted to them by the observers perspective.41 This is a
compelling argument that shoiild be carefully considered.
It is not true that areas reflect merely geographic proxirnity; they tend to be
similar in many other basic respects. By means of an in-ductive processa factor
analysis of 54 social and pultural variables bn $2 countriesBruce M. Rtissett
discovered socio-culturally similar groupings of countries, which correspond closely
to areas or regions of the world as usually de
fined.42 Comparability is indeed not inherent in any given area, but it is more likely
within an area than in a randomly selected set of countries, It seems unwise,
therefore, to give up the area approach in comparative politics. But two imortaiat
prpvisos should be attached tp this conclusion. First, the area approach can
contribute to comparative politics if it is an aid tp the comparative method, not if
it becomes an end in itself. Otherwise, area study may indeed become a form of
imprisonment.43 It is against this danger that the thrust of Rustows argument is
directed. Second, the area approach should not be used indiscriminately, but only
where it offers the possibility of establish* ing crucial controls. In this respect, some
of the smaller areas may offer more advantages than the larger ones-Scandinavia,
for example, which has barely been exploited in this manner, or the Anglo-American
countries, which have received greater comparative attention (but wJtiich dp not
constitute ah area in the literal sense).44
An alternative way of maximizing comparability is to analyze a single country
diachroni- caliy. Such comparison of the same unit at different times generally
offers a better solutipn to the control problem than comparison of two or mpre
different but similar units (e.g., Within the same area) at the same time, although
the control can never be perfect; the same country is not really the same at
different times. A good example of diachronic comparative analysis is Charles E.

Fryes study of the empirical relationships among the party system, the interest
group system, and political stability in Ger-many under the Weimar and Botin
Republics. Frye argues that for the study of these relationships, Weimar and Bonn
make a pariicu^4a Bruce M. Russett, Delineating International Regions in J. mvid Singer, ed.,
Qmntiicitiye Iriter- natipnal Politics: Insights and Evidence (H<ew York: Free Press,
1968), pp; 317-52. See also Riissett, International Regions and the Interhdiidrial
System (Chicago: Rand MbK&lly, 1967).
44 OePrge I. Blahksten, Political Groups in Latin America, American Political
Science Review, 53 (March, 195$), p. 12$. See also Sigmund. Neumanti, The
CdmparatiVe $tudy of Politics, C&mparailye Stiedies in Society and History, 1
(January, 1959), pp. 107-10; and I. Schapera, Some Coiiiments on the Comparative
Method in Sbciai Anthropology, American Anthropologist, 55 (August, 1953), pp.
353361, esp, p. 360.
44 See Seymour Martin Lipset, The Value Patterns of Democracy: A Case Study in
Comparative Analysis, American Sociological Review, 28 (August, 1963;, pp. 51531; Robert R. Alford, Party and Society: The Anglo-American Democracies (Chicago:
Rand Mc-Nally, 1963); Leslie Lipson, IParty Systems in the United Kingdom and the
Older Commonwealth; Causes, Resemblances, and Variations, Political Stud* ies, 7
(February, 1959), pp. 12-31.
larly good case [strictly speaking, two cases] because there are mpre constants and
relatively fewer variables than in many cross-national studies. Yet the differences
could hardly be sharper.45
Unless the national political system itself constitutes the unit of analysis,
comparability can also be enhanced by focusing oh intrana- tion instead of
internation comparisons. The reason is again the same: comparative intra.na- tion
analysis can take advantage of the many similar national characteristics serving as
controls.^ Smelser illustrates the utility of this strategy with the example of a
hypothetical research project on industrialization in Germany and Italy; Tor many
purposes it would be more fruitful to compare northern Italy with southern Italy, and
the Ruhr with Bavaria, than it would be to compare Germany as a whole with Italy
as a whole. These two cpuntries differ not only in level of industrialization, but also
in cultural traditions, type of governmental structure, and so on. The advantage of
intra* unit comparison is that inter-unit differences can be held constant Then,
having located what appear tp be operative factors in the intra-unit comparisons,
it is possible to move to the inter-unit comparisons to see if the same differences
hold in the large.47
As Juan J. Linz and Amando de Miguel point put, a particularly promising approach
may be the combination of intranation atid internation comparisons: The
comparison of| those sectors of two societies that have a greater number of

characteristics in cpmrnpn while differing pn some crucial ones may be more fniitful
than overall national cottipari- sons.48 An illustrative example pf this approach in
the political realm is suggested by Raoul Naroll: If one wishes tp test theories about
the difference between the cabinet and
^Charles E. Frye, Parties and Pressure Groups in Weimar and Botin, World Politics,
17 (July, 1965), pp. 635-55. (The quotation is from page 637.) Th6 postwar division
of Germany also oners the opportunity of analyzing th6 effects of democratic
versus totalitarian development against a similar culiipral arid historical
background. See Ralf Dahrendorf, The New Gernmies: Restoration, Revolutibn,
Reconstruction, Encounter, 22 (April, 1964), pp. 50- 58. See also Sylvia L. Thriipp,
Diachronic Methods in Comparative Politics, in Holt find Turner, eds., The
Methodology of Comparative Research, pp. 343-58.
Heckscher, p. 69; Heinz Eulau, Comparative Political Analysis: A Methodological
Note, Midwest Journal of Political Science, 6 (November, 1962), pp. 397-407.
Rokkan, too, warns against the whole- natiori bias of comparative research
(Methods and Models, p. 49).
41 Smelser, op, cit*, p. 115.
49 Juan J. Linz and Amando d Miguel, Within- the presidential systems of
government, , f one is better advised to compare Manitoba and North Dakota than
to compare Great Britain and the United States, since with respect to all other
variables Manitoba and North Dakota are very much alike, while Great Britain and
the United States have many other differences.*9
Focus the comparative analysis on the key variables. Finally, the problem of
many variables*' may be alleviated not only by some of tlie specific approaches
suggested above but also by a general commitment to theoretical parsimony.
Comparative analysis must avoid the danger of being overwhelmed by large
nurribers of variables and, as a result, losing the possibility of- discovering
controlled relationships, and it must therefore judiciously restrict itself to the really
key variables, omitting those of only marginal importance. The nature of the
comparative method land its special limitations constitute a strong argument
against what Lass- well and Braibanti call cohfigurative or contextual analysis:
the identification and inter-pretation of factors in the whble social order which
appfear to affect whatever political func- tiprts and their institutional mahifestations
have been identified and listed for comparispnM (Braib^ntis definition).60 Lasswell
argues that the comparative method as usually applied has been insufficiently
cohfigurative, and calls for the exploration of more variables: the entire context~past> present, and futuremust be continually scanned.61
Scanning all variables is not the same as including all variables, of course, as long
as one is pn ones guarcj against an unrealistic and eventually self-defeating
perfectionism. Comparative politics should avoid the trap into which the decision-

making approach to the study of international politics fell, of specifying and calling
for the analysis of an exhaustive list of all variables that have any possible influence
on the decision-making process. ^ Parsimony
Nation Differences and Comparisons: The Eight Spaliis, in Merritt and Rokkan, op.
cit,, p. 268,
49 Naroll, Sciefttific Comparative Politics and In-ternational Reiations, in R. Barry
Farrell, ed., Ap-proaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston* ill.:
Northwestern University Press. 1966), pp. 336-37.
* Braibanti, op. cit., p. 49. In this context, con- figurative analysis is not
synonymous With the tradi-tional single-country approach, as in Ecksteins
definition of the term: the analysis of particular political systems, treated either
explicitly or implicitly as unique entities (A Perspective on Comparative Politics, p.
11).
Lasswell, op. cit., p. 6,
w See Richard C. Snyder, H. W. Bruck, and Burton suggests that Joseph
Lapalpmbaras call for a segmented approach aiming at the formulation of
middle-range propositions concerning partial systems makes a great deal of
sense.63 Similarly, Ecksteins urgent call for greater manageability of the field
should be carefully heeded: The most obvious need in the field at present is
simplification-~and simplification on a rather grand scalefor human intelligence
and scientific method can scarcely cope with the large numbers of variables, tne
heaps of concepts, and the mountains of data that seem at present to be required,
and indeed to exist, in the field.6*
It is iio accident that the most fruitful applications of the comparative method
have been in anthropological research. In primitive societies, the number of
variables is not as bewilderingly large as in more advanced societies. All relevant
factors can therefore be more easily surveyed and analyzed. In this respect,
anthropology can be said to provide alinpst a laboratory for the quasiexperimental approach to social phenpmena.56 Political science lacks this advantage, but can approximate it by focusing attention on the key variables in
comparative studies.
A final comment is in order about the relationship of comparative politics as a
substantive field and comparison as a method. The two are clearly not coterminous.
In comparative politics, other methods can often also be employed, and the
comparative method is also applicable in other fields and disciplines. A particularly
instructive example is James N. Rosenaus study of the relative influence of
individual variables (personal policy beliefs and personalizing tendencies*) and
rple variables (party role and committee role) on the behavior of United States
senators during two similar periods: the Acheson era, 1949-1952, and the Dulles

era, 1953-1956. fepsenau argues that these two eras were characterized by a
generally similar international environment and that the two secretaries of state
conducted similar foreign policies and also resenabled each other in ppr- sonsd
qualities. He terms the method that he uses in his analysis the method of
quantitative historical coix^&fepn.' One of its basic characteristics is the testing
of hypotheses by comparing two eras (cases) that are essentially com-parable ...
in all respects except for the . . . variables being examined. The method is called
quantitative because the variables are operationally defined in quantitative terms,
arid historical because the two cases compared are historical eras.56 The method
is, therefore, a special form of the comparative method. It illustrates one of very
many ways in which an imaginative investigator can devise fruitful ap* plications of
the comparative method.57
The Comparative Method and the Case Study Method
The discussion pf the comparative method is not complete without a consideration
of the case study methdd. The statistical method pan be applied to many cases, the
comparative method to relatively few (but at least two) cases, and the case stiidy
method to one case. isBut the case study method can and, should be closely
connected with the comparative method (and sometimes also with the statistical
method); certain types of case studies can eVen be iconsidered implicit parts of the
comparative method.
The great advantage of the case study is that cby focusing on a single case, that
case can be intensively examined even when the research resources at the
investigator's disposal are relatively limited. The scientific status of the case study
method is soriiewhat ambiguous, how-ever, because science is a generalizing
activity. A single case can constitute neither the basis for a valid generalization nor
the ground for disproving an established generalization.
Indiredtly, hpweyer, case studies can make
M Jatufes N, Rosenau, Private Preferences and Po-litical R^ponsibttities: The
Relative. Potency of In-dividual and Role Variables ift the Behavior of U.S. Senators/*
in Singer, ed., Quantitative international Po^0sf pp. 17-5Q, esp, p. 1?. Itb^enau
adds that if thfe fmdings are npt so cleat as to confirm or iiegate thp hypotheses
unmistakably, then of' course the analyst inoves on to a third comparable period,,
(p. 19). If such a third or even more periods can be foundWhich seems unlikely in
the case of Rosenaus particular Research problemthey should be included
regardless of the outcome of the analysis of the first two eras (if the available
resources permit it, of course).
*T Se also the proposed use of multiple comparison groups, as an
approximation of the experimental method, by Barney G. Glazer arid Anselm L.
Strauss, Discovery of Substantive lliebry: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitatiye
Research,** American Behavior- al Scientist, 8 (February, 1965), pp. 5-li.

an important contribution to the establishment of general propositions and thus to

theory- building in political science. Six types of c^se studies may be distinguished.
These are ideal types, and any particular study of a jingle case may fit more than
one of the following categories:
Athepretical case studies;
Interpretative case studies;
Hypothesis-generating case studies;
Theory-confirming case studies;
Theory-infirming case studies;
Deviant case studies.
Cases m$y be selected for analysis because of an interest in the case per se or
because of an interest in theory-building. The first two types of cases belong to the
former category. A theoreiical case studies are the traditional single-country or
single-case analyses. They are entirely descriptive and ruoye in a theoretical
vacuum: they are neither guided by established or hypothesized generalizations nor
motivated by a desire to forriiulate general hypotheses. Therefore, the dirept
theoretical value of these case studies is ml, but this does not mean that they are
altogether useless. As LaPaiombara emphasizes, the development of comparative
politics is hampered by an appalling lack Pf information abotit almost all of the
worlds political systems.58 Purely descriptive case studies do have great utility
as basic data-gat!heririg operations, arid can thus contribute indirectly to the- orybiiilding. It can even be claimed that the cumulative effect of such studies will lead
to fruitful generalization, but only if it is recognized that this depends on a
theoretically oriented secondary analysis of the data collected in athepretical case
studies.50
As indicated earlier, the atheoretical case study arid the other types of case studies
are ideal types. An actual mstance of ^ri athepjreti- cal case study probably does
riot exist, because almost any analysis of a sirigle case is guided by ait least aoitie
vague theoretical notions and some anecdotal kriiowledge of other cases, and
usually results in some vague hypotheses or cohciusipris that have a wider
applicability. Such actual case studies fit the first type to a large extent, but they
also fit one or more of the other types (particularly the third, fourth, and fifth types)
at ieast to some extent,
LaPaiombara, Macrotheories and Microapplications, pp. 60-65.
" See Michael Curtis, Comparative Government and Politics: Ah Introductory Essay
In Political Science (New York: Haiper and Row, 1968), p. 7. See also Macridis, The
Study of Comparative Government (New York: Random House, 1955).

Interpretative case studies resemble atheoret- ical case studies in one respect: they,
top, are selected for analysis because of an interest in the case rather than an
interest in the formulation. of general theory. They differ, however, in that they
mate explicit use of establisheid theoretical propositions. In these studies, a
generalization is applied to a specific case with the aim of throwing light on the
case rather than of improving the generalization in any way. Hence they are
studies in applied science. Since they do not aim to contribute to empirical
generalizations, their value in terms of theory-building is nil On the other hand, it
is precisely the purpose of empirical theory to make such interpretative case
studies possible.60 Because of the still very limited degree of theoretical
development in political science, suich case stiidies are rare. One interesting
example is Michael C. Hudsons imaginative arid insightful case study of Lebanon in
the light of existing development theories, in which he discovers a serious discrepancy between the countrys socio-economic and political development.*1
The remaining four types of case studies are all selected for t}xe purpose of theorybuilding. Hyppihe^^neraiing case studies start but with a more or less vague notion
of possible hypotheses, and attempt to formulate definite hypotheses to be
tested subsequently among a larger number of cases. Their objective is to de-velop
theoretical generalizations in are&s where no theory exists yet. Suph case studies
are of great theoretical value. They may be particularly valuable if the case
selected for analysis provides what Naroll calls a sort of "crucial experiment in
which certain variables of interest happen to be present in a special way.62
Theory-confirming and theory-infirniing case studies are analyses of single case?
within the franmework of established generalizations. Prior knowledge of the case is
limited to a single
49 As Przeworski and Teune state: The main role of a theory is to provide
explanations of specific events. These explanations consist of inferring, with a high
degree of probability, statements ab6ut particular events from general statements
concerning classes of events* (p. 86) .
Michael C. Hudson, A Case of Political Under-development, Journal of Politics, 29
(November,
, pp. 821-37. See also Beer, The Comparative Method and the Study of British
Politics,0 pp. 19-36,
w Naroll, Scientific Comparative Politics and In-ternational Relations, p. 336. An
example of such a case study is my analysis of the determinants of Dutch
colonialism in West Irian. In most cases, both objective (especially economic) and
subjective factors can be discerned, but the case of West Irian is unique because of
the complete absence of objective Dutch interests in the colony. See Lijphart, The
Trauma of Decolonization: The Dutch and West New Guinea (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1966).

variable or to none of the variables that the proposition relates. The case study is a
test of the proposition, which may turn out to be confirmed or ihfirmed by it. If the
case study is of the theory-confirming type, it strengthens the proposition in
question, But, assuming that the proposition is solidly based on a large number of
cases, the demonstration that one more case fits does not strengthen it a great
deal. Likewise, theory-infirming case studies merely weaken the generalizations
marginally. The theoretical value of both types of case studies is enhanced,
however, if the cases are, or turn out to be, extreme on one of the variables: such
studies can also be labeled crucial experi-ments or crucial tests of the
propositions.
Deviant case analyses are studies of single cases that are known to deviate from
established generalizations. They are selected in order to reveal why the cases
are deviantthat is, to uncover relevant additional variables that were not
considered previously, or to refine the (operational) definitions of some or all of the
variables.63 In this way, deviant case studies can have great theoretical value. They
weaken the original proposition, but suggest a modified proposition that may be
stronger. The validity of the proposition in its modified form must bfe established by
further comparative analysis.64
Of the six types of case studies, the hypothe- sis-generating and the deviant case
studies have the greatest value in terms of their contribution to theory. Each of
these two types, however, has quite different functions in respect to theorybuilding: Tlie hypothesis-generating case study serves to generate new hypotheses,
while the deviant case study refines and sharpens ex-isting hypotheses. The deviant
case study-as
** See Patricia L. Kendall and Katherine M. Wolf, The Analysis of Deviant Cases in
Communications Research, in Lazarsfeld and Ffank Staritdn, eds., Communications
Research: i94-49 (New York: Harper, 194?), pp. 152-57; Sjoberg, op. cit., pp. 11415; and Lijphart, The Politi&s of Accommodation: Pluralism and Dernotracy in the
Netherlands (Berkeley: University of California Press, 19^8), chapter 10.
" Thus process of refining generalizations through deviant case analysis is what,
Robert M. Ivlarsh calls specification. See his article The Bearmg pf
Comparative Analysis on Sociological Thepry, Social Forces, 43 (December,
1964), pp. 191-96. Specification should therefore definitely not be regarded as
the garbage bin of comparative research; see Conrad Phillip Kottak, Towards a
Comparative Science of Society, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 12
(January, 1970), p. 102. See also Milton M. Gor-don, Sociological Law and the
Deviant Case, S&ci- ometry, 10 (August, 1947), pp. 250-58; arid Andr6 J. F. K6bben,
The Logic of Cross-Cultural Analysis: Why Exceptions?**, in Rokkan, ed.,
Comparative Research Across Cultures and Nations (Paris: Mouton,
, pp. 17-53.

well as the theory-confirming and theory-in- firntiing case studiesare irriplicitly

comparative analyses. They focus on a particular case which is singled out for
analysis from a relatively large number of cases and which is analyzed within the
theoretical and empirical context of this set of cases. The deviant case may be
likened to the experimental group with the remainder of the cases constituting
the control group. Just as the analytical power of the comparative method
increases the closer it approximates the statistical and experimental methods, so
the analytical power of the case study method increases the more it approximates
the comparative method in the fprm of deviant case analysis. Such case analysis
requires, of course, that the position of the deviant case on the variables under
consideration, and consequently also its position relative to the other cases, are
clearly defined.
The different types of cases and their unequal potential contributions to theorybuilding should be kept in mind in selecting and analyzing a single case. Some of
the shortcomings in Ecksteins otherwise insightful and thought- ^ provoking case
study of Norway may erye as instructive examples. Eckstein argues that the
Norwegian case deviates from David B, Trumans proposition concerning
overlapping memberships,8 because Norway is a stable de- mqcracy in spite of
the countrys deep and non- overlapping geographic, economic, and cul- * tural
cleavages. But he fails to place the case of Norway in relation to other cases. In fact,
although he describes Norways divisions as as-tonishingly great, sharp, and
persistent, he ex-plicitly rules out any comparison with the cleavages in other
countries. This exclusion seriously weakens the case study. Furthermore, instead
of trying to refine Trumans proposition with the help of the deviant findings,
Eckstein simply drops it. In terms of the sixfold typology of case studies discussed
above, his analysis of the Norwegian case is only a theory-infirming one and is not
made into a deviant case study. From then on, the case study becomes a the Eckstein, Diyision and Cohesion in Democracy:
A Study of Norway (Princeton, NX: Princeton University Press, 1966), esp. pp. 6077, 177-201. Part of the critique which follows is included in my review of this book
in the Journal of Modern History, 41 (March, 1969), pp. 83-87.
*8 David B. Truman, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public
Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1951).
ory-conflrming one. Eckstein finds that the Norwegian case strikingly bears out his
own congruence theory, which states that govern-ments tend to be stable if there
is considerable resemblance (congruence) between governmental authority
patterns and the authority patterns in society.67 He demonstrates persuasively
that both governmental and social patterns of authority are strongly democratic in
Norway and thus highly congruent. The problem here is not that the Norwegian
facts do not fit the theory, but that they fit the theory tpo perfectly. The perfect fit

strengthens the theory marginally, but does not contribute to its refinement. The
theory does not hold that complete congruence of authority patterns is required
for stable democracy. In his original statement of the congruence theory, Eckstein
himself points out the necessity of further work on the important questions of how
much disparity can be tolerated and how degrees of congruence and disparity
can be measured.68 Because the Norwegian case turns out to be a perfect theorycon-firming one, it cannot be used to refine the theory in any of these respects.
Therefore, Eckstein was unlucky in his selection of this case as far as the
development of his congruence the-, ory is concerned, and he fails to take full
advantage of the case study method in analyzing the case in terms of Truman*s
theory of over-lapping memberships.
***
The comparative method and the case study method have major drawbacks. But
precisely because of the inevitable limitations of these methods, it is the
challenging task of the investigator in the field of comparative politics to apply
these methods in such a way as to minimize their weaknesses and to capitalize on
their inherent strengths. Thus, they pan be highly useful instruments in scientific
political inquiry.
In one respect, it is* not altogether correct to call the Norwegian base study a
tHeoiy-cbhfir^mirig study. Because the congruence theory has a father narrow
empirical basis, consisting chiefly of only two cases (Britain arid GerManjr), it is a
hypothesis rather than an established theory. The case stiidy of Norway is, of
course, not a hypothesis-generating study either. Perhaps it should be Called a
hypothesis-strengthen- ' mg case study or, as Eckstein himself suggests, a
"plausibility probe (oral comment at the IPSA Round Table Conference in Turin,
September 1969).
** Eckstein, A Theory of Stable Democracy, Research Monograph No. 10
(Princeton, NJ.: Center of International Studies, 1961).
2 Giovanni Sartori, 'Concept Misforxnation in Com-parative Politics, American
Political Science Review, 64 (December, 1970), p. 1033.
Coxnparative Politics/' in International Encyclopedia of the Sdcial Sciences, Vol. 12,
pp. 331-36.
T KaUebetg, op, cit.t pp. 72-73; see alsb pp. 75r78.
following statement by C. E. Black: There is much greater value in comparing
contemporary events and institutions than those that are widely separated in time.
The comparison of societies or smaller groups that are concerned with reasonably
similar problems is more likely to lead to satisfactory conclusions than comparisons
between societies existing many Centuries apart Black, The Dytiafitics of

Moderniiatidn: A Study in C&mparatiye History (New York: Harper arid Rpiy, 1966),
p. 39.
Sapin, eds,, Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York: Friee Press of Olencoe,
*1962).