political science part 1, Appunti di Scienza Politica

Scarica political science part 1 e più Appunti in PDF di Scienza Politica solo su Docsity! POLITICAL SCIENCE 3rd TRIMESTER 1ST YEAR IPLE PROF FABIO FRANCHINO INTRODUCTION “My purpose is to consider if, in political society, there can be any legitimate and sure principle of government, taking men as they are and laws as they might be. I shall try always to bring together what right permits with what interest prescribes so that justice and utility are in no way divided” - Rousseau, the social contract Political science study of politics in a scientific manner Comparative politics study of politics predominantly within countries International politics study of politics predominantly between countries Story of Mohamed Bouazizi December 17, 2010 he set fire to himself to protest his treatment by local officials who had confiscated the produce he had gone into debt to sell on the streets of his town in Tunisia He was selling merchandise in Tunisia systematically He protested to the local governor’s office and, when ignored, stood in the traffic outside, doused himself with gasoline  died on January 5 This event started the Arab Springs  revolutionary movement of mass protests He made a political suicide and set the Arab Springs The president of Tunisia was forced to flee to Saudi Arabia, and then the discontent spread across Middle East and North Africa Many protesters were injured or killed Within few weeks mass protest had turned into a full scale insurrection aided by NATO air strikes  by April 2011 significant protests frequently accompanied by violent government crackdowns had occurred in 17 countries Prospect of a wave of liberalization and perhaps even of democratization - People started to say it is the beginning of the spread of democracy in those countries - Other people were more pessimistic and sceptical Bc eu has experienced a lot of those kind of revolutions and those failed systematically Same happened in 1848 50 revolts spread across Europe starting from Sicily (Spring of Nations) common set of causes with revolts of 2011 Changes brought a wave of euphoria that expressed hope that government was finally going to be put under the control of people  those hope had turned to disappointment and recrimination in 1848 Since 2012 comparative politics scholars have attempted to explain why the Arab Spring had not blossomed into a new wave of democracy of the 14 countries that went through it, only 3 (Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen) have seen an autocrat removed as a result of domestic pressure of the 3 countries, only Tunisia made progress in becoming a democracy Try and understand some of this important political event: why do emerge, are they easy to predict? Have an informed opinion on the political events Different performance bw countries (like Tunisia goes through democratisation, while Egypt no why?) Now the question appears to be turning to the question of state authority ISIS proclaimed a worldwide caliphate in June 2014 and now claims religious, political and military authority over Muslims all over the world Such claim is a direct challenge to the primary organizing principle of the international system operative since Westphalia (1648) ISIS had imposed the Sharia Law over millions of people and ensured persecution, chaos and violence which lead to the immigration crisis It is a direct challenge to the conception of modern state What is Comparative politics  3 definitions 1. LaPalombara  1974 study of political phenomenon within countries elections, protests and revolutions, civil wars, parliament, parties, … Try to explain differences among different countries  why do some countries have dem and other autocratic regimes? How do they survive?--> it’s a domestic thing Wars international phenomena treaties, sanctions Revolutions are not only a domestic aspect but there is almost ever an international involvement Aspects which are primarily domestic, other primarily international but a bunch of issues that are both  there is a domestic dimension and a global one Comparative politics is the study of political phenomena that occur predominantly within country relationship and international politics is the study of political phenomena that are predominantly between countries relationships 2. Comparative politics is the study of politics in every country except the one in which the student resides  the study of “the rest of the world”  silly definition 3. Adjective comparative  dated back to Aristotle  best political scientist  studied comparative different regimes  comparative politics as the study of politicapl phenomena ?? comparison is the essence of the scientific method  comparing and contrasting attributes of different polities not particularly useful We will study what happens within countries, within nations  study of politics Select a bunch of countries biasly  study country by country  traditional approach Problem-oriented approach based on questions - Origins opf revolutions - Why some countries are dem - Why some states fail - Why some countries have 2 parties and other more - Why some federal some unitary why questions What happen when states do not exist determinance of democracy Variation across countries and across times Identity politics how people vote Regime stability collapse of autocracies Institution design bicameral, federal, … Summarize the consensus in answering those questions Guide in answering those questions DEMOCRATISATION- IRAQ Bush  reason to justify the invasion bring democracy He thought dem can be exported to a country so different Different statemens on democracy  not everyone agreed on this and many do not support the invasion of Iraq the only one was the UK Consequence of dem How to answer these questions The purpose of the model is not to describe the world but to explain it necessary to be a simplified picture of the world Models are always developed with a specific goal in mind  therefore we should evaluate models in terms of how useful they are for achieving that goal  models should be used, not believed 3. Implications (Hypotheses) This step of the scientific process requires that we deduce implications from the model other than those we set out to explain in the first place. “If the prior world we created to explain the phenomenon we originally found puzzling really did exist, what else ought we to observe?” Good models provide many different implications. Good theory gives a bunch of implications and u do is to develop a bunch of expectations= hypothesis U should develop as many implication as possible and then observe, collect data and so Objectives falsify the theory try seriously to falsify the theory and do not manage to, u are much more secure about ur theory  much more confidence on the validity of the theory Models aren’t useful if they tell us only what we already know Any scientific endeavour is provisional We cannot say it is actually correct Continuously go under test for our expectations Asymmetric aspect of science when u collect data u cannot say that is right In science u are much more certain hen u are wrong then when u are right 4. Observe the World The fourth step is to examine whether the implications of the model are consistent with observation. We should conduct “difficult” tests and not seek to dogmatically confirm the implications  try our best to falsify the model We may need to conduct a “critical test” that allows us to use observation to distinguish between two or more competing explanations of the same phenomenon.  standard practice to stop and ask for other models 5. Evaluation If we observe the implications deduced from our theory, then we say that our theory is corroborated. We do not say that our theory is 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. We can never prove a scientific statement Why the Scientific Process? • Science is just one way to explain things. • But science is tentative, objective, and public. • Its tentative nature invites criticism and hence improvement. = provisional • Its objective nature means that incorrect ideas cannot be protected based on the authority (or sheer power) of the person articulating the idea. This helps avoid conflict.  subject to empirical corroboration  regardless of the person making a statement • Its public nature means that anyone can challenge and evaluate claims. This makes it faster to find errors.  allow replication • Also in social science there are laws Introduction to Logic • The scientific process requires the derivation of valid arguments Valid and Invalid Arguments • An argument is a set of logically connected statements, typically in the form of a set of premises and a conclusion. • A premise is a statement that is presumed to be true within the context of an argument leading to a conclusion. • A conclusion in an argument is a claim that is thought to be supported by the premises. • An argument is valid when accepting the premises compels us to accept its conclusion. • An argument 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. Categorical Syllogism • 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. • Example: “If a country is wealthy, then it will be a democracy.” • The minor premise consists of a claim about either the antecedent or the consequent of the conditional statement. • 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: • Arguments that affirm the antecedent. • Arguments that deny the antecedent. • Arguments that affirm the consequent. • Arguments that deny the consequent. Case 1: Affirming the Antecedent — A Valid Argument The major premise states that if P is true, then Q must be true. The minor premise says that P is in fact true. These premises compel us to accept that the conclusion is true. As a result, the argument is valid. In other words, the major premise states that if a country is wealthy, then it will be a democracy. The minor premise says that the observed country is wealthy. It logically follows from this that the observed country must be a democracy. Case 2: Denying the Antecedent — An Invalid Argument Case 3: Affirming the Consequent — An Invalid Argument Case 4: Denying the Consequent — A Valid Argument If the theory is true the implication will be true  that is what science is about  if P then Q Science is asymmetric core of its provisional nature if a theory is corroborated cannot be sure When they fail they are obliged to We provisionally accept theories up until they fail and conditionally upon Knowledge is tentative Why Should You Care About Logic? • If you cannot distinguish between a valid and invalid argument, then it is easy for someone to manipulate you! • This introduction to logic tells us quite a lot about the way scientists should test their theories. Testing 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.” • It is often the case that the implications of an explanation are more readily observable than the elements of explanation because there is a propensity to take risks and therefore scholars typically evaluate their explanations by observing the real world to see if the implications appear to be true based on the assumption • When an implication of our theory is confirmed, the most we can say is that the theory may be correct scientific theories can never be proven Testing Theories 1 • Imagine that we had some theory that implied that rich democracies live longer than poor democracies. • Say we went out into the real world and observed that rich democracies do in fact live longer than poor democracies. • Can we conclude from this that our theory is correct? The answer is NO because this would be affirming the consequent. • If we took a dictatorship and made it rich, would it become a democracy? • What type of observation would show that wealth is not a sufficient condition? • We would need to observe a wealthy country that is not a democracy. • As a result, we need to use the Method of Difference. • The Method of Difference requires that the phenomenon to be explained is present in one case, but not the other. Inferences 1. Wealth is not a sufficient condition for democracy (Mexico), but it may be necessary. 2. Ethnic homogeneity is neither necessary (Belgium) nor sufficient for democracy (Mexico). 3. A parliamentary system is not necessary (United States) for democracy. It may be sufficient (Belgium and the United Kingdom). Note that Mill’s methods only allow us to rule out ethnic homogeneity as a cause for democracy. We cannot determine whether parliamentary systems is sufficient for democracy. It is difficult to know if wealth’s apparent necessity for democracy is meaningful since we have only looked at cases where wealth is present. A Critique of Mill’s Methods • In order to draw valid inferences from Mill’s methods, several special assumptions MUST be met. • Many believe that these assumptions are almost always impossible to satisfy in the social sciences. • Assumption 1: Causal process must be deterministic. • A deterministic cause is one that always leads to the specific outcome. • Assumption 2: We have identified all of the possible causes and they work independently of each other. • Problem: It is hard to know if we have ruled out all of the possible causes. • The comparative method doesn’t tell us when/if we have met these assumptions! “Nothing can be more ludicrous than the sort of parodies on experimental reasoning which one is accustomed to meet with, not in popular discussion only, but in grave treatises, when the affairs of nations are the theme. ‘How,’ it is asked, ‘can an institution be bad, when the country has prospered under it?’ ‘How can such or such causes have contributed to the prosperity of one country, when another has prospered without them?’ Whoever makes use of an argument of this kind, not intending to deceive, should be sent back to learn the elements of some one of the more easy physical sciences.” (Mill,1986 [1874], p. 324) Where’s the Theory? • Mill’s methods tell us what happens but not why something happens. • They tell us that Y happened when X was present, and so on, but not why Y happened when X was present. • An essential missing ingredient is a sense of process—a story, or what political scientists call a theory. The Comparative Method Revisited What does all this mean for the comparative method? • Remember that a scholar who employs the comparative method starts with observations of the world and then generates a theory or explanation based on them. What might be wrong with this type of approach? • The problem is that these scholars are relying entirely on the process of affirming the consequent. Remember, this is an invalid argument. • If we identify causes only after we have observed the data, as Mill’s methods require, then we have no chance of ever coming across disconfirming observations. • This is because our theory is just a restatement of the patterns in our observations. • We can avoid this by starting with implications and then observing facts. • This provides a potential for falsificationism! This was the inductive method, it can be useful but its problematic assumptions have to be made 1. Causal process must be deterministic 2. Have to identify all possible causes almost impossible 3. Interaction of two factors only  variables are important to understand the context Mill himself was sceptical, especially about determinism Another limit is that this approach cannot provide a theory  fundamentally important we just have random variables which are not enough The inductive process doesn’t consider the story behind, just tells us what happens but no idea of process or mechanism, doesn’t tell us why  bad Another limit is that starts with an observation and then generates a theory no chance to say its wrong ad falsify the expectations this is problematic Deductive learning is more useful for this Another problem in using the data is a problem of adfirming the consequence and therefore this is an invalid argument  we never have the chance to be wrong  essence of scientific process Myths About Science • 1) Science leads to certain and verifiable truth – No! Science only presents tentative statements about what seems reasonable in light of the best available logic and evidence can speak with more about what we don’t know than about what we know • 2) Science can be done only when experimental manipulation is possible – No! Theories only need to be falsifiable – For example, this would mean that we can’t research dinosaurs because they’re extinct. Or, Einstein’s theory of relativity (without an eclipse) • 3) Science is value neutral – No! While the method may be neutral, the pursuit of knowledge is closely related to attempts to change the world – We have to very careful about the limits of our knowledge persuit of knowledge about the world is closely linked with attempts of people to change the world – Lack of diversity in most scientific disciplines (gender, race, income, class, …) means that some areas are less studied – Science is socially constructed • 4) Politics cannot be pursued in a scientific manner – No! The study of politics uses the scientific method • Generates falsifiable hypotheses • Generates scientific statements • We can test these theories WHAT IS POLITICS? Political science is the study of politics in a scientific manner Politics comprises the subset of human behaviour that involves the use of power or influence Power is involved when individuals cannot accomplish their goals without either trying to influence the behaviour of others or trying to wrestle free from the influence exerted by others • Politics is the subset of human behavior that involves the use of power or influence and can be found anywhere (=/= government) • Power is involved when people can’t accomplish their goals without: • Trying to influence the behavior of others. • Trying to wrestle free of the influence of others. it is a relation interaction bw actors it only exists when there are goals  professors have power only for academic goals Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Game • Use a reformulation of Albert Hirschman’s 1970 classic Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States to understand the central characteristics of politics. • Game theory is a tool to understand the relations of power, not a theory.  it will help us think about when citizens will take direct action against the government and help us think about the role of politics: who has it? Why? How and when is it used? Political situations nearly always involve some individuals or groups benefiting at the expenses of other individuals or groups Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Game What do you do when there is a deleterious change in your environment? Three Possible Responses • 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. • Use Voice Use your “voice” (complain, protest, lobby, take direct action) to try to change the environment back to its original condition. • Demonstrate Loyalty Accept the fact that your environment has changed and make no changes to your behavior. Steps to understand the strategic relations 1. Something happens in your environment and u don’t like it (ex a policy u don’t like) 2. Action o Person accepts the change and changes his/hers behaviour to comply with it  seek the better behaviour to comply with the change (EXIT) o Complain, protest to change the environment to the previous situa don’t accept change (VOICE) o Accept the change and don’t change behaviour, simply act as the new change tells u (LOYALTY) When Is Behavior “Political”? • Voice requires influence. • In order to change one’s environment, one typically needs to change the behavior of other people . . . so . . . politics is involved when voice is used. • But it’s also involved whenever voice is considered. • The decision whether to respond with exit, voice, or loyalty is a “political” decision. • This means that politics doesn’t just begin when voice is chosen. VOICE option involves power bc there is the relation bw people and argument  ex gov must change policy, people try to influence it Voice requires influence and must influence on others (gov) to do as u wish Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Game with Payoffs Solving the Game To solve the game we have to identify the choices that a rational decision maker who is trying to do as well as possible would make  what we expect the players to do in the type of strategic situation to be examined • We typically solve extensive form games like this for a particular type of Nash equilibrium called a “subgame perfect Nash equilibrium,” or SPNE.  it’s an important solution concept for extensive form games in which all actors do the best they can at every point where they could possibly make a decision SPE can be found using backword induction  process of reasoning backward, from the end of a game or situation to the beginning in order to determinate an optimal course of action Players in a game care about the consequences of their choices and therefore think ahead and try to anticipate how the other player will respond to their choices  like a chess game At each choice node the players will chose the action that provides them with the highest payoff given how they expect the other players to respond farther down the game tree • A “subgame” is the part of a game beginning at one choice node and including all succeeding choice nodes. • The EVL game has three subgames (one of which is the whole game), because there are three choice nodes. • 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. • They try to anticipate how the other player will respond to their choices. • Backward induction involves starting at the end of the game and reasoning backward. • What would the other player do if I chose X? What would the player do if I chose Y? So, Let’s Start at the End of the Game The citizen is making a choice. If I stay loyal, I get 0 - C. If I exit, I get E - C. Easy to see that the choice will depend on whether E > 0 If E > 0, we say the citizen has a credible exit threat.  if the game reaches the final node, she has an incentive to exit Let’s assume for now that the citizen has a credible exit threat, that is, E > 0. The citizen will choose to exit. Now we ask what the state will do at the previous decision node. The state is making a choice. If I respond, I get L. If I ignore, I get 1. Easy to see that the choice will depend on whether L > 1. If L > 1, we say the state is dependent on the citizen. If L < 1, we say the state is autonomous. If L > 1, we can see that state gets a larger payoff from having a loyal citizenry than from keeping the situation the same. It really needs the support of these citizens (for some reason). Let’s assume for now that the state is dependent, that is, L > 1. The state will choose to respond. Now we ask what the citizen will do at the initial node. If the citizen exits, she gets E. If the citizen remains loyal, she gets 0. If the citizen uses voice, she gets 1 − C. We already know E>0, because we assumed that at the beginning of this scenario. So, the choice is whether to exit or use voice. We assumed at the very beginning that E>1-C. Thus, the citizen will use voice. The citizen will use voice Scenario 1: Dependent State, Credible Exit Threat • Assumptions • E > 0. benefits from exit • E < 1 − C. • L > 1. • Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium • (Voice, Exit; Respond.) • Outcome • The citizen uses voice, the state responds. • Payoffs • The citizen gets 1 − C, the state gets L. Actors are strategic  they anticipate the decisions of the other  relations and objectives in common Citizens will voice and if its ignored will exit credible exit threat State is dependent and will anticipate the exit and therefore will respond Equilibria • How to write down the equilibria. • Equilibrium in Scenario 1 is (Voice, Exit; Respond). • (The citizen’s first action, the citizen’s second action; the state’s first action.) Scenario 2: The Citizen Has No Credible Exit Threat (E < 0) and the State Is Dependent (L > 1) (like North Korea) Note that even though the state is dependent, the state ignores the citizen because the citizen has no exit threat. In this case, there is no protest, because the citizen knows that if she uses voice, the state will just ignore her because the state knows the citizen has got nowhere else to go. 1st stage= loyal 2nd stage= loyal The state decided to ignore in any case  its anticipating what the citizen would do next Equilibrium: (Loyal, Loyal; Ignore) Scenario 3: The Citizen Has Credible Exit Threat (E > 0) and the State Is Autonomous (L< 1) Citizen ignored exit or stay loyal?  exit better to leave State  respond or ignore knowing that the citizen will exit?  ignore L is less than 1 1st node citizen decide to exit  now or after protesting and being ignored by the state now is better Equilibrium: (Exit, Exit; Ignore) Scenario 4: Citizen Has No Credible Exit Threat (E < 0) and the State Is Autonomous (L < 1) Citizen will decide to stay loyal If the citizen will use voice, state will ignore and the citizen will be loyal after protesting and being ignored Equilibrium: (Loyal, Loyal; Ignore)