Comparing and Miscomparing

TLDR

The author seeks to explain why comparative politics struggles to answer why, what, and how to compare, and challenges the assumption that comparison methodology is well established. The study finds that unresolved issues and the proliferation of non‑existent aggregates (cat‑dogs) undermine comparative politics, leading to loss of purpose.

Abstract

I seek to explain the disappointing performance of the field of comparative politics addressing the three basic questions: Why compare? What is comparable? and How? I also challenge the view that the methodology of comparison is pretty well known and established. Hosts of unsettled issues remain, while a growing cause of frustration and failure is the undetected proliferation of `cat-dogs' (or worse), that is, nonexistent aggregates which are bound to defy, on account of their non-comparable characteristics, any and all attempts at law-like generalizations. The bottom line is that the comparative endeavor suffers from loss of purpose.