Symbolically, the common method of agreement and difference can be presented as follows: [iii] Skocpol (1979) argued that there were only two root causes of social revolutions: (i) a rigid agrarian class structure and (ii) a crisis of the state. show that a relationship is causal, although a nominal cross-comparison reveals one or more cases in which the values of the explanatory and outcome variables deviate from a general pattern » (2003: 362). The difference between internal case analysis, as Mahoney recommends, and combined and connected causality, as recommended by critical realists, has to do with how the explanations themselves are conceptualized. For Mahoney and other (neo-)Humeans, only empirical observations are considered causally important; For critical realists, the idea is that after identifying empirical patterns, the researcher must go further by applying the theory to understand the causal representation (see below). [ix] Assuming that research on the subject of investigation already exists, fallibilism implies that the purpose of the new research is, in part, to identify better explanations than those previously proposed in the literature (see Gorski 2004). [x] I assume – although this hypothesis is by no means undisputed – that the Millian approach is not simple and purely inductive. In his earlier work, Mahoney noted that the Millian method in its pure form is based on the assumption that « the causes show […] invariant relationships with outcomes in a range of cases » (Mahoney 2003:341, 340; see also Mahoney 2008:420). On the basis of these deterministic ontological hypotheses, the Millians draw their conclusions. Skocpol (1979) argues that if you have a rigid agrarian class structure under certain conditions and the state enters into crisis, you will have a social revolution; these two factors determine the social revolution.
But, of course, it is reasonable to doubt that the world functions in such a deterministic way. In fact, this is precisely why Mahoney discusses « probabilistic causality. » However, in Millian`s correct manner, he considers probabilistic causality to be a necessary and sufficient subtype of causality (Mahoney 2003:355, 368; Mahoney 2008: 417, 425-29). [v] In this unit, we present the methods of comparative analysis used in political science and international studies. Note that the case studies we will examine are hardly exhaustive geographically or thematically. We apply factor analysis and comparison methods to examples from four regions of the world – Africa, America, Asia and the Middle East – which is the classification of regional studies and the standardized geopolitical organization used by American political scientists. [ii] The Millian approach, advocated by the philosopher John Stuart Mill as central to the scientific method, consists in identifying the common and different factors in a given situation from which we can draw conclusions about the necessary and/or sufficient conditions that explain an event. As a result, for Mill: Perhaps the best way to introduce mill methods is by example. Let`s say your family goes out together for a buffet dinner, but when you got home, you all felt sick and had a stomach ache.
How do you determine the cause of the disease? Suppose you create a table of the foods that each family member eats: knowledge is expanded when we can test or falsify a hypothesis. This is because experimental tests are designed in such a way that the hypothesis is likely to be a widespread explanation of certain facts and not an isolated case. This type of experiment is controlled, which means that experimental arrangements differ by only one variable (see Mill`s method of difference). John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher who wrote on a wide range of subjects from language and science to political philosophy. The so-called « grinding methods » are five rules for investigating the causes he proposed. It has been suggested that some of these rules were discussed by the famous Islamic scientist and philosopher Avicenna (980-1037). We will examine various characteristics of government as factors in our study of comparative policies. We draw these factors from the written constitution, political leadership, and bureaucracy that have emerged over time. In any event, we are discussing the political factors for comparison. For example, we identify the degree of bureaucratic privatization in each system, how the geography of a community affects government interaction, how governments tend to stand still in their policy-making, and how each of these factors leads to patterns in the political process over time.
This method is also commonly known as the most similar system design in comparative politics. Also simply called the « common method », this principle simply represents the application of the methods of agreement and difference. For a property to be a necessary condition, it must always be present when the effect is present. Since this is so, we are interested in examining the cases where the effect is present and determining which properties are present among those considered « possible necessary conditions » and which are missing. Obviously, all the properties that are missing when the effect is present cannot be necessary conditions for the effect. This method is also more generally referred to in comparative politics as the most diverse system design. Symbolically, the agreement method can be represented as follows: As an example of the difference method, consider two similar countries. Country A has a center-right government, a unified system and was a former colony. Country B has a center-right government, a unified system, but has never been a colony. The difference between countries is that country A willingly supports anti-colonial initiatives, while country B does not.
The difference method would identify the independent variable as the status of each country as a former colony or not, with the dependent variable supporting anti-colonial initiatives. This is because of the two similar countries compared, the difference between the two is whether or not they were a colony. This then explains the difference in the values of the dependent variables, with the former colony supporting decolonization rather than the country that was not a colony. Under the residue method, if we have a number of factors that are believed to be the causes of a number of effects, and we have reason to believe that all but one factor C are the causes of all but one, then we should conclude that C is the cause of the remaining effect. To further illustrate this concept, let`s look at two structurally different countries. Country A is a former colony, has a center-left government and has a federal system with two levels of government. .