Transbordo de mercancía.

In the course of social science research comparisons of one kind or another are made frequently. Often the comparisons are no more than implicit, but it is difficult to analyse and discuss behavioural data in a meaningful way in the absence of some sort of comparative framework. Whether implicit or explicit, comparisons can take a number of forms. A subject may be compared across space or time or with some other phenomenon. Comparisons through time are usually designed to monitor rates and forms of change in the subject under consideration, whereas comparisons across space tend to highlight variations (or the lack of them) in intrinsically similar phenomena under different circumstances in different places. Comparisons with different, albeit in some way related, phenomena generally serve to emphasize the universal properties of the subject in question or else its unique qualities. Alternatively, social scientists often use as their yardstick for comparison some kind of ideal or theoretical standard; the implicit question they are then attempting to answer is: "How do the data compare with the theory?" The making of such comparative judgements has many ramifications for the advancement and

refinement of research. Using theory as a comparative standard can help highlight methodological difficulties. It can also lead to worthwhile conclusions as to the nature of the data under examination,

the nature of the theory, and how either or both should be modified to produce better results or provide a better explanation of results. Theory and empirical observations should be used in conjunction with each other, in a dynamic, organic relationship, in order to aid the development of each. Empirical analysis in the absence of a theoretical framework makes for a "barren" social science. Nevertheless a researcher should always be prepared to let his or her

empirical findings influence the evolution of the theoretical base.

The essence of this study is the making of explicit cross-national comparisons concerning political behaviour and the theoretical base consequently requires a merging of electoral behaviour concepts with comparative strategies. In setting the study in its proper theoretical perspective this chapter identifies the central concerns and problems of cross-national comparative research into political behaviour and places the study in a framework which will become the point of departure for the comparisons made in the analytic chapters that follow.

If a justification for conducting comparative research into electoral behaviour is needed, it has been succinctly supplied by Richard Rose:

The case for the comparative study of electoral behavior rests upon strong substantive and methodological grounds. Only by comparisons across space and time can one learn under what circumstances and to what extent hypotheses hold true. Electoral behavior is particularly amenable to comparative analysis because it produces a large mass of quantitative data. Quantitative data is [sic] not only suitable for statistical analysis but also tends to present fewer difficulties in achieving conceptual

33

equivalence cross-nationally. Voting is the chief form of mass political behavior in societies with competitive free elections. Whether individuals cast a vote because of traditional loyalties or conscious programmatic reasons, their choice can be significant as an affirmation of identity with a particular group, subculture, or famille spirituelle within the state. Votes also have consequences for government, as they strengthen or weaken the position of leaders of organized political groups bargaining about power. 1

We can also address the question of why cross-national comparative research should be undertaken in more general terms than those used by Rose. What are the attractions and advantages of comparing behaviour cross-nationally? The answers, broadly, are these: comparisons are generally made to identify similarities across cultures, to pin-point universal and general propositions; to identify differences which help to distinguish between societies, show

2

the temporal and spatial boundaries of propositions and help the researcher to judge how unusual a particular finding for a particular place or circumstance might be; to set observed phenomena in a new and different perspective, whereby they may be seen to have important and hitherto unappreciated consequences. To determine whether hypotheses hold true in general or specific contexts and to draw out the implications of such findings is the essence of comparative research.

Comparison makes no assumption that the countries compared are alike in every respect. Nor is it expected that they are unique in every respect. Total dissimilarity would be as surprising as total identity. To compare all is not to confound all. But to admit that countries differ in some respects is not to suggest that they differ in every respect ... To emphasize differences between countries

**Rose, "Comparability in Electoral Studies", p. 3.

Erwin K. Scheuch, "The Cross-Cultural Use of Sample Surveys: Problems of Comparability", in Stein Rokkan (ed.), Comparative Research Across Cultures and Nations (Paris and The Hague:

1968), p. 200. 2

stimulates the questions: in what sense? under what circumstances? and to what degree? 1

And we could add: due to what factors? For the value of cross-national comparison lies in helping us develop explanations for variations in conceptually equivalent phenomena. Although occasionally in comparative research the "goal may be to establish the

2

different identities of the cultures" under comparison, the paramount concern should more properly be the understanding of general principles so that social science theory may be enriched. The latter approach is particularly relevant in the present (albeit limited) setting in which the ultimate goal is to improve our understanding of the general nature of political behaviour. Comparative research is, or ought to be, designed to establish theoretically important patterns of relationships between given variables. Causal connections underlying observed phenomena need to be understood in order to build up an accurate picture of social processes. Cross-national research is ideally suited to providing such insights (notwithstanding the many obstacles to its successful execution) because it tests relationships in varied cultural, political and institutional settings. "In scientific research the goal is not description [of the properties of specific units of observation] but rather a set of statements

3

concerning relationships between or among variables." Rather than leading to an understanding of events within particular nations, therefore, "the role of comparative research in the process of

"'Rose, "Comparability in Electoral Studies", pp. 3-4.

Scheuch, "The Cross-Cultural Use of Sample Surveys", p. 197. Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune, "Equivalence in Cross-National Research", Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (1966), 554.

2 3

35

theory-building and theory-testing consists of replacing proper names 1

of social systems by the relevant variables." The aim is to determine the reasons why the association between variables changes under different conditions and so it is the "identification of intervening variables, that make[s] cross-national analysis an essential part of

2