Comparative Politics

[GotSpin]

Alright guys, you must know I'm desperate to seek help in OT but I need some pearls of wisdom from some of you.

I've got a major essay due in a couple weeks that requires that the comparative method be applied using two case studies on this question

'The nation-state exists as a separate entity in World Politics. The European Union is merely an economic umbrella allowing nation-states to survive under globalisaiton'

The main problem I'm having getting started is wrapping my head around the comparative method like the constant variables and so forth and method of similarity v. method of difference

Any advice? It would be much appreciated

 

[ripper868]

Any advice? It would be much appreciated

Do your own damn assignment.

 

[GotSpin]

I knew I was a fool to ask here

 

[cpr]

Either we studied politics different, or more likely I never listened.... as whats the comparative method?

 

[GotSpin]

I've only got four subjects to go until I complete my degree and this the first time I've been asked to answer an essay question like this.

In comparing my two case studies to answer the question, I'm going to be using the Method of Difference which requires that the phenomenon to be explained is present in one case, but not the other. I'm going to be using Germany and Greece, so obviously the phenomenon to be explained is the difference in current economic success.

By using the Method of Difference, I can focus my analysis on the things that they have in common while eliminating other factors. Therefore, the method allows me to not only prove that nation states are a separate entity, but that they are a significant factor in determining the success of ones economy.

 

[howardj]

Way over my head

Change subjects or get a medical certificate.

 

[_Ed_]

I've only got four subjects to go until I complete my degree and this the first time I've been asked to answer an essay question like this.

In comparing my two case studies to answer the question, I'm going to be using the Method of Difference which requires that the phenomenon to be explained is present in one case, but not the other. I'm going to be using Germany and Greece, so obviously the phenomenon to be explained is the difference in current economic success.

By using the Method of Difference, I can focus my analysis on the things that they have in common while eliminating other factors. Therefore, the method allows me to not only prove that nation states are a separate entity, but that they are a significant factor in determining the success of ones economy.

That sounds like a good approach, but I honestly have no idea. I never came across any questions like that in my six years of Political Science.

 

[GotSpin]

That sounds like a good approach, but I honestly have no idea. I never came across any questions like that in my six years of Political Science.

Yeah, it's really quite strange. Seems to be based on John Mills' 'system of logic' but I've never encountered it before and I'm almost finished my BA.

I think I understand the important components of it enough to waffle through and scrape a decent mark.

 

[Goughy]

I've only got four subjects to go until I complete my degree and this the first time I've been asked to answer an essay question like this.

In comparing my two case studies to answer the question, I'm going to be using the Method of Difference which requires that the phenomenon to be explained is present in one case, but not the other. I'm going to be using Germany and Greece, so obviously the phenomenon to be explained is the difference in current economic success.

By using the Method of Difference, I can focus my analysis on the things that they have in common while eliminating other factors. Therefore, the method allows me to not only prove that nation states are a separate entity, but that they are a significant factor in determining the success of ones economy.

Without wanting to disparage the field of study, a) Aren't nation states far to complex to ever isolate all the phenomena? To only look at a few factors would ignore a myriad of secondary factors that could have a huge effect. In fact, it appears very easy to overlook the real reasons for significant difference in performance while focusing on the irrelevant b) Will there not be a whole host of differences that this method fails to isolate which carry more weight in success and failure? c) Doesn't the Method of Difference work best when looking at only a few parameters and one or two key differences can be isolated as 'significant' d) Wouldn't a comparison with another country produce a different set of differences which would undermine the conclusions drawn from the earlier comparison?

As such the conclusions drawn from using this method on such a complicated subject could only have very limited value?

I don't claim to be anything close to an expert in the field but I struggle to see the point of it.