The paper seeks 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 methodologically 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.
Why Compare?
1. What is Comparable?
1.1 The Cat-Dog
1.2 Misclassification and Degreeism
1.3 Concept Stretching
2. Compare How?
2.1 Rules and Exceptions
2.2 The Case Study
2.3 Incommensurability
2.4 Individualizing vs. Generalizing
3. Conclusion
Return to the Comparative Methods Course Home Page Return to previous page