Notes on Threat

Methods*
Military-Madrasa-Mullah
A Global Complex 235
235

National and Subnational Studies in Indian Politics

1(2) 235–240
Comparative Politics: Why, © 2013 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
What and How SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/2321023013509153
http://inp.sagepub.com
Louise Tillin

In this note, I present an overview of why comparative methods should be seen as useful for students of
Indian politics. I suggest that there are four overarching reasons why comparison is important: (a) it
helps to challenge ‘false’ exceptionalism; (b) it helps to challenge ‘false’ universalism (Rose, 1991;
Halperin and Heath 2012, p. 203); (c) it can contribute to theory development better than single case
studies; and (d) it helps to disaggregate the all-India picture in order to generate theories that are better
able to capture the variation that exists within India without getting too lost in the detail of individual
subnational cases.
The note takes cognizance of the increasing primacy of the states as critical actors in both the arena
of electoral politics from 1989 onwards (Yadav and Palshikar, 2003, 2008), as well as in the field of
policy-making and implementation. Much of the focus in this piece is therefore on national and
subnational comparisons, but this is not with the intention of reifying these political units as the sole or
primary units of comparison. There are other units of analysis that can be just as fruitful, depending
on the question under investigation: sub-regions of states (see, for example, Kumar, 2011); municipal
governments (see Ruet and Lama-Rewal, 2009); or organizations within different regions (business
associations, social movements, political parties, etc). The note will be organized around three questions:
why compare, what to compare and how to compare.

Why Compare?
The problem of ‘false’ exceptionalism relates to the assumption that a case or group of cases represent
exceptions to broader patterns or rules, and thus require special explanation. India, as a whole, has been
seen as an outlier in theories of democracy and development which posit a relationship between levels
of economic development and democratization. Over time, its outlier status has contributed to a sense
that it is a case unto itself, rather than a case that can be profitably compared—either with the more
established democracies (from whom it differs because of levels of economic development) or with
newer democracies in Latin America, Eastern Europe, parts of East Asia or sub-Saharan Africa (from
whom it differs because of the longevity of its democracy).
Many scholars have pushed against the idea of Indian exceptionalism in a bid to bring India closer
to the centre of theory-building exercises in comparative politics (Stepan et al., 2011), to broach conven-
tions as to which countries to compare India with (Chatterjee and Katznelson, 2012) and to offer

Louise Tillin, King’s India Institute, King’s College London. E-mail: Louise.Tillin@kcl.ac.uk

*This section is coordinated by Divya Vaid, divya.vaid.09@gmail.com India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149

Downloaded from inp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on May 28, 2015

236 Louise Tillin

comparative lessons from India (Heller, 2000). An increasing number of studies have compared Indian
federalism to federal models in other multi-ethnic countries (Adeney, 2007; Saxena, 2002; Shneiderman
and Tillin, forthcoming; Stepan, 1999), or India’s trajectories of economic development to those of
Brazil, South Korea and elsewhere (Evans, 1995; Kohli, 2004). The issue of exceptionalism goes beyond
research and teaching on Indian politics. Similar arguments have been made about the desirability of
better integrating the United States as a case for comparison rather than treating American politics as a
separate field of study (see, for example, Weissert, 2011). Warnings against exceptionalizing tendencies
have also been made by scholars of Middle Eastern politics (Bellin, 2004) and Africanists (Sklar, 1993).
By challenging exceptionalism, scholars can learn from and contribute to the wider field of
comparative politics, while also helping to push against the second problem identified earlier, that
of ‘false’ universalism. The problem of ‘false’ universalism is the converse of exceptionalism: it relates
to the failure to see what is distinctive or different about a particular case (see also Rose 1991). It can also
arise when a case is studied in isolation and not compared to others. Deep knowledge of a particular
case(s) can mean that some things become so familiar as to be part of the furniture, rather than questions
of active reflection. As James Manor points out, ‘Many important things . . . are so familiar to us as India
specialists that we pay them little heed, and when we actually notice them, we assume that they are
normal’ (Manor, 2010, p. 506). Comparisons therefore need not necessarily be concerned with the
identification of similar processes. The act of comparing India with other countries may help to identify
what is distinctive or important about the Indian experience—in contrast with processes in other
countries. The act of comparison may therefore help to pinpoint what (and how much) is unique about
the Indian experiences of development, democratization, decentralization, economic reforms,
urbanization or ethnic conflict.
The dual problems of ‘false’ exceptionalism and universalism are also replicated at the level of study-
ing state politics in India. It should be emphasized that there is an increasingly rich tradition of studying
the politics of Indian states (recent compendia include Kohli and Singh, 2012; Pai, 2013; Shastri et al.,
2009). Yet researchers frequently pursue different themes and questions in different regions within
India, perpetuating a sense that certain regions are to be seen as ‘exceptional’. Thus, West Bengal is seen
to stand aside from the politics of caste that has dominated in other states (see Chandra and Nielsen,
2012); ethnicity and conflict remain dominant focal points for scholarship in Northeast India, but little
research is conducted on how public policy is implemented in the region; the ‘Kerala model’ of socio-
economic development is presumed to set the state apart from other parts of the country. Such framings
are rooted in different historical trajectories of political development in different states, but recognizing
the variety of histories at play across India does not need to create separate islands of scholarship. The
problem of ‘false’ universalism can also be found in single-region case studies. Thus, Uttar Pradesh
specialists can sometimes imply that politics in India’s largest state is a microcosm of politics across
India, neglecting what makes the state distinctive; or it can be assumed that politics across large states
looks similar in each of their sub-regions.
Travelling beyond single country or region case studies can help to guard against both ‘false’ excep-
tionalism and universalism. The process of travelling can shed more light on familiar cases by helping to
establish—via comparison—which potential factors are the most important explanatory variables in a
given case. Comparison can help to reduce the role that contingency often plays in explanations within
single case studies, helping to tackle the ‘many variables, small n’ problem (King et al., 1994; Lijphart,
1971). While stand-alone case studies have considerable merit on their own terms, comparative analyses
of cases are better placed to contribute to theory development (either by confirming or infirming existing

Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 2 (2013): 235–240

Downloaded from inp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on May 28, 2015

National and Subnational Comparative Politics 237

theories, generating new hypotheses or examining cases that deviate from existing theories and thereby
offering modifications to these theories) (Lijphart, 1971).
Lastly, the task of comparison is also connected with disaggregation. For India to be treated as a
single case in large-N studies of democratisation—sometimes on a par with small island nations—can be
perverse. In the Indian context, the nature of politics, governance and the quality of democracy varies
dramatically across space. The last two and half decades have witnessed the substantial decentralization
of economic and political power in the context of parallel processes of economic liberalization, and the
deepening regionalization of the political arena. There is good reason, therefore, for doing what Richard
Snyder describes as ‘scaling down’ in order to better capture variation within nations, and improve our
descriptions of complex processes such as democratization or economic reform (Snyder, 2001). In doing
so, we are likely to produce more accurate accounts of politics and political change at the all-India level
as well as provide richer comparative insights.

What and How to Compare

While comparison can be seen as good in itself, not all comparisons are likely to be productive. Careful
attention therefore needs to be given to the logic of comparison, and selection of cases. Full-fledged
controlled experiments are not possible, especially in small-n research. Therefore, researchers need to be
careful to minimize as much extraneous variation as possible. By comparing states within a common
federal system, a degree of control is exerted over the structure of political institutions. Subnational
comparison can allow for comparison between units that also have social, economic, cultural or histori-
cal similarities—although this dimension of comparability cannot be taken for granted, especially in a
country of India’s scale. There are also important questions about the extent to which federal sub-units
are independent of each other (Snyder, 2001). Yet reflecting the possibility of conducting reasonably
controlled comparisons within a federal setting and the importance of capturing within-country
variation, the subnational comparative method has been steadily embraced by researchers in a number
of federal countries over the last few decades. Democratization in Latin America offered a particularly
rich context for subnational comparative studies (see, for example, Cornelius et al., 1999; Falleti,
2010; Gervasoni, 2010; Snyder, 1999). Such approaches have flourished across many regional contexts
(see reviews in Leeper and Tillin, 2012; Moncada and Snyder, 2012), and have a long pedigree in the
Indian context itself (Frankel and Rao, 1989; Harriss, 2003; Jenkins, 2004; Kailash, 2011; Kohli, 1987;
Sinha, 2005). Some researchers have also sought to compare across scales of government, and to
compare subnational units in India with other countries (Heller, 2001; Melo et al., 2012).
Comparison does not, in itself, imply a preference for a particular method although it is often associ-
ated with smaller-N studies. Multiple research techniques are possible including ethnography, semi-
structured interviews, survey research and so on. There are often trade-offs in terms of the amount of
time a researcher can spend in any one region, once a comparative research design is chosen. That said,
even a short spell interviewing in an unfamiliar context can raise important questions about cases with
which you are more familiar. But it is also pertinent to underline that comparative research need not only
be a prescription for multi-sited field research by the same individual. Working comparatively also
involves engaging with themes, theories and questions in broader literatures in the process of framing
research studies and generating questions or hypotheses. It also means paying attention to the definition

Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 2 (2013): 235–240

Downloaded from inp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on May 28, 2015

238 Louise Tillin

of key concepts so that there is comparability in concepts employed by scholars across space. This can
lead to difficult choices within any single country context to strike a balance between conceptual
language that is sufficiently specific to do justice to the individual case while also sufficiently expansive
to travel to other contexts (the classic discussion can be found in Sartori, 1970). For example, the defini-
tion of ‘ethnic identity’ or ‘ethnic’ politics in India has been a subject for debate: should an expansive
definition be employed in order to bring Indian materials into conversation with broader debates in com-
parative politics (this is the approach adopted by Chandra, 2004, 2005; Chandra and Wilkinson, 2008,
for instance), or should a distinction be made between caste and other forms of ascriptive identity
(language, religion, tribe, etc.)? The way scholars resolve such dilemmas often relate to the extent to
which they feel their explanations should be applicable in other contexts. This links back to issues
around exceptionalism and comparability.
There are also very good reasons to work collaboratively with researchers who have expertise in
different regional contexts. In an ongoing research programme on Comparative State Politics and
Public Policy in India, a team of researchers associated with Lokniti, CSDS and King’s India Institute,
King’s College London have attempted to overcome some of the barriers to comparative research in
India by engaging in a series of collaborative, comparative research projects within a common analytical
framework. The projects seek to understand the interface between electoral politics and policy processes
at the state level across India through a set of paired comparisons that cumulatively address a common
problematic.1
Comparing politics at the state and lower levels offers a means to enrich existing case study research
in India and ensure that it adds up to more than the sum of its parts. This can be done via multi-state
comparative studies, or the production of typologies describing patterns in clusters of states. Both strate-
gies offer the possibility of maintaining the richness of thick description while providing a better bird’s
eye view of transitions in India’s polity, economy and political economy—and communicating these to
wider audiences.

Note
1. See project website for further details (www.cspppindia.org).

References
Adeney, K. (2007). Federalism and ethnic conflict regulation in India and Pakistan. New York: Palgrave USA.
Bellin, E. (2004). The robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: Exceptionalism in comparative perspec-
tive. Comparative Politics, 36(2), 139–157.
Chandra, K. (2004). Why do ethnic parties succeed? Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
———. (2005). Ethnic parties and democratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 235–252.
Chandra, K., & Wilkinson, S. (2008). Measuring the effect of ‘ethnicity’. Comparative Political Studies, 41(4–5),
515–563.
Chandra, U., & Nielsen, K.B. (2012). The importance of caste in Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(44),
59–61.
Chatterjee, P., & Katznelson, I. (Eds). (2012). Anxieties of democracy: Tocquevillean reflections on India and the
United States. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Cornelius, W.A., Eisenstadt, T.A., & Hindley, J. (Eds). (1999). Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 2 (2013): 235–240

Downloaded from inp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on May 28, 2015

National and Subnational Comparative Politics 239

Evans, P. (1995). Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Falleti, T.G. (2010). Decentralization and subnational politics in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Frankel, F., & Rao, M.S.A. (Eds). (1989). Dominance and state power in modern India: Decline of a social order.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gervasoni, C. (2010). A rentier theory of subnational regimes: Fiscal federalism, democracy, and authoritarianism
in the Argentine provinces. World Politics, 62(2), 302–340.
Halperin, Sandra and Oliver Heath. (2012). Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harriss, John. (2003). Do political regimes matter? Poverty reduction and regime differences across India.
In Houtzager, P., & Moore, M. (Eds), Changing paths: International development and the new politics of
inclusion. (pp. 204–32). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Heller, Patrick. (2000). Degrees of democracy: Some comparative lessons from India. World Politics, 52(4),
484–519.
———. (2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralisation in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto
Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 131–163.
Jenkins, Rob (Ed.). (2004). Regional reflections: Comparing politics across India’s states. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Kailash, K.K. (2011). Varieties of comparative state politics research in India. Seminar, 620.
King, G., Keohane, R.O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kohli, Atul. (1987). The state and poverty in India: The politics of reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. (2004). State-directed development: Political power and industrialisation in the global periphery.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kohli, Atul, & Singh, Prerna (Eds). (2012). Routledge handbook of Indian politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kumar, Ashutosh (Ed.). (2011). Rethinking state politics in India: Regions within regions. New Delhi: Routledge.
Leeper, J., & Tillin, L. (2012). Subnational politics and social policy in the global South: A review of the existing lit-
erature (outside India). Comparative State Politics and Public Policy (CSPPP) Working Paper, 1, 1–11. London:
King’s India Institute, King’s College London.
Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3),
682–693.
Manor, James. (2010). What do they know of India who only India know? The uses of comparative politics. Journal
of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 48(4), 505–516.
Melo, M., Ng’ethe, N., & Manor, J. (2012). Against the odds: Politicians, institutions and the struggle against
poverty. London/New York: Hurst & Co/Columbia University Press.
Moncada, E., & Snyder, R. (2012). Subnational comparative research on democracy: Taking stock and looking
forward. APSA Newsletter on Comparative Democratisation, 10(1).
Pai, Sudha (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of politics in Indian states: Regions, parties and economic reforms. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Rose, Richard. (2006). Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis. Political Studies, 39(3), 446–462.
Ruet, J., & Lama-Rewal, S.T. (Eds). (2009). Governing India’s metropolises: Case studies of four cities. New Delhi:
Routledge.
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, LXIV(4),
1033–1053.
Saxena, R. (2002). Mapping Canadian federalism for India. New Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt Ltd.
Shastri, Sandeep, Suri, K.C., & Yadav, Yogendra (Eds). (2009). Electoral politics in Indian states: Lok Sabha elec-
tions in 2004 and beyond. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Shneiderman, S., & Tillin, L. (forthcoming). Restructuring states, restructuring ethnicity: Looking across discipli-
nary boundaries at federal futures in India and Nepal. Modern Asian Studies.

Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 2 (2013): 235–240

Downloaded from inp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on May 28, 2015

240 Louise Tillin

Sinha, Aseema. (2005). The regional roots of developmental politics in India: A divided leviathan. Bloomington and
Indianopolis: University of Indiana Press.
Sklar, R.L. (1993). The African frontier for Political Science. In Bates, R.H., Mudimbe, V.Y., & O’Barr, J.F. (Eds),
Africa and the disciplines: The contributions of research in Africa to the Social Sciences and Humanities.
(pp. 83–110). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Snyder, Richard. (1999). After neoliberalism: The politics of reregulation in Mexico. World Politics, 51(2), 173–204.
———. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International
Development, 36(1), 93–110.
Stepan, Alfred. (1999). Federalism and democracy: Beyond the US model. Journal of Democracy, 10(4), 19–34.
Stepan, Alfred, Linz, Juan, & Yadav, Yogendra. (2011). Crafting state-nations: India and other multinational
democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Weissert, C.S. (2011). Beyond marble cakes and picket fences: What US federalism scholars can learn from com-
parative work. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 965–979.
Yadav, Yogendra, & Palshikar, Suhas. (2003). From hegemony to convergence: Party system and electoral politics
in the Indian states, 1952–2002. Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, 15, 5–44.
———. (2008). Ten theses on state politics in India. Seminar, 591.

Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 2 (2013): 235–240

Downloaded from inp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on May 28, 2015