1. What is political science?

Aristotle 20th century: Max Weber (Germany), Robert Micheals (Italy), Lord Bryce (Britain), Woodrow Wilson (USA)

Institutions (executives, parliaments, constitutions and political parties) “Institutionalism”

Shift in focus from political institutions to political behaviour Because of collapse of democracy in much of Europe and new methods to study political behaviour (ex: representative opinion polls).

1940s-60s Behaviours of voters, parties, interest groups, legislators and bureaucrats is driven by self-interest and strategic calculation

1940s-60s Adapted theoretical ideas in sociology about the social and cultural determinants of behaviour to try to explain the formation of states, the behaviours and organization of political parties, how citizens voted, and why some countries became stable democracies and others did not

1980s-90s Convergence of the rational choice approach with sociological approach

Beliefs and actions of political actors Takes place within a political system

Specific policy outcomes (economic growth) or broader political phenomena (social equality) Political behaviour and political institutions interact to produce political outcomes

A set of assumptions about how political actors behave and how political institutions influence and shape this behaviour, from which a set of propositions is derived, which can then be tested against empirical observations

Similar to the prisoners dilemma 2 states Cost of cutting emissions = -3 Benefit of cutting emissions = +4 (2 each) • If both countries cut emissions then each country has +1 benefit • If one state cuts emissions then the one that cuts has -1 and the one who doesn’t cut has +2 benefits • If neither cuts, they both have 0 benefits So, each country will always have an incentive not to cut emissions

• A citizen may be influenced by a social norm or habit and not vote rationally • Deciding to vote in of itself isn’t rational since the benefit of voting (how likely it is that your vote will change the outcome) is much smaller than the cost of voting (taking the time to go)

Formal and information institutions restrict actors behaviour in political situations, and so shape political actions and outcomes

• Provisions in a constitution • Rules of procedure in a parliament • Electoral systems • Campaign finance regulations • Rules on how a party chooses a leader

• Social structures (such as class) • Social norms and cultural practices • Metaphysical beliefs • Ideological values

Since the government has a majority, they can dominate policy-making and make radical changes

Policy change is more difficult Compromise and collaboration is required

Rules: • 2 players • Player 1 proposes how to devide a dollar between them • Player 2 can accept or reject (then neither of them will get anything) If both players are purely rational: • Player 1 will over a 99 to 1 cent split to maximize their profit • Player 2 will accept since 1 cent is greater than nothing In practice this is rarely the outcome The outcome also differs in different cultures This proves that the rational choice approach is not always accurate

An aspect of the institutional approach Once formal or informal institutions influence a particular policy or political outcome, they tend to be “locked-in” for a long term For example: In western Europe, though the 1990s brought 2 world wars and significan economic and social change, the same political parties dominate in all countries

Today most political scientists combine ideas from both approaches

Describes how a variable is related to another Non-numeric

Describes whether a variable is related to another Statistical measures to identify correlations and causal relationships between variables

Variable representing the outcome that is trying to be explained

Factors which the researcher believes cause variation in the dependent variable

A proposed explanation for a causal relationship between dependent and independent variables