Revision summary
Comparison substitutes for experiment, as Lijphart argued. Mill’s designs fail when variables outnumber cases. Galton’s problem and conceptual stretching are standing limits. Official data and Eurocentric concepts add political distortion. The method is disciplined inference, not a controlled trial.
Model answer
Introduction
The comparative method is the main tool of Comparative Politics. It seeks general statements from a small number of States. Its limits are conceptual, statistical, and political.
Body
What the method tries to do
- John Stuart Mill’s method of agreement and difference is the classical template: hold some factors constant and vary others.
- Arend Lijphart treated comparison as a substitute for experiment when the political scientist cannot randomise regimes.
- Giovanni Sartori insisted that concepts must travel without stretching, or the comparison is only a word.
Main limitations
- Too many variables and too few cases: cabinets, culture, class, and colonial history cannot all be controlled in a handful of States.
- Galton’s problem: States copy constitutions and parties, so cases are not independent experiments.
- Conceptual stretching: democracy, federalism, or failed State mean unlike things in India, Belgium, and a post-conflict territory.
- Selection bias: studying only wars or only successful democracies distorts causes.
- Data are State products. Official turnout, growth, and rights scores may hide informal power.
- Value-laden concepts and Eurocentric baselines, which dependency writers and Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-system work also flag, make “development” a loaded yardstick.
- Language and meaning change the same institution. A vote is not the same act in every political culture.
What still remains
- Most-similar and most-different designs and process tracing reduce error. They do not make Political Science a laboratory.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD C[Comparative method] --> N[Few cases many variables] C --> G[Galton dependence] C --> S[Sartori stretching] N --> L[Limits of inference] G --> L S --> L
Conclusion
The comparative method is limited by few cases, dependent cases, stretched concepts, biased selection, and political data. It remains necessary. It is not a proof machine.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Bipolar structure of the world is more stable than the multipolar one. Comment.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2022 · Q1(d)). View answer →
-
Does the limit mean comparison should stop?
No. Difference is the reason to compare. The requirement is clear concepts and honest N.
-
Is large-N statistics free of these limits?
It eases the few-cases problem. It still faces stretching, dependence, and bad indicators.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2022 · Q1(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Bipolar structure of the world is more stable than the multipolar one. Comment. -
2022 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
How has the electoral democracy augmented the participation of people in the democratic process? -
2022 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
What is the realist prescription to the States to ensure their survival in an anarchical world? -
2022 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Russian-Ukraine crisis has cast a dark shadow on the energy needs of the member states of the European Union (EU). Comment -
2022 · Q8(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the consequences of illegal cross-border migration in India's north-eastern region -
2021 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the political economy approach to the comparative analysis of politics. -
2021 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"The post-colonial state was thought of an entity that stood outside and above society as an autonomous agency." Explain -
2021 · Q2(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the emergence of neo-realism and its basic tenets
More from this topic
Q7(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
NonAlignment 2·0 underscores India's unique aspiration to emerge as a site for an alternative universality. Comment
Comparative Politics
NonAlignment 2.0 (2012) restated strategic autonomy for a China-first, post-NAM world: partner the U.S., do not join it. Alternative universality means rules others can inhabit without becoming Western or Chinese tributaries. India’s civilisational pluralism, Global South voice, and issue-based coalitions are the claimed site. The aspiration is coherent; capacity in the neighbourhood and in manufacturing is the constraint. The risk is exceptionalism dressed as universality.
Q7(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Trump's unilateral imposition of reciprocal tariffs on scores of countries poses impending threat to the future of the rule-based multilateral global trading system under the WTO. What options do the WTO members have to salvage the organization?
Comparative Politics
Trump’s 2025 reciprocal tariffs, on top of a blocked Appellate Body, treat MFN as optional and threaten WTO as policeman. Salvage options: restore appeals or widen MPIA, plurilaterals, a subsidy-for-S&DT reform bargain, G20 politics, and FTA hedges. India’s stake is public stockholding, digital rules and a forum in which power is not the only law. A variable-geometry WTO is more likely than a 1995 restoration. Letting the organisation die would leave only tariff nationalism.
Q6(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
The tariff threats have pushed India and the European Union closer. Evaluate the India-EU partnership
Comparative Politics
U.S. reciprocal tariffs in 2025 threatened both Indian and EU exports and compressed FTA timelines. The partnership already includes TTC, climate talk, student mobility and a values vocabulary. Friction remains on agriculture, data, CBAM, Russia and human-rights politics. Directionally closer is true; a finished trade-and-tech pole is not yet true. India–EU is the best Western hedge if Washington stays protectionist, not a substitute for U.S. defence enablers.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.