Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft

Der Vergleich politischer Systeme ist ein recht aufwändiges und schwieriges Unterfangen. Unter den vielen Büchern, die zur Frage, wie man politische Systeme miteinandervergleichen soll, geschrieben wurden, ist “How to Compare Nations” von Nattei Dogan und Dominique Pelassy wohl immer noch der Klassiker. Zentral für den Ansatz von Dogan und Pelassy ist das Konzept der funktionalen Äquivalenz:

quote“The serach for functional equivalence passes through analytical disassociation of roles and functions. The same performance may be accomplished in various countries by different organs, and similar or comparable institutions may fulfill, in various countries, different tasks. In some places a tribe can assume the function of political recruitment that a well-organized political party performs elsewhere, while what is labeled ‘party’ is only the nominal equivalent of what a party may represent elsewhere. Now, the organization of modern political parties does not impede other organs from contributing to the recruitment of political elites, as do, for example unions in Great Britain or Catholic Action in Italy. The higher administration not only play an executive function; it is well known that it also intervenes in the legislative process upstream … Functional equivalences is not a trivial equivalence; it implies conceptualization, that is to say, it appears only after an in-depth analysis of the political process. Who articulates demands in Poland and Italy? By what channels is information transmitted. How much independence is enjoyed by the courts or the socializing agencies? Functional equivalence allows for the comparison that automatically sheds light on the manner in which the political system ‘functions’ …”(Dogan & Pelassy, How to Compare Nations, pp.37-39)