PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · Comparative Politics

Examine the significance of the comparative method in political analysis. Discuss its limitations.

How the answer moves

The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.

Flow snapshot — how the answer moves
Intro routes

Route 1 method defines the sub-discipline, not its subject (Lijphart) → comparison = political science’s laboratory-substitute

Route 2 the mind cannot proceed without comparison (Tocqueville) → comparison-as-control is the discipline’s core method

Body flow

Sartori: comparison works as control, the surrogate for the experiment social science cannot run → it tests theoretical propositions → Durkheim: keeps analysis from staying purely descriptive → Landman: four functions (description → classification → hypothesis-testing → prediction) → Bara: a conviction and objectivity single-country study cannot claim

Counter-view

the surrogate is imperfect because political life resists laboratory control → Eckstein: small N weakens rigour → Sartori: conceptual stretching + non-equivalence of concepts across contexts → selection bias, cultural/historical specificity, patchy data

Conclusion routes

Route 1 the flaws limit the method, they do not discredit it → corrective is care: operationalisation + guarded concepts → comparison stays indispensable

Route 2 Landman’s middle path — moderate universalism vs extreme relativism → used with awareness of its limits, comparison remains political analysis’s central tool

Model answer

Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.

Handwritten model answer — UPSC PSIR 2019, Comparative Politics