PS1005 Political Science I

Week 5 Theory, Empirical Research and Social Sciences II and Power

Hans H. Tung
Department of Political Science
National Taiwan University

Fall 2023
October 04, 2023

1 / 33
Outline

1 Empirical Research
Qualitative Research Designs
Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

2 Power

3 Discussion Questions

2 / 33
Logistics

1 Midterm Exam
Time: Week 8 (9:10pm-12:10pm, October 25)
Everything between Week 2 and Week 7
Mock Midterm Exam to be distributed next week.

3 / 33
 Empirical Research

Outline

1 Empirical Research
Qualitative Research Designs
Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

2 Power

3 Discussion Questions

4 / 33
 Empirical Research Qualitative Research Designs

Outline

1 Empirical Research
Qualitative Research Designs
Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

5 / 33
 Empirical Research Qualitative Research Designs

The Nature of Qualitative Research

Contexts Matter!
Case-Oriented
Within-Case Analysis
Small number of cases and Selection Issues

6 / 33
 Empirical Research Qualitative Research Designs

Two Basic Qualitative Methods

Most Similar Method

Case Factor 1 Factor2 Factor3 Outcome
Country A + + + Large Public Spending
Country B - + + Small Public Spending
Most Different Method
Case Factor 1 Factor2 Factor3 Outcome
Country A + + - Large Public Spending
Country B + - + Large Public Spending

7 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

Outline

1 Empirical Research
Qualitative Research Designs
Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

8 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

Key Questions

Do we necessarily need a state that monopolizes the legitimate use of

violence?
Is institution enough for a democracy to work?
How can people act together spontaneously? (collective action)

9 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

Informal Institutions: Some Motivations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N16YkjFVAyE

10 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

Robert Putnam: Making Democracy Work (1993)

11 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

Robert Putnam’s Classic Study on Italy

Research Design: Most Similar Method

Italy: North and South
Authority in Southern Italy in the 12th century was structured vertically
under an absolutist ruler with an effective bureaucracy.
In contrast, Northern Italy was made up largely of communities in
which authority was decentralized and the power of the government
arose from voluntary association of many participating citizens.
Similar in other aspects (e.g., institutional framework)
Northern Italy outperformed southern Italy in the 12 indicators of
institutional performance.
Social capital (civil society) makes the difference.

12 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

GDP per capita in North and South Korea: 1950-1998

13 / 33
 Empirical Research Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

Recap

Figure: Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods for Testing and Supporting

Explanations (Parsons, 2012: 21)

14 / 33
 Power

Outline

1 Empirical Research
Qualitative Research Designs
Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

2 Power

3 Discussion Questions

15 / 33
 Power

Power and Authority

Max Weber (1864-1920)

Three Sources of Legitimacy:

1 Tradition
2 Charisma
3 Legality

16 / 33
 Power

Tradition

Definition: Legitimacy rests on established beliefs in the sanctity of

authority and the moral need to obey leaders.
Example: The Coronation of George VI (1937)

17 / 33
 Power

Charisma

Definition: Legitimacy rests on the personal heroic qualities of a

particular leader.
Example: Mao Zedong

18 / 33
 Power

Legality

Definition: Legitimacy is based on a commitment to rules that bind

both leaders and the people.
Example: US Presidential Inauguration

19 / 33
 Power

Three Dimensions/Faces of Power

Steven Lukes (1941-)

Power: A Radical View (1974; 2005)

Three Dimensions/Faces of Power: decision-making power,
non-decision-making power, and ideological power.
A Marxist View

20 / 33
 Power

First Dimension/Face of Power: ”Decision-Making”

Robert Dahl’s Definition (The Concept of Power, 1957):

Dahl, 1957
A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that
B would not otherwise do.
Lukes’ View
Lukes, 2005: 19
... this first, one-dimensional, view of power involves a focus on behaviour
in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable
conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as express policy preferences,
revealed by political participation.

21 / 33
 Power

Second Dimension/Face of Power:

”Non-Decision-Making”

Bachrach and Baratz’s (The Two Faces of Power, 1970)

Bachrach and Baratz, 1970
Of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of
decisions that affect B. Power is also exercised when A devotes his
energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and
institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public
consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.
To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all
practical purposes, from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their
resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of preferences.

22 / 33
 Power

Second Dimension/Face of Power:

”Non-Decision-Making”

Lukes’ View
Lukes, 2005: 24-5
So I conclude that the two-dimensional view of power involves a qualified
critique of the behavioural focus of the first view (I say qualified because it
is still assumed that non-decision-making is a form of decision-making)
and it allows for consideration of the ways in which decisions are prevented
from being taken on potential issues over which there is an observable
conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as embodied in express policy
preferences and sub-political grievances.

23 / 33
 Power

Third Dimension/Face of Power: ”Ideological”

Lukes’ Marxist View

Lukes, 2005: 28
the three-dimensional view of power...allows for consideration of the many
ways in which potential issues are kept out of politics, whether through the
operation of social forces and institutional practices or through individuals’
decisions...What one may have here is a latent conflict, which consists in a
contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real
interests of those they exclude. These latter may not express or even be
conscious of their interests, but, as I shall argue, the identification of those
interests ultimately always rests on empirically supportable and refutable
hypotheses.
A Marxist View
False Consciousness
Class in itself and Class for itself
24 / 33
 Power

Example: Media Power and Reinforcement Theory

(Conventional Wisdom)

The mass media can only reflect and reinforce public opinion
Instrumental View: Mass Media have little effects
Consumer (Viewer/Reader) Sovereignty

25 / 33
 Power

Media Power

Agenda Setting: Not about what we think, but about what we ”think
about”: Selective Reporting (topic-wise)
Priming: The media can prime citizens to focus on certain things and
in certain ways by highlighting some issues rather than others.
（Examples: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/
did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-in-japanese-koi-pond
Framing: Media influence how readers/viewers interpret news stories
by framing them in certain way.
Suppose someone is asked to choose between two different pork
products in a survey. They both cost and weigh exactly the same.
A framing can be introduced by labeling one ”70% lean” and the other
”30% fat.”
A respondent is therefore led to feel that 30% fat sounds like an
unhealthy option, so you choose the 70% lean option. However, they
are actually identical in this aspect.

26 / 33
 Power

Solutions?

Commercialization and Media Capture

Eyeball-Driven: Political Polarization and Radicalization
Fake News and Censorship Decisions
Hobbesian Solution: Complete State Oversight?

27 / 33
 Discussion Questions

Outline

1 Empirical Research
Qualitative Research Designs
Example: Social Capital and Informal Institutions

2 Power

3 Discussion Questions

28 / 33
 Discussion Questions

Discussion Question 1

A look around the world reveals that some governments have higher levels
of media freedom than other governments do.

1 Make up two theories or models that would account for this

observation.
2 Generate two interesting predictions from the two models and identify
from which model they were derived.
3 Find some critical fact/situation/observation/prediction that will
distinguish between the two models. Be explicit about how it
simultaneously confirms one model and contradicts the other.
29 / 33
 Discussion Questions

Discussion Question 2

1 Which bivariate relationships among government consumption, trade,

and transfers are causal and not merely correlational? Why?
2 How many causal theories can you create from Figure 1?
3 How would you test them? 30 / 33
 Discussion Questions

Hungary

31 / 33
 Discussion Questions

US

32 / 33
 Discussion Questions

Discussion Questions

Figures 31 and 32 show both the subjectively perceived and the actual
distributions of income inequality in Hungary and the US respectively.
Please answer the following questions:
1 What is the major difference between the comparative patterns in
both countries?
2 In your opinion, what kind of power relationship can lead to the
discrepancies between perceived and actual income inequalities in
both countries?
3 Alternatively, what kind of power do such discrepancies give rise to?

33 / 33