Evans characterized and conceptualized comparative politics in such a way that is

centrally eclectic (eclectic messy center). The term imports a mere abstraction of
theoretical traditions that would explain various cases arising from sociopolitical
domains. The difference in contrast to Skocpol, however, is that Evans relied more
on the theoretical bases and abstractions (to purport the existential function of
values and symbols as explanatory mechanisms of various political cases) than that
of historical events. For example, Evans used the conventional theory of the firm,
such as industrial organizations (i.e. the influence or correlation of incentives to
human resource development) and some political augmentations like issues of
legitimacy and nationalism (i.e. comparative behavior of political actors in
resonance to legitimacy of various regimes), and by studying the internal dynamics
of these institutions and phenomena, through behavioral analysis, for example, one
could be able to illuminate the case in such manner that it, at least, substantially
corresponds to the political resemblance of the analysis. In that vantage point, he
incurred much on the cultural and political-economic stance as to exemplify the
plausible causal mechanisms as to specific cases. To simply it, the progressive
engagement of an individual as to the nature or the manner of him being
incentivized (for instance) gives a more detailed examination of individual cases
toward history. At the same time, it puts regard to future outcomes. Evans in fact
actually augmented the utilization of game-theoretic or rational choice approaches
as viable mechanisms for explaining institutional dynamics (economic, political, and
social). More simple, it has been vividly exemplified the stance that the eclectic
nature of politics arrives especially when situation arises wherein politics fails to
deliver the conventional goods essential for the constituents, and that makes the
distinction on culture and values more salient.
Katzenstein, on the other hand, dwelt on the importance of including subfields of
political science as a supplemental approach in dealing with comparative political
analysis with considerable regard to international politics. These approaches
include rational choice, cultural studies, and institutionalism. Comparative research
is a focus on analytical relationships among variables validated by social science.
This author also asserted that the state is not a unitary actor. It does not necessarily
follow that a state, through an individual and systematic level of analysis, shall be
confined to lone examination that is, the intervening factors should also be
discerned prior to these shifts and contentions not merely on the actors. The
intellectual shifts on the field attest to this proposition. As such, for example, in
1960s much of the work on the field of IR focused on strategic theory and national
security. In 1970s where scholars actually moved on the advent of political economy
(which bent into dichotomy) with the political aspect as the qualitative aspect while
the economic stance as the quantitative slant.
To expound on the theoretical constructs, Katzenstein highlighted institutionalism as
an approach to the periphery. That is, he actually limited the property space of the
latter into a dichotomy thin and thick institutionalism. The latter refers to the

structural tone of analysis as such it fundamentally delves on the organizational

variant, social structures, political institutions, coalitions and even ideological
constraints that encompasses the objective variables of this factor while the former
discusses the rationalist stance of the contention. That is, for example, role analysis
the role of civil society organizations as facilitating solutions to coordination
problems or we could have transaction-cost analysis which literally talks about fiscal
interventions of the government, for instance, and how does it provide a degree of
competitive advantage for the state. Thick = disaggregation; thin = aggregation
it discussed so much on the microfoundations of individual policy choices and
politics and it lacked the theoretical energy to pose authoritative statements from
the specific to the general.
Przeworski, on the next consideration, introduced a methodological approach in
better understanding and comparing most political systems. He remarked the
importance of discerning the comparability of the variables in order to better assess
its nature. Moreover, he admitted the methodological complexities of dealing with
this kind of research. As such, an example would be assessing what an authoritarian
1985 Chile would look like had it been democratic. Of course, to give light to this
inquiry, they have to look for matches quantitatively speaking through economic
rates and with the exception of the regime. Additionally, he stressed that
comparisons alone are not enough. That is, comparativists should also look for
counterfactuals that is, inclusion of hypothetical or experimental grounds that
would serve as a clearer basis of comparison for a certain situation. So to succinctly
put his pronouncements, comparisons inevitably entail counterfactuals.