Comparative analysis and its technical limitations (a) Comparative analysis

Comparative analysis has a long history in the areas of development, social movements, community activities and social policy studies, such as housing, infrastructure, organization (Cuenya, Gazzoli and Yujnovsky, 1979). National and regional comparative studies using a variety of theoretic, methodological and technical approaches are common in the Latin American literature of the past thirty years (Linda, 1990). The literature is dominated by comparative studies between countries, based on general secondary information, the analysis of one topic, process or site in each country, or the choice of various cities or a series of communities within each country, in order to obtain basic information on which to construct an interpretative synthesis on a national scale, that is then compared to the other countries (Lavell, 1991).

In many cases, they are not really comparative studies, but rather a collection of case studies where each author develops his own perspective (Gugler, 1988). These collections are concluded by some synthetic commentary, but are seldom based on really comparable material. The problem here is that equivalent forms of information rarely exists in the different countries. As such, the comparative synthesis tends to be truncated or restricted to the available level of existing information.

Two general types of comparative analysis can be identified: the first seeks to discover common aspects, and, thus, general tendencies (ArgCiello, 1993). The second emphasizes case by case variations or divergencies so as to explain in detail the distinct elements that characterize the individual cases (Mathey, 1990). Both procedures can be used simultaneously or given greater emphasis depending on the comparison’s objective.

The realization of comparative studies means that common themes and similar objectives must be defined. Even better it should mean the treatment of the same topics with similar methodologies and following a single study objective. Otherwise, case studies will be carried out along their own routes, and the investigation will be guided by the characteristics of individual cases, or worse, according to local study possibilities, such as availability and quality or level of detail of information.

Similarity should not be confused with comparability. A comparison can be carried out between similar or very different cases. What is important for comparison is the intention to understand the reasons behind the diversity between different cases rather than simply describing their differences. The relationship between diversity and changing patterns or contexts within similar basic structures is what makes the collective experience valuable. If the patterns refer to changes over time, then comparison permits the designation of successive stages and even the identification of factors that could accelerate or slow the arrival of those stages.

(b) Types of comparison and useful procedures

There are various types of comparison, but two predominate: the comparison of case studies having a correlative control group and the comparison of multiple cases without the use of a control group. In the first case some precise characteristics are isolated and their evolution is studied almost as a living laboratory. The evolution of the other cases is observed, so that the changes can be contrasted with the controlled case. In the second type, there is no control group. Rather, several diverse groups are chosen which are known to be different. It does not mean that nothing is controlled or that characteristics of special interest are not isolated. It simply means that hypotheses can be constructed from any case and various different cases might present similar key characteristics. In this way, ’typical cases’ based on various characteristics can be defined and the comparison acquires much more flexibility.

Multiple comparison studies without a control group are most successful when they are preceded by careful typology of cases. If each case is representative of a wide group or type the comparison is enhanced. The case studies, then do not just have value in themselves, but are an expression of a whole group of cases. The abstraction of key characteristic or inter-related attributes in a process of change permits the definition of abstract models which mark stages, especially significant relationships and different types of tendencies. These tendencies, characteristics or stages can be evaluated or qualified prior to the choice of concrete case studies so that this might be based on a search for sites or analytic units with a range of variation marked by model or type limits. If the choice of cases is not based on previously established models, it

is convenient to define these during the research, so that one does not end up with juxtaposed, detailed longitudinal studies, but rather with themes, sub-themes or complexes or relationships that pass across horizontally between cases, although none of the concrete cases is described entirely as a unit.

The comparative analysis of multiple cases without a control group makes possible the discovery of links between contextual factors and local processes; but does not substitute for the small-scale detailed investigation or the specification of historical factors. It is an adequate method for identifying regularities imposed by the national dimension over local particularities.

(c) The advantages and disadvantages of comparison

The comparison of similar neighbourhoods between two allows analysis of the impact of each country’s policies on relatively similar situations. Comparison permits the identification of neighbourhoods of the same type, in the same stages, with the same origin, same level of stability and legitimacy, and to observe how they are affected by similar policies by each government. This allows a legitimate comparison that would overcome the substantial macroeconomic political differences which exist between the two countries.

Comparison of each country’s capital city allows the starting from similar perspective on policy application; both countries concentrate their attention on the capital city’s population. The greatest financial, organizational and institutional impact is precisely in the capital. Both capitals have similar employment structures, organizational forms and infrastructure characteristics, that permit a comparison of policy impact on more or less similar populations.

The comparison of similarly defined strategic programmes in each country’s capital city, allowed the isolation of specific characteristics of the programmes, populations or external circumstances that differentiated them. This permitted the overcoming of political rhetoric in both countries, which would have made comparison impossible, since both in general objectives as well as in global ideological definition, obviously, were easily differentiable. Nevertheless, upon analyzing the details of each programme (for example, its application methods, technical and budgetary assignations, the relative inclusion of the target population in each neighbourhood), it was possible to discover their similarities.

Besides the obvious advantages due to a greater informative wealth provided by the study of various cases, comparison has other positive aspects. However, it does not overcome automatically all the problems and distortions of isolated case studies. In a general sense, all analysis is comparative in that any attempt to identify causal processes or change dynamics refers to procedures in which diverse factors are inter-related and contrasted. In extreme cases the analysis of individual cases is developed using different methodologies and often using a diverse variety of sources, techniques, types and qualities of information, depending on local possibilities. At the other extreme, the study use some relatively similar techniques (a survey) with slight adaptations for each site, along with the collection of conventional secondary information, which is normally presented with many differences in level of aggregation and degrees of

reliability. Thus, the survey or other technique becomes the only common element in studies that seed to compare one topic between various sites.

Despite the above, and even where common techniques are not applied, the simple juxtaposition of case studies on similar topics brings important benefits to social research. Specifically, the simple juxtaposition of cases allows the observation of general tendencies and the avoidance of ethnocentric attitudes (for example, when very successful patterns are analyzed and presented as models to follow) when one observes how diverse countries, regions or communities advance along relatively similar lines and confront similar obstacles. The study of only one case can easily lead to inappropriate generalizations or over-generalized conclusion. Over-generalization and parochialism is one of the most serious interpretational problems that can be overcome by comparative studies (Gilbert, 1991).

The mere grouping of various cases often suggests patterns and stages, or abberations from a tendency, which could be interpreted to be "the tendency" if there were no comparative alternatives. The understanding of how processes which are considered immovable could change -by presenting more advanced stages of similar processes in other cases- permits the suggestion of changes or modifications in institutional actions or interventions. This could also permit the identification of key change elements and emphasize their impact on the acceleration of desired processes. When national studies are carried out, comparison allows the observation of profound variations between cases submitted to similar institutional or productive apparatus. This allows more complete explanation by facilitating the identification of key explicative dimensions in the diverse cases.

Comparative analysis is capable of discovering links between contextual characteristics and the relative incidence or success of urban dwellers’ activities. Comparative studies should not only include successful cases of intervention, community action or integral community action, but also less successful cases as well as total failures, so as to be able to identify both negative and positive patterns, as well as, to abandon false assumptions (Trejos, 1992).

With regard to the limitations of comparison, it is necessary to remember that these include many of the deficiencies of isolated case studies. In addition, it presents some of its own problems related to the use of comparisons in the investigation and the interpretative synthesis. In the first place, there are serious problems for standardizing information, especially the secondary data and the way in which each topic is conditioned by local, regional and national contexts. In the studies of various countries, especially, this is one of the central problems which frequently makes one case simply noncomparable with the other. In the use of census, household surveys or national accounts, it is obvious that few countries collect identical data. The national accounts, even when they use similar nomenclature are frequently produced through the use of different procedures. It would give totally different results if applied in only one country. Censuses are rarely up to date and do not publish sufficiently detailed information on small geographic scales (Torrado, 1983). In terms of definition, categories such as ’urban population’, differ

profoundly from one country to another and even from one census to another in the same country. The same occurs with household surveys and other periodic official statistics.

The generation of primary information through the application of surveys or other techniques does not eliminate all standardization problems. The application of surveyes has a problem, besides the cost, the fact that the national teams in each country, or the regional teams, are not always satisfied with the basic information susceptible to comparison and force the inclusion in the questionnaire of more extensive and complex questions which introduce topics or sub-topics of local interest, but which are not really comparable. In this way, one ends up with more detailed information for each case but reduced bases for comparison.

Due in part to the above, comparative studies that privilege qualitative techniques have been preferred. Even so a common theoretical perspective must be used and careful management of concepts with potentially different meanings. The use of categories with ambiguous or multiple meanings, which abound in the social science literature, should be avoided at all cost. It is essential to separate empirical or classification categories with a capacity to produce significant taxonomies, from the theoretic categories which are the basis of interpretation (Raczynski, 1977, Pradilla, 1984).

The use of a common methodology does not necessarily mean that adequate information exists, that the techniques will be appropriately applied or, finally, that the general perspective of the investigation contributes to the comparative synthesis. Besides the data problems, there is a crucial distortion which arises when one begins the research on the basis of 'general theories’ or macro explanations. These notions of what one wishes to discover will bias the research. The final synthesis,then, could be turned into a mere summary of what was assumed to exist beforehand.

Comparative analyses that utilize data bases that are generated by similar, but not identical, questionnaires are not sufficient to sustain the proof of hypothesis or the quantitative comparison of processes. They can only be used to provide a general quantitative, descriptive context. For the purpose of the analysis of each country and its internal differences, these data bases do generate enough information to act as a good bias for the choice of case studies for qualitative analysis. The comparative analysis technique which utilizes qualitative information generated by interviews with informant can be used when its application is identical and its procedures and instruments are specifically designed for comparison purposes. This requires direct control by the researcher and identical preparation of the interviewers to assure the adequate carrying out of interviews based on thematic guides rather than pre-coded questionnaires. It is best if a small team carries out the entire process to assure the quality of the information and the application of similar criteria. In the present research all the interviews and

Notes:

1

2Specific discussion of this process in relation to different models of state and the government of Costa Rica can be found in Lavell and ArgOello (1988). Also there are interesting debates in Gamier (1988); Rivera (1982); Herrero and Salazar (1987); and f^lDEPLAN (1987).

Slncluding support for the Sandinista guerrillas to get proper arms from Cuba, Venezuela and Panama, free use of the north boundary and some airports in the province of Guanacaste for the Sandinistas, plus diplomatic criticism and pressure from OAS against the Somoza dictatorship. See Dunkerley (1988:626-627) For additional hypotheses see also Seligson and Carroll (1982).

4Violeta Barrios de Chamorro resigned from the JGRN -18 April 1980- Alfonzo Robelo Callejas resigned from the JGRN -22 April 1980- Arturo Cruz resigned as Nicaraguan Ambassador to the USA -14 November 1981- Eden Pastora left Nicaragua -8 July 1981-

Also on 12 November 1980 the COSEP -main organization of private enterprise- resigned from the State Council

{Consejo de Estado), the equivalent of a National Assembly at that moment.

5 l h e National Institution for Census {Direccion General de Estadfsticas y Censos) (DGEC) maintains updated detailed maps, which cover the total territory of the country, in scale ranged from 1:1,000 to 1:5,000. It prepares a National Households Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Hogares de Propôsitos Multiples, Empleo y Desempleo) every six months and the National Census every ten years. The last census was published in 1985.

SAIthough the Nicaraguan Institute for Census {Instituto Nicaragûense de Estadi'sticas y Censos) (INEC) publishes the Anuario Estadi'stico, it does not make periodical households surveys and the last census was published in 1971, before the earthquake, the reconstruction of Managua and the revolutionary war. All the data about urban population from INEC are estimated. Its usual source is the census and estimated growth index. There is no field research about migrations, but the Institute uses a general estimate of the population size from sources such as the Internal Commerce Ministry (MICOIN) and the Sandinistas Defense Committees (CDS).

7This questionnaire survey has been the main data source for the project 'Spontaneous Settlements in Managua’.It was made by the Urban Research Department (DIU) of the Institute for Economic and Social Researches (INIES), which was an independent institute with international financial support. The author worked as an adviser on DIU from 1985 to 1987 and, in that capacity, directed and designed this survey.

8T he Metropolitan Area had its official delimitation changed every ten years, from 1963, because of the census special evaluations.

9Cartago, the old colonial capital at the east of the Central Valley; San José, the capital during the 20th century; Alajuela, the main city of the west Central Valley; and Heredia. The latter has become in practice a suburb of San José during the last decade, because of the National University's location since the late 70s. In the cases of Alajuela and Cartago the urban centres remain as consolidated cities, especially in relation to the traditional administrative and commercial activities.

1 0T he author used copies of the original questionnaires and prepared basic statistics.

1 1 There are two manuals: M anual de Aplicaclôn and Manual de Codificaciôn which explain every item of the questionnaires, including questions, categories, concepts, procedures, alternatives, standard codes, etc. The author wrote the first draft of both manuals in 1986. After trials in the field and prolonged discussions with the whole team, the author also wrote the final versions. These manuals were used for the final computation of some variables specifically for this research in 1989.

1 2 l h e computing processes used SPSS/PC+ as software. The initial programmes were prepared by the author during 1987. They were reorganized during 1989 for the particular analysis of this research. Information about data files and variable names, variable labels, value labels, missing values, variable numbers, settlement numbers, questionnaire numbers, location of each questionnaire, key variables and new variables made using arithmetic calculus are explained in the M anual de Codificaciôn of the survey.

13

San Judas: Ditter Cortés, Juan Dominguez, Lidia Diaz, José Gonzalez, Félix Izaguirre, Ixi Jaime, Zobeida Marenco, Julio Villalta, Cecilia Obando, Roldan Morales, José Huertas, Damaris Montes, Irena Molina, Dionisio Carmona, Inocencio Martinez.

Las Torres: Marcos Espinoza, Guillermo Rodriguez, Arnaldo Paz, Irwin Rodriguez, Francisco Guerrero, Pablo Loria, Fernando Morales, Ninnete Mejia, Eladio Matamores, Ladislao Guerrero, Avemaria Murillo, Miriam Guadamuz.

Barricada: Gabriel Miranda, José Hernandez, Juana Arrieta, Luisa Fernandez, Candida Espinoza, Gabino Nunez, Amelia Duarte, Marcial Hidalgo, Luis Nunez.

Pantasma: Pedro Juarez, Marta Moreno, Juana Pineda, Carlos Pineda, Franklin Morales, Raul Guzman, Isabel Varela, Rita Cordero, Oscar Martin.

Santos Lopez: Pedro Palacios, Mercedes Campos, Santana Espinoza, Henry Villareal, Adilia Chamorro, Alba Contreras, Danilo ArgOello, Mario Murillo, Cruz Meléndez, Virginia Mora.

Costa Rica:

Los Cuadros: Bernal Pané, German Rojas, Juan Vega, Rosa AgOero, Guido Granados, Julio Paliaguirre, Luis Picado, Nora Soto, Alejandro Esquivel, Carmen Romero, Alfonzo Gutiérrez, Catalina Masis, Alvaro Abarca, Jorge Martinez.

Metropolis: Carmen Soto, Gabriel Roman, Rigoberto Aguilar, Damaris Peraza, Greivin Cerdas, Guillermo Fallas, Lili de Pineda, Lidieth Campos, Sandra Zuniga, David Pavon.

Los Guido: Oscar Madrigal, Luis Paredes, Lillian Retana, Maria Mejia, Aida Rivera, Carlos Martinez, Francisco Reyes, Eugenio Montoya, Alexis Avalos, Senen Rivera, Rosa Berrocal, Fernando Segura, Hilda Lobo, Amable Monge, Elida Porras.

Guarari: Gonzalo Alvarado, Carlos Valerio, Luis Hernandez, Filadenfo Rojas, Ana Chaves, Francisca Ruiz,