Comparison, comparative/multiple-case method and its units

Comparison entails the investigation and classification of two or more units on the basis of similarities and differences (Sigelman & Gadbois Jr, 1983). Depending upon the focus and aim of the researcher, there are different elements or units of analysis in the comparative method. These components range from institutions to cities, regions, provinces, and states of a country to cross-national comparisons. The level and scale of comparisons may either be small or broad, within a single state or on a cross-national basis (Stoker, 1995). It could be among countries and nations or smaller-scale sub-national units such as individuals or groups in these countries (Hopkins & Wallerstein, 1967). It is generally argued that the principal element of analysis of comparative politics is country rather than regions or the world as a whole (Hague & Harrop, 2004). Munck and Synder (2007) also assert that comparative politics mostly focuses on a single region and the unit of analysis is country.

In line with these observations, this thesis treats and analyses countries - Egypt, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey - as units of investigation. Each country is considered as a single component or element in the comparative analysis of USA official aid policies. Page (1990) has emphasised that comparison should be made in a highly systematic manner, using a clear research design and relevant comparable data. Due to the availability of universally standardised data and politically relevant concepts, systematic cross-national comparison has become relatively undemanding as well as insightful (Coppedge, 1999; Lijphart, 1971). In this study, I examine the allocation of USA ODA to Egypt, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey by employing clearly comparable data, such as USA economic and military assistance as well as development indicators of the selected aid recipients. In addition to these, politically relevant and applicable concepts such as respect for human rights and democracy are also widely acknowledged benchmarks for eligibility of development aid. Hence, USA bilateral aid policies towards the comparators are examined in relation to their respective human rights and democracy records. Thus, besides recipients’ needs and geo-strategic importance, the consideration the USA gives to the nature and quality of recipients’ domestic regimes in the allocation of aid is also explored.

The question arises here how comparative analysis is carried out and on what basis can we compare two or more units. First and foremost is that all items that are compared must belong to the same class (Sartori, 1970). Regarding the issue of comparability of items or things, that is, which particular item is comparable to which other item, Sartori (1991) argues that this issue can be resolved by putting the question in its proper context: “comparable with respect to which properties or characteristics and incomparable (i.e. too dissimilar) with respect to which other properties or characteristics?” (p. 246). The author explains this point by stating that pears and apples are comparable as both are edible fruits grown on trees but incomparable in the sense that both have different shapes. Therefore, by using the comparative method, one of the first steps is to formulate grounds for comparative analysis among units. Similarities and differences

among these comparable units need to be clarified on the grounds on which these components are compared and analysed. Concepts are significant for such studies which function as a common point of reference to categorise processes or places geographically and historically, and that such concepts can be chosen keeping in view the research aims and interests (Rose, 1991). It is normally preferred to compare countries having more similarities and fewer differences (Mackie & Marsh, 1995). In such cases, results, analyses and conclusions are more applicable to other cases having similar characteristics.

In this thesis, the countries selected for comparative analysis (Egypt, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey) have various similarities. With a few exceptions at certain times, these countries have mostly remained close USA allies for much of their recent history, particularly since the early 1950s. All these have remained the largest recipients of USA aid, both economic and military, not for years but for decades (see USAID data in Appendix II). Similarly, Egypt, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey, all are republics. In addition to this, based on their average scores in Amnesty International (AI) and USA State Department reports from 1976 to 2008, none of the comparators has a satisfactory history of human rights for most years (Table 4.5 in Chapter 4). This aspect is explained in Chapter Four in the context of USA aid allocations to the comparators.

At the same time, the four selected countries have their peculiar characteristics as well. For example, the creation and establishment of both Israel and Pakistan were based on religion: Judaism and Islam, and “in this respect Pakistan and Israel have strong parallels” (Cohen, 2002, p. 109). Also, both Israel and Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire and both did so within three years of the end of the World War II. It is also interesting to note that the founding fathers of both the countries - Ben-Gurion and Jinnah - were secular rather than hard- core followers of their respective religions (Ali, 2002). Hence, neither of them wanted to establish a theocratic state. According to Ali (2002, p. 170), “Ben-Gurion was denounced by many orthodox Jews who never accepted the idea of a ‘Jewish state’”. Similarly, notwithstanding its official name as ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, it has been stated time and again that "Jinnah specifically did not want a theocratic state run by mullahs" (Ahmed, 2011, p. 28). Likewise, while all the four selected countries have strong militaries, both Israel and Pakistan have also developed nuclear capabilities (Cohen, 1998; Evron, 1994; Green, 1984; Karpin, 2006). Although Israel has maintained the policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear programme and is not a declared nuclear power (Cohen, 1998; Feldman, 1997), Pakistan went nuclear publically in May 1998 in response to Indian nuclear tests the same month. During the Cold War period, as a signatory to SEATO and CENTO, Pakistan had close security ties with the USA but for most part of the history there had been no formal military treaty between the two countries. Both Israel and Pakistan are considered non-NATO allies by the USA (Clarke, 1995; Dine, 1987; Kronstadt, 2006). Similarly, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan are three large Muslim countries, which the USA has perceived as important strategic allies during the Cold War as well as in the post-9/11 era of the ‘war on terror’. The World Bank data in Appendix III (a decade-wise average and summary of

which is given in Table 4.2 in Chapter Four) shows that there are marked differences in the levels of poverty in these four countries. The data illustrates that Israel and Turkey are wealthier than both Egypt and Pakistan.

Another important issue in multiple-case or comparative method is the number of cases or countries selected. Commonly referred to as ‘N’, quite often there is an emphasis on small ‘N’ in comparative analysis (Hall, 2003; Klotz, 2008). Sigelman and Gadbois Jr (1983) point out that most studies of comparative politics focus on a small number of countries, mostly two. This is because comparing a small number of countries can generate a robust and sound comparative analysis (Collier, 1993; Coppedge, 1999). Hague and Harrop (2004, p. 82) also endorse these opinions that “most often, the number of countries is either two, a paired or binary comparison, or three, a triangular comparison”. Comparison of small ‘N’ is preferred for two reasons: first, large ‘N’ comparative analysis requires extensive information that is often difficult to collect and analyse, second, the availability of relevant and reliable data and the mathematical and computational skills needed to analyse (Landman, 2000). Bates (2007) has emphasised that for a better understanding of the complexities of the political world, we need to engage in small ‘N’ comparisons by employing qualitative research coupled with statistical methods. I have taken these recommendations into account as my research design involves not too many but four countries. Similarly, as mentioned earlier, I employ both qualitative and quantitative data to seek answers to the research questions.

Small ‘N’ analysis is not free from faults. One of the major problems with small ‘N’ comparative analysis is: “many variables and small number of cases” (Lijphart, 1971, p. 685). The author argues that handling too many variables sometimes complicates the comparative analysis rather than to simplify it. This issue arises when there are more variables than the number of cases or countries under comparative analysis (Collier, 1993; Landman, 2000; 2002). This can be minimised by analysing only the principal variables and key explanatory factors significant for comparative study of the countries under scrutiny (Landman, 2000; Lijphart, 1971). Thus, in my comparative study of USA aid policies towards Egypt, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey, I have included a small number of key variables. Consistent with the literature on the aid allocation (Chapter Two), these variables are significant enough to determine the poverty levels and relative needs of the comparators for official aid and their respective geo-strategic and security significance for the US.

However, whatever the number of countries, major explanatory variables like the economic and military strength of a state, and its geo-strategic location and significance in the global politics should be taken into consideration in comparative analysis. One of the foremost similarities among my selected cases is that they have remained close USA allies and the largest recipients of USA ODA from 1948 to 2008. These countries, along with a few others, have mostly been considered "pivotal states" (Chase, Hill, & Kennedy, 1996, p. 33); countries whose fate determines the survival and success of the surrounding region and ultimately the stability of the international system. Their geo-strategic role to safeguard USA interests has lent them greater

significance in the eyes of the USA policy makers, which consequently has enhanced their eligibility for USA aid from time to time.

3.4 Why compare? Advantages of comparison and