State formation

Comparative politics topics are premised on the notion that one may compare apples and oranges. Making a Comparison of both the entire political systems and particular units within the political systems enables an individual to understand what he/she is looking at in each. For instance, in order to understand the causes of a particular revolution, it is important to compare it to other revolutions including instances where revolution never occurred.

This would enable one separate the factors that precipitated a revolution in one particular place and time, but not the others (Lijphart 682). State formation is therefore a fundamental topic in comparative politics since one is able to examine the entire concept of state formation, and focus specifically on the capability of centralizing power in a sustainable way (Krieger et al 10). The key differences that comparativists have identified in the process of state formation in the developed world and developed world include the study of the early states, which are the states that were developed in stateless societies and the study of the modern states, which are those that were developed in Europe in the 1600s and spread all over the world.

In particular the comparativists explain why the states emerged and proliferated across the world and how the process relates to the wars fought in the modern era. The key focus is on the varying patterns of power. One significant difference among states involves the level at which citizens in a particular state share a one major sense of nationhood; an assurance that the state’s geographic borders corresponds to the political distinctiveness of the individuals who live within such borders, what is known as a sense of unity and shared values (Krieger et al 10).

Surname 2 Referenc e Krieger, Joel, Mark Kesselman, and William A. Joseph. Introduction to Comparative Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2013. Print. Lijphart, Arend. “Comparative politics and the comparative method. ” The american political science review (1971): 682-693.