Promises and Pitfalls of Comparative Analysis

Comparative research in political science offers a range of benefits. It allows to identify patterns and regularities; to test and expand existing theories; to broaden analytical perspectives and geographical scope; and to facilitate learning from different systems. In his piece titled What hope for comparative federalism? Fenna (2019) expresses careful skepticism about the possibilities for comparing federations, however, citing "limited case availability" and the "consequent rarity of robust findings". The inclusion of other types of multilevel governance (quasi-federations and decentralized unitary countries) overcomes the small-n problem and promises fruitful insights, though admittedly creates new challenges. As López-Santana and Tanca (2024) highlight, most comparative analysis on federalism and multilevel governance tends to focus on the nation state but "scholars increasingly engage in comparisons of subnational entities within and across nations". This roundtable seeks to stimulate discussion and exchange on the promises and pitfalls of a comparative approach to the study of federalism and multilevel governance, bringing together scholars with different backgrounds and perspectives.