HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE METHODS Historical Method Meaning and Sources of Historical Evidence (1) Historical method may

be considered as a particular case of the method of induction. Research, based on historical method, is generally empirical in nature, since historical method uses historical evidence as the basis of generalizations; and historical evidence is a kind of empirical or experiential evidence.

(2)

(3)

Historical method uses historical evidence to draw inferences about the past. Historical method requires a very high degree of expertise, experience and capability to extract inferences or formulate generalizations from historical evidence; while excavation of evidence from the historical sources for research is also a complex task and specialized job. These sources may comprise written records about (i) Government and Organizations/institutions; (ii) People, their institutions, values, customs and ways of living. Karl Poper has suggested that one may seek to know the views of other thinkers in the past, who might have studied the given problem along with its causes and solutions: Among the many methods, which the researcher may use, depending on the problem in hand, one method seems to me worth mentioning. It is a variant of the (at present unfashionable) historical method. It consists simply in trying to find out what other people have thought and said about the problem in hand: why they had to face it, how they formulated it, how they tried to solve it. This seems to me important because it is part of the general method of rational discussion. If we ignore what other people are thinking, or have thought in the past, then rational discussion must come

(4)

(5)

(6)

to an end, though each of us may go on happily talking to himself. (Popper, Karl R., pp. 16 - 17). Inclusion of the review of literature as a part of a dissertation performs precisely this task now a days. (iii) Events, which may be political, social or economic; (iv) Literary, religious and other social works. Literature is supposed to be a mirror image of the society. For example, Paintings of kings with huble-buble in hand sitting with the beautiful queen, half dressed palanquin carriers, furnishings. For example, Hard Times of Oscar Wilde provides a graphic and vivid description of the socioeconomic conditions of living and the nature of British educational system of those times; (v) Biographical accounts of great men such as Babar Nama, Aiyne Akabri and My Experiments with Truth (M. K. Gandhi) furnish extremely useful source material that reflect the particular periods of history they relate to; (vi) Visitors travelogues. Chinese travellors, who visited India and recorded their observations in writing, constitute a valueable source of history of that period; (vii) Even Personal Letters. For example, Macculays letters to his father about the objectives of English Education in India and its envisaged impact on Indians, and Nehrus A Fathers Letters to his Daughter throw light on several aspects of the subjects that have been covered by the respective authors of these letters; and (viii) There are Archaeological finds, historical monuments, rock and other paintings, and the artefacts kept in museums which may be used as source material. For example, Archaeological finds constitute the basis of reconstruction of history of Harapa and Mohanjodaro. Historians have developed a method, known as historiography, to analyse the historical evidence. Historiography may, however, consist of varied approaches and methods to study the historical facts. In India, historiography dates back to the published accounts of Chinese travellors Huan Suang and Fai Hahn. India was considered to be the more developed state by Al Baruni, an Arab Scholar, in his Tarikh E-Hind (An Enquiry into India) in 11th century A.D.. These have been

used as the source material by historians for evolving the history of those periods. Alternative Views There are, however, two views about history as a source material: History never repeats itself. History is experience, and according to Oscar Wilde, experience is the name men give to their mistakes. Men seldom like to repeat the same mistakes. It implies that the individuals, communities and even the nations learn from history. Therefore, history seldom repeats itself. The contrary view is that history tends to repeat. It gives the pattern from which regularities may be etected. History is the story of time which moves in a continuum which incorporates uniformities and distinguishes these from divergences from the pattern. However, the mistakes are committed by the generation of the given historical past, whereas history, if it repeats itself, repeats in the present or future. The future/present or current generation(s) may or may not know and learn from the historical mistakes. History may, therefore, repeat itself. But history comprises of both positive and negative experiences, facts and factors and their outcomes; and both these types of evidence may furnish source material to be used by historical method for research. Functions of History The discussion and explanation of the basic functions of history and their nature may help us in understanding the usefulness of the historical method in research. History, in fact, may also comprise of statements of specific but concrete facts. These statements may furnish a pen portrait of what the phenomenon under observation had been, what distinguishing features and operational aspects had characterised the observed phenomena so as to show as to how these phenomena differed from their earlier states, what changes had been registered during the period under scrutiny and what new phenomenon had emerged, why and how a given phenomenon had emerged the way it had. History describes various phenomena existing at any given period in the past; and it also traces the actual progress made by these phenomena over successive periods. In this process, history delineates and highlights the broad contours of the path of movement of the systems, their institutions, organisational

structures, events, people and their behavioural modes, culture and values that are embodied or associated with the phenomena under study. Chanakyas Arthshastra describes administrative structure. Naturally, the tracing of movement indicates the historical progress/growth path that has had been traversed through time, indicating the highs and lows, peaks and troughs, strengths and weaknesses, and errors and error free decisions and the concequences that emanated from these decisions. Besides the above basic function, history may also perform the following three specific functions: (i) Scientific knowledge may comprise of several conclusions and inferences that have been arrived at solely by deductive logic without any support of historical or contemporary evidence/facts. Such conclusions may either be illustrated or even tested and verified with the help of historical evidence or facts; (ii) Each concept and theory has a limited capability and range of applicability to real life situations. If, however, there is no empirical evidence available to test the validity and/or applicability of the theory, historical facts shall be quite handy and such limits to applications may be determined and/or demonstrated by applying these concepts and theory to historical facts. This testing or verification of the concepts or theory against historical evidence may avert the need for contrived experimentation and/or the generation of hypothetical evidence for such purposes. Since the only alternative to this will be leaving the theories and concepts untested and/or unverified, the importance of historical evidence and its use by historical method is immense; and (iii) Historical facts furnish an opportunity to directly establish or discern theoretical postulates. Historical facts embody very comprehensive evidence and some times even much more, which may be used to draw general inferences. For example, a detailed perusal of the history of famines in India during eighteenth and nineteeth centuries may highlight the (a) periodicity of the occurance of the famines which will reveal the average duration of time period of the gap between any two famines; (b) the internsity of various famines; and (c) nature and extent of consequences of the famines; and one may also use the historical method and historical evidence to investigate the causes of famines. The theorists and analysts have to excavate and extricate scientific knowledge from the historical facts. They have to discern, detect and discover the uniformities, consistent and persistent pattern(s) and

trend(s) that are embodied in the historical changes. This task can be performed efficiently and effectively by historical method. The uniformity, pattern(s) and trend(s), associated with the historical changes, that embody the causal interpretrations, constitute scientific knowledge. But the analytical thrusts, intuitive insights, logic and imaginative speculation and hunches, entailed in the approach to the historical facts, may be needed to unearth the scientific knowledge encompassed by and entrapped in history. History and historical facts may also comprise of simple narration and description of the events, persons, systems, organisations and structures. The theorists creativity will bring the underlying uniformities, trends and patterns out of such narratives to portray the interrelations that connect one with another fact or phenomenon. As against history and historical facts, theory endeavours to determine the nature, direction and magnitude involved in the causal relations. Scientific knowledge seeks to identify the causes of the given consequences, or to predict the consequences of the given causes. Naturally, scientific knowledge is mostly theoretical in nature and orientation. Historical method may be of some assistance to accomplish the task of formulating not only descriptive but explanatory and predictive generalisations or principles also. Historical facts may pertain to numerous phenomena. Historical facts may, therefore, be vast, quite diverse and different, as these may relate to economic, social, political, organisational, cultural and policy and value oriented phenomena. Then, certain facts may relate to totally disjoint and disconnected phenomena, some may pertain to uni-directionally or hierarchically/sequentially related phenomena, whereas some facts may be characterised by bi or even multidirectional relations. Theoretical investigations generally focus on the determination of uniformity in joint existence and/or sequencing in the interrelated phenomena. But the uniformity may portrude itself in the consistent and persistent pattern and or trend embodied in the temporal movements of the given system/ phenomenon/phenomena even though these may be embodied in disjoint and/or scattered facts. Historical method may use such evidence to draw generalisations that may not belong to the category of causal relations. Historical method may, therefore, be used to supplement and even supplant other methods of research.

As the systems/nations/economies/communities move along the historical path, that had been traversed, numerous landmarks and watersheds might have been engraved. It is the job of the analysts to un-cover, reveal or discern these. Historical method thus relies upon historical facts for highlighting such facets to enrich scientific research. It is obvious that history and theory or scientific knowledge are intimately related to each other. In fact, these two may assist and complement each other on the one hand, and these may also control and constrain each other on the other hand (Keynes, J.N., pp. 268269). Common historical generalisations may often facilitate theoretical investigation. These generalisations may apparently be simple and even nave. But the analysts will delve deep to bring out their inner mosaic, which will reveal the fundamental scientific character wrapped in these generalisations. Then, empirical analysis of theoretical nature may warrant a general historical study of the gradual development of those phenomena which are made the subject of theoretical enquiry (Keynes). This approach is mostly useful in cases where the enquiry is not purely deductive, and hence, abstract in character. For example, the process of industrialization of the Indian economy under the policy regime of discriminating protection may be understood and explained properly by (i) the development of such industries as sugar, the child of protection, if the historical evidence is carefully examined and analysed. Their development may be compared either with the development of the same industries before the adoption of the policy of protection or after the end of the policy of protection or both. Similarly, the impact of Second World War on the rapid growth of Indian industries may be discerned by a careful evaluation of the momentum gained by the development of Indian industries during the war period in comparison to the growth recorded in all the preceding periods. The distinguishing characteristic features of industrialisation of India in the colonial period may be better understood and perceived, and generalisation about industrialisation may be properly conceptualised and propounded by an objective analysis of such historical evidence. Similarly, the impact of trade unionism on the a) growth of Indian economy, and b) the living conditions of the workers may be adequately gauged and hypothesized, if the general conditions of the econmy and the different policy regimes are brought under sharp

analytical focus in relation to employment and employees during the different phases and stages of the history of trade unionism in India. It is, therefore, obvious that the historical method may use the historical facts to furnish (i) a simple narration of events or occurrences and a straight forward description of the features that characterise the observed phenomenon/phenomena. These narrations and descriptions may also provide (a) an explanation to understand as to what the phenomenon/phenomena under study was/were; and (b) a detailed account of the mode/mechanism of the operations of the systems(s) or organisation(s) to explain how did it function; (ii) a comparison of the states of (a) the same given entity, say economy/industry/business of a nation in two different periods, and/or (b) two different entities in the same given period or even in two different periods may also be performed. Both types of comparisons of historical evidence are an important ingredient of the historical method.These comparisons will enable the investigator to note and highlight the similarities, if any, and/or striking differences or contrasting features/facets of the phenomenon/system under study. Similarities will highlight the uniformity, consistent and persistent pattern or trend that will afford general propositions of one genre, whereas the striking difference(s) shall force postulates and hypotheses of another type. For example, a comparison of the momentum of growth, specially industrilisation and diversification of Indian economy during the colonial regime and the five decades (1951-1990) of twentieth century of independent India may enable one to formulate the generalisation about the role of government in general and public sector in particular in the initial stages of development of a developing economy like the Indian one, having no enterprise, inadequate private capital, technology, food deficit and foreign exchange constraint on the one hand, and the constraining influence of the colonisation on Indian economy on the other. This comparison may also lead to the verification and validation of the first ever theory of under development that was enunciated by Dada Bhai Naoroji (Also See Mathur, P. N. 1991.) Similarly, one may compare the degree and direction of professionalization of management and its impact on family owned business in India before and after the abolition of managing agency system. One may also compare the growth of banking industry, specially the far and wide diffusion of bank branches over widely scattered space before and after the nationalisation of private commercial banks in India to evaluate the

impact of

nationalisation. A comparison of growth of the Chinese and Indian economies since 1951 may furnish some useful generalisation about the development of the developing economies. Interestingly, such comparisons on the basis of historical evidence endow the historical method with the thrust of both the comparative and inductive methods; (iv) historical evidence may be used to explain why did the phenomenon exist the way it was. Thus, the causes or the factors that shaped and conditioned the phenomenon to be in the given state is another investigative facet of historical method. This obviously will involve deeper understanding and analysis to unravel the interconnection(s) that relates one to another phenomenon, or to understand why does one phenomenon impact the other either sequentially or why do the two phenomena or variables move co-jointly? Naturally, the last strand is highly theoretical in nature, whereas the first two are empirical and applied in character, having the descriptive as well as analytical and interpretive thrusts. Historical method may, therefore, help in several types of investigations. The method is, however, more of inductive than deductive character. Historical Evidence As the Base for Theorising, Testing and Varification of Hypothesis Historical path traversed by nations, their organisations, groups of people/communities and even cultures may also provide historical evidence as the base for historical method to theorise. Use of historical evidence has, in fact, led to the formulation of some important theories about growth and development. For example, Rostows theory of stages of growth and Prakashs life cycle hypothesis, regarding the growth of educational expenditure, are based explicitly on the historical growth path of nations. Similarly, Prakashs two laws, that educational expenditure grows in arithmetical progression and literacy rate grows in geometrical progression, have also been based on an incisive analysis of historical data of 90 and 114 countries of the world respectively. These laws and theories have, however, been posited and formulated on the basis of discerning, detecting and confirming the uniformities by deductive reasoning on a vast and complex convass that the massive historical data embodied. These studies have implicitly assumed that history will repeat itself. But repetition of history may partly be based on the deliberate or other-wise imitation of the path traversed in the past. If, however, it is assumed that history will seldom repeat itself, then the usefulness of historical method will be greatly reduced and it will become similar to case study method. Theories may, however, be grouped into three categories: theories established by (i) purely deductive logic, (ii) pure induction based on historical facts or other evidence, and (iii) a combination of deductive reasoning and historical method and empirical evidence furnished by history. There may also be cases where the main reliance is placed on historical generalizations (Cf. J. N. Keynes, pp. 269-70). Then, deductively formulated abstract theories may also be classified into two broad categories: highly abstract and purely theoretical in nature; and concrete laws and principles that may be illustrated and explained with empirical evidence or experience. Alternatively, these laws and theories must have some real life phenomenon as their parallels or counterparts, and hence, these might have been enunciated inductively either on the basis of historical or other empirical, experiential or experimental evidence/observations. It is probable that such theories/laws have been developed purely deductively but the same have subsequently been verified and validated by concrete evidence. For example, the efficacy and effectiveness of raising effective demand through stimulating consumption expenditure and investment through policy intervention at the macro level; or through corporate marketing strategy to overcome deficiency of demand may be understood better if the historical evidence regarding the process(s) and mechanism of recovery from the grip of recessionary phases is thoroughly analysed with the help of experience or evidence. Similarly, the concept of disguised un-employment in agriculture and its elimination in North-Western green revolution zone of India may provide evidence to support the thesis that either (i) large scale transfer of labour from agriculture to tertiary and secondary sectors of the economy in order to substantially reduce the supply pool, or (ii) raising substantially the demand for wage labour to eliminate the dependence on family

labour for cultivation holds the key to the solution of this serious problem. Historical evidence may also be used to illustrate the basic thrust of the fix price theory that these prices do not change in response to demand but these are governed by long run average cost. Historical evidence from recessionary phases, when despite deficient demand, prices are not reduced but various marketing strategies are adopted by the corporate world to stimulate demand rather than to reduce the product prices will validate the thesis. In this context, historical method and historical evidence may play an important part in research, specially in the illustration and verification of the deductive and abstract theories. The basic objective of abstraction from the complexities of the real world of business in order to hypothesize or theorize on an abstract plane is to understand, explain and even predict the real life phenomena or experiences. This feature warrants that, howsoever deductive, abstract and hypothetical the concepts, constructs and postulations/theories may appear to be, their relevance and applicability to given cases within stipulated qualifications and limitations can best be understood by practical illustrations of empirical nature. Historical evidence and historical method may play an extremely prominent role in such cases. For example, the nature and direction of relationship between the quantity of money and general price level may best be illustrated by the experiences of Indian economy in mid-fifties and early seventies. The monetarists contention that fiscal deficits have been the main cause of inflation in India may easily be refuted if one arranges data relating to fiscal deficits and general price level since 1950-51 to say 2001. Then, one may observe that many years of rising and high fiscal deficits have been accompanied by price stability or even declines in general prices, if bumper crops of foodgrains have been harvested. As against this, general prices have increased substantially despite stationary and low fiscal deficits in the years of crop failures. This historical evidence will reflect the validity of Prakashs thesis that the genesis of inflation in India is not monetary; inflation emanates initially from the foodgrain sector and then it percolates to the rest of the sectors of the economy. The evidence does not conform to the relationship embodied in the monetary theory. One may also like to know the relevance of historical method and historical evidence to know the theories that have been (a) propounded by historical method on the basis of historical evidence through the detection and discerning of uniform patterns and trends in the phenomena relating to economy, business, industry, society or polity, and/or (b) confirmed and verified, modified or extended or critised and/or rejected by historical method on the basis of historical evidence. The following may be cited among the important contribution made on the basis of historical method. The Malthusian theory of population, theories of trade cycles, Rostows theory of stages of growth and the concept of Take-Off are the theories derived from the combined use of deductive reasoning, historical method and historical facts. The theory of progressive taxation and impact of progressive taxation on welfare, constant wage share hypothesis and the theory regarding determinants of productivity and its relation with factor rewards, effectiveness of incentive schemes in the promotion of sales may be cited as illustrations where the analysts have used historical method and relied directly on historical evidence to draw the inferences. It may, however, be noted that the plausibility of the inference and cogency of reasoning, consistency of logic with the premises and/or assumptions and empirical evidence, testability and even fallibility of theory are the basic characteristics of scientific knowledge. The usefulness of historical method and historical evidence naturally depends upon their proper utilisation by the researchers. There is no substitute for the knowledge, skills and intuitive insights of the investigator. Meaning and Sources of Evidence Historical method may be considered as a particular case of the method of induction. Research based on historical method is generally empirical in nature since historical method uses historical evidence as the basis of generalisation and historical evidence is a kind of

empirical or experiential evidence. Historical method requires a very high degree of expertise, experience and capability to extract inferences or formulate generalisations from historical evidence; while excavation of evidence from the historical sources for research is also a complex task. These sources may comprise of written records about (i) government and organisations/institutions; (ii) people, their institutions, values, customs and ways of living; (iii) events which may be political, social or economic; (iv) literary, religious and other social works. Literature is supposed to be a mirror image of the society. For example, Hard Times of Twist oscar wilde provides a graphic and vivid description of the socioeconomic conditions of living and the nature of British educational system of those times; (v) biographical accounts of great men such as Babar Nama, Aiyne Akabri and My Experiments with Truth (M. K. Gandhi) furnish extremely useful source material that reflect the particular periods of history they relate to; and (vi) visitors travelogues. Chinese travellors, who visited India and recorded their observations in writing constitute a valueable source of history of that period; (vii) even personal letters. For example Macculays letters to his father about the objectives of English Education in India and its envisaged impact on Indians, and Nehrus A Fathers Letters to his Daughter throw light on several aspects of the subjects that have been covered by the respective authors of these letters; and (viii) there are Archaeological finds, historical monuments, rock and other paintings, and the artefacts kept in museums which may be used as source material. For example, Archaeological finds constitute the basis of reconstruction of history of Harapa and Mohanjodaro. Historians have developed a method, known as historiography, to analyse the historical evidence. Historiography may, however, consist of varied approaches and methods to study the historical facts. In India, historiography dates back to the published accounts of Chinese travellors Huan Suang and Fai Hahn. India was considered to be the more developed state by Al Beruni, an Arab Scholar, in his Tarikh E-Hind (An Enquiry into India) in 11th century A.D.. These have been used as the source material by historians for evolving the history of those periods. There are, however, two views about history as a source material: History never repeats itself. History is experience, and according to Oscar Wilde, experience is the name men give to their mistakes. Men seldom like to repeat the same mistakes. It implies that the individuals, communities and even the nations learn from history. Therefore, history seldom repeats itself. However, the mistakes are committed by the generation of the given historical past, whereas history, if it repeats itself, repeats in the present or future. The future/present or current generation(s) may or may not learn from the historical mistakes. History may, therefore, repeat itself. But history comprises of both the positive and negative experiences, facts and factors and their outcomes; and both these may furnish source material to be used by historical method for research. Functions of History The discussion and explanation of the basic functions of history and their nature may help us in understanding the usefulness of the historical method in research. History, in fact, comprises of statements of specific but concrete facts. These statements may furnish a pen portrait of what the phenomenon under observation had been, what distinguishing features and operational aspects had characterised the observed phenomena so as to show as to how these phenomena differed from their earlier states and what changes had been registered during the period under scrutiny. History describes various phenomena existing at any given period in the past; and it also traces the actual progress made by these phenomena over successive periods. In this process, history delineates and highlights the broad contours of the movement of the systems, their institutions, organisational structures, events, people and their behavioural modes, culture and values that are embodied or associated with the phenomena under study. Naturally, the tracing of movement indicates the historical progress/growth path that has had been traversed through time, indicating the highs and

lows, peaks and troughs, strengths and weaknesses, and errors and error free decisions and the concequences that emanated from these decisions. Besides the above basic functions, history may also perform the following three specific functions: (i) Scientific knowledge may comprise of several conclusions and inferences that have been arrived at solely by deductive logic without any support of historical or contemporary evidence/facts. Such conclusions may either be illustrated or even tested and verified with the help of historical evidence or facts; (ii) Each concept and theory has a limited capability and range of applicability to real life situations. If, however, there is no empirical evidence available to test the validity and/or applicability of the theory, historical facts shall be quite handy and such limits may be determined and/or demonstrated by applying these concepts and theory to historical facts. This testing or verification of the concepts or theory against historical evidence may avert the need for contrived experimentation and/or the generation of hypothetical evidence for such purposes. Since the only alternative to this will be leaving the theories and concepts untested and/or unverified, the importance of historical evidence and its use by historical method is immense; and (iii) Historical facts furnish an opportunity to directly establish or discern theoretical postulates. Historical facts embody very comprehensive evidence and some times even much more. The theorists and analysts have to excavate and extricate scientific knowledge from the historical facts. They have to discern, detect and discover the uniformities, consistent and persistent pattern(s) and trend(s) that are embodied in the historical changes. This task can be performed efficiently and effectively by historical method. The uniformity, pattern(s) and trend(s), associated with the historical changes, that are embodied in the causal interpretrations, constitute scientific knowledge. But the analytical thrusts, intuitive insights, and imaginative speculation and hunches entailed in the approach to the historical facts may be needed to unearth the scientific knowledge encompassed by and entrapped in history. History and historical facts may also comprise of simple narration and description of the events, persons, systems, organisations and structures. The theorists creativity will bring the underlying uniformities, trends and patterns out of such narratives to portray the interrelations that connect one with another fact or phenomenon. As against history and historical facts, theory endeavours to determine the nature, direction and magnitude involved in the causal relations. Scientific knowledge seeks to identify the causes of the given consequences, or to predict the consequences of the given causes. Naturally, scientific knowledge is mostly theoretical in nature and orientation. Historical method may be of some assistance to accomplish this task. Historical facts may pertain to numerous phenomena. Historical facts may, therefore, be vast, quite diverse and different, as these may relate to economic, social, political, organisational, cultural and policy and value oriented phenomena. Then, certain facts may relate to totally disjoint and disconnected phenomena, some may pertain to uni-directionally or hierarchically/sequentially related phenomena, whereas some facts may be characterised by bi or even multi-directional relations. Theoretical investigations generally focus on the determination of uniformity in joint existence and/or sequencing in the interrelated phenomena. But the uniformity may portrude itself in the consistent and persistent pattern and or trend embodied in the temporal movements of the given system/ phenomenon/phenomena and these may be embodied in disjoint and even scattered facts. Historical method may use such evidence to draw generalisation that may not belong to the category of causal relations. Historical method may, therefore, be used to supplement and even supplant other methods of research. As the systems/nations/economies/communities move along the historical path, that had been traversed, numerous landmarks and watersheds might have been engraved. It is the job of the analysts to un-cover reveal or these. Historical method thus relies upon historical facts for

highlighting such facets to enrich scientific research. It is obvious that history and theory or scientific knowledge are intimately related to each other. In fact, these two may assist and complement each other on the one hand, and these may also control and constrain each other on the other hand (Keynes, J.N., pp. 268-269). Common historical generalisations may often facilitate theoretical investigation. These generalisations may apparently be simple and even nave. But the analysts will delve deep to bring out their inner mosaic which will reveal the fundamental scientific character wrapped in these generalisations. Then, empirical analysis of theoretical nature may warrant a general historical study of the gradual development of those phenomena which are made the subject of theoretical enquiry (Keynes). This approach is mostly useful in cases where the enquiry is not purely deductive, and hence, abstract in character. For example, the process of industrialization of the Indian economy under the policy regime of discriminating protection may be understood and explained properly by (i) the development of such industries as sugar, the child of protection, if the historical evidence is carefully examined and analysed. Their development may be compared either with the development of the same industries before the adoption of the policy of protection or after the end of the policy of protection or both. Similarly, analysis of the impact of Second World War on the rapid growth of Indian industries may be discerned by a careful evaluation of the momentum gained by the development of Indian industries in compraison to the growth recorded in all the preceding periods. The distinguishing characteristic features of industrialisation of India in the colonial period may be better perceived, generalisation about industrialisation may be properly conceived and propounded by an objective analysis of such historical evidence. Similarly, the impact of trade unionism on the a) growth of Indian economy, and b) the living conditions of the workers may be adequately gauged and hypothesized if the general conditions of the econmy and the different policy regime are brought under sharp analytical focus in relation to employment and employees. It is, therefore, obvious that historical method may use the historical facts to furnish (i) a simple narration of events or occurrences and a straight forward description of the features that characterise the observed phenomenon/phenomena. These narrations and descriptions provide an explanation to understand as to what the phenomenon/phenomena under study was/were; (ii) a detailed account of the mode/mechanism of the operations of the systems(s) or organisation(s) may be developed to explain how did it function; (iii) comparison of the states of (a) the same given entity, say economy/industry/business of a nation in two different periods, and/or (b) two different entities in the same given period or even in two different periods may be made. Both types of comparison of historical evidence is an important ingredient of historical method.These comparisons will enable the investigator to note and highlight the similarities, if any, and/or striking differences or contrasting features/facets of the phenomenon/system under study. Similarities will highlight the uniformity, consistent and persistent pattern or trend that will afford general propositions of one genre, whereas the striking difference(s) shall force postulates and hypotheses of another type. For example, the momentum of growth, specially industrilisation and diversification of Indian economy during the colonial regime and the third and half last quarters/four decades (1951-1990) of twentieth century of independent India may enable one to formulate the generalisation about the role of government in general and public sector in particular in the initial stages of development of a developing economy like the Indian one, having no enterprise, inadequate private capital, technology, food deficit and foreign exchange constraint on the one hand, and the constraining influence of the colonisation on Indian economy on the other. Similarly, one may compare the degree and direction of professionalization of management and its impact on family owned business in India before and after the abolition of managing agency system. One may also compare the growth of banking industry, specially far and wide diffusion of bank branches over widely scattered space before and after the nationalisation of private commercial banks in India to evaluate the impact of nationalisation. A comparison of growth of the Chinese and Indian economies since

1951 may furnish some useful generalisation about the development of the developing economies. Interestingly, such comparisons on the basis of historical evidence endow the historical method with the thrust of both comparative and inductive methods; (iv) historical evidence may be used to explain why did the phenomenon exist the way it was. Thus, the causes or the factors that shaped and conditioned the phenomenon to be in the given state is another investigative facet of historical method. This obviously will involve deeper understanding and analysis to unravel the interconnection(s) that relate one to another phenomenon, or to understand why does one phenomenon impact the other either sequentially or to move co-jointly? Naturally, the last strand is highly theoretical in nature, whereas the first two are empirical and applied in character, having the descriptive as were as analytical and interpretive thrusts. Historical method may, therefore, help in several types of investigation. The method is, however, more of inductive than deductive character. Historical Evidence As the Base for Theorising Historical path traversed by nations, their organisations, groups of people/communities and even culture may also provide historical base evidence as the base for historical method to theorise. Use of comparison of historical evidence has, in fact, led to the formulation of some important theories about growth and development. For example, Rostows theory of stages of growth and Prakashs life cycle hypothesis, regarding the growth of educational expenditure, are based explicitly on the historical growth path of nations. Similarly, Prakashs two laws, that educational expenditure grows in arithmetical progression and literacy rate grows in geometrical progression, have also been based on an incisive analysis of historical data of 90 and 114 countries of the world respectively. These laws and theories have, however, been posited and formulated on the basis of discerning, detecting and confirming the uniformities by deductive reasoning on a vast and complex convass that the massive data base embodied. These studies have implicitly assumed that history will repeat itself. But repetition of history shall be based on the deliberate or other-wise imitation of the path traversed in the past. If, however, it is assumed that history will seldom repeat itself, then the usefulness of historical method will be greatly reduced and it will become similar to case study method. Theories may however, be grouped into three categories; theories established by (i) purely deductive logic, (ii) pure induction based on historical facts or other evidence, and (iii) a combination of deductive reasoning and historical method and empirical evidence furnished by history. There may also be cases where the main reliance is placed on historical generalizations (Cf. J. N. Keynes, pp. 269-70). Then, deductively formulated abstract theories may also be classified into two broad categories: highly abstract and purely theoretical in nature; and concrete laws and principles that may be illustrated and explained with empirical evidence or experience. Alternatively, these laws and theories must have some real life phenomenon as their parallels or counterparts, and hence, these might have been enunciated inductively either on the basis of such historical or other empirical, experiential or experimental evidence/observations. It is probable that such theories/laws have been developed purely deductively but the same have subsequently been verified and validated by concrete evidence. For example, the efficacy and effectiveness of raising effective demand through stimulating consumption expenditure and investment through policy intervention at the macro level; or through corporate marketing strategy to overcome deficiency of demand may be understood better if the historical evidence regarding the process(s) and mechanism of recovery from the grip of recessionary phases is thoroughly analysed with the help of experience or evidence. Similarly, the concept of disguised un-employment in agriculture and its elimination in green revolution North-Western zone of India may provide evidence to support the thesis that either (i) large scale transfer or labour from agriculture to tertiary and secondary sectors of the economy in order to substantially reduce the supply pool, or (ii) raising substantially the demand for wage labour to eliminate the dependence on family labour for cultivation holds the key to the solution of this serious problem. Historical evidence may also be used to illustrate the basic thrust of the fix price theory that these

prices do not change in response to demand but these are governed by long run average cost may be illustrated by citing historical evidence from recessionary phases, when despite deficient demand, prices are not reduced but various marketing strategies are adopted by the corporate world to stimulate demand rather than to reduce the product prices. In this context, historical method and historical evidence may play an important part in research, specially in the illustration and verification of the deductive and abstract theories. The basic objective of abstraction from the complexities of the real world of business in order to hypothesize or theorize on an abstract plane is to understand, explain and even predict the real life phenomena or experiences of the business world. This feature warrants that, howsoever deductive, abstract and hypothetical the concepts, constructs and postulations/theories may appear to be, their relevance and applicability to given cases within stipulated qualifications and limitations can best be understood by practical illustrations of empirical nature. Historical evidence and historical method may play an extremely prominent role in such cases. For example, the nature and direction of relationship between the quantity of money and general price level may best be illustrated by the experiences of Indian economy in mid-fifties and early seventies. The monetarists contention that fiscal deficits have been the main cause of inflation in India may easily be refuted if one arranges data relating to fiscal deficits and general prices level since 1950-51 to say 2001. Then, one may observe that many years of rising and high fiscal deficits have been accompanied by price stability or even declines in general prices if bumper crops of foodgrains have been harvested. The evidence does not conform to the relationship embodied in the theory. One may like to know the relevance of historical method and historical evidence to know the theories that have been (a) propounded by historical method on the basis of historical evidence through the detection and discerning of uniform patterns and trends in the phenomena relating to economy, business, industry, society or polity, and/or (b) confirmed and verified, modified or extended or critised and/or rejected by historical method on the basis of historical evidence. The Malthusian theory of population, theories of trade cycles, Rostows theory of stages of growth and the concept of Take-Off are the theories derived from the combined use of deductive reasoning, historical method and historical facts. The theory of progressive taxation and impact of progressive taxation on welfare, constant wage share hypothesis and the theory regarding determinants of productivity and its relation with factor rewards, effectiveness of incentive schemes in the promotion of sales may be cited as illustrations where the analysts have relied directly on historical evidence to draw the inferences. It may, however, be noted that the plansibility and cogency of reasoning, consistency of logic with the premises and/or assumptions and empirical evidence, testability and even fallibility of theory are the basic characteristics of scientific knowledge. The usefulness of historical method and historical evidence naturally depends upon their proper utilisation by the researchers. There is no substitute for the knowledge, skills and intuitive insights of the investigator.

References
Dada Bhai Naoroji, Un British Rule in India, London. Keynes, J.N., (1890) The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Augustus M. Kelley, New York (1965 reprint, fourth edition 1917). Mathur, P. N. (1991) Why Developing Countries Fail to Develop, Macmillan, London. Popper, Karl R. (1968) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., London.

Comparative Method
Historical Precedents and Concepts Comparative Method has been known and used since the inception of the quest for and the exploration of knowledge by mankind. The method revolved around the intellectual capabilities of investigators and focused on the evaluation of natural and financial resources. It encompassed assessment of achievements and performance appraisal of a) different times, and b) countries/regions/people. The comparative method had been used by such analysts as T. R. Malthus, J. S. Mill, and Milton Friedman also. J. S. Mill, however, differentiated between the method of difference and method of agreement as two distinct strands of comparative method. J. S. Mill had formulated two rather than one method of comparison. He conceptualized the Method of Difference and Method of Agreement as two distinct strands of the comparative method of research/ analysis. Both these strands may be considered to be complementary parts of the comparative method. Method of Difference focuses on dissimilarities, while the Method of Agreement concentrates on similarities. Interestingly, both these methods have been conceived to be comparative in nature, basic thrust and orientation. Both these methods may thus be called the method of comparison. Method of Agreement as propounded by J. S. Mill is basically a scientific method of relating a cause to its consequence. The method stipulates that when two or more cases of a given phenomenon have one and only one condition in common, then that condition may be regarded as the cause (or effect) of the phenomenon. If may, however, be added that if there is one condition as a cause (Consequence), then there has to be another condition as its consequence (cause). There can not be a cause without a consequence or vice versa, and generally, the entire phenomenon is difficult to be conceived as one single condition. But this precisely seems to be the postulation of Mill. Three appears to be an inherent gap between the language of theory and research which can never be bridged in a completely satisfactory way. One thinks in terms of theoretical language that contains notions such as causes, forces, systems and properties. But ones tests or mad in terms of co variations, operations, and pointer readings. Language of theory is an artifact, and hence artificial, whereas research, specially empirical research is the workshop of an artisan. It is extremely difficult to demonstrate, leave apart prove causality and its direction. Mill;s Method of Agreement Descriptive Factors No. 1 No. 2 Therefore, A C C B D Z C E Z Z

Method of Difference A A B B C C Z

 Z Negative principle of Agreement states that if absence of C is associated with the absence of Z, there is evidence of causal relationship between C and Z. If there are two or more cases, and in one of them observation Z can be made while in another it can not be, and if variable C occurs when observation Z is made and does not occur when observation Z is not made; then it can be asserted that there is a causal relationship between C and Z (Goode & Halt). J. S. Mill has defined comparative method as follows: Presence of some condition in one and its absence in another state/ entity and attribution of differential outcome to this specific factor/condition is the essence of comparative method. Thus, it is the presence and absence of the specific cause in two states/spatial units/time periods that the observed outcome/consequence tends to be attributed by comparative method. This obviously is the definition of the method of difference, since its focus is on dissimilarity in one vital aspect. However, the dissimilarities/ similarities may relate either to a causative factor (s)/ condition, shaping and guiding operations, or outcome(s) of the causative factor(s) in operation under specified circumstances or cases. Effects of two different treatments or operational conditions or blocks also furnish the basic essence of the comparative method of difference. The differential effect(s) of different treatment, applied to different units/blocks at the same time and place, having similarity in all respects except the difference of treatment applied, have generally been analyzed statistically for long by statisticians for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of such treatment(s). In statistical analysis, difference in the treatment of different groups/blocks is considered comparatively in order to impute the difference in outcome to the treatment as the cause. In some cases, time frame of analysis is constant but the spatial units/ entities/ phenomena are different. Comparative method has very extensively been used in country comparisons also. Country comparisons, specially with reference to national development in the post second war period, have been very popular among the development economists. Temporal and spatial (country) comparisons in such studies have been based on the use of comparative method (Teune, 1995, Prakash, 2001). Comparative method may also treat time as a variable, while the spatial entity or phenomenon under consideration may be the same, that is, a constant of the system. Within the broad comparative framework several methods and techniques have been developed for conducting such studies by the Statisticians and Econometricians on the one hand, and Economists, Political Scientists and Sociologists on the other. In some cases, the same/ similar outcomes may result from different factor(s), while in other cases, the same/ similar forces may lead to different outcomes. Both types of cases offer an opportunity for the application of the comparative method. For example, a large number of countries have developed economically through industrialization, whereas several countries moved from less to more developed stages through agricultural development. In both the cases, development, the outcome of change, is similar but the means/ mechanisms or factors of development have been different. Naturally, exclusive focus on dissimilarities in outcome(s) or cause(s) misses a vital component of comparative method. We may, therefore, include the evaluation of similarities in either outcome(s) or cause(s) also under the method of comparison. This is what Mills method of agreement may also converge to. For example, if in a stationary state, operation(s) of the same/similar forces over a period of time lead to the same/similar outcome(s), the uniformity of pattern and the similarity of operational force(s)/factor(s) and the same resultant outcome(s) suggest not only stability but also a genesis linking cause(s) to effect(s); these facets are apt for generalization. Thus, employment of comparative method needs two or more entities/phenomena that relate

differences or uniformities either to different points in time or space. If the same causative factor(s)/force(s) operate in the same way to lead to the same outcome(s) through time or across space, irrespective of time-space location of operation, it suggests the possibility of formulation of a law linking the given cause to its specific outcome. Wide-spectra of applicability and diverse nature of the cases in which the comparative method has furnished the base of analysis manifest the broad convas of this method. Milton Friedman, during his extensive tours and prolonged visits to numerous countries, seemingly used comparative method to analyze the contrasting development experience of the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia and linked the developmental differences to their different political systems/ economies and/or policies. He inferred that the private enterprise oriented and market based economies have had achieved higher levels of development and maintained better standards of living than the state owned, controlled and centrally planned economies. In recent times, the countries that opened up and shifted from controlled to private enterprise based market economies, like the Chinese and Indian ones, developed more rapidly in post reforms era than the closed economies like the Burmese and Russian ones, which lagged behind and recorded lower growth rates in the same period. Besides, even the Indian and Chinese economies have developed more rapidly in eighties and nineties than during the pre-reform period from fifties to seventies. States in these economies rather than being the initiators or controller of change have now been shifted to being the manager of change, resulting from exchanges and transactions within a globalised political economy. Rahul Sanskritayan and Elvin Verrier extensively toured to undertake anthropological study of tribes and they often used the comparative method to highlight the striking difference among the various tribes and communities. Empirical Base of Comparative Method Identification and/or conceptualization of the causative factor(s) and/or its outcome is mostly factual, and hence, empirical in nature. Comparative method is, therefore, basically empirical, and hence, inductive in character. Comparative method is also known as the Method of Difference (Mill, 1843), and the difference may relate to a given factor/ variable that operates in two distinct states/ conditions, which are similar, but the operations may lead to different outcomes. Alternatively, all the things but one are similar in two states and then the difference in outcomes is imputed to this one condition which is different. The comparison of either the time difference or spatial distance warrants the use of what J.S. Mill called the Method of Difference. This type of comparison may need empirical evidence, though the method may also be based on a combination of the historical evidence with experimentation or experience (Keynes, J. N. p.179). The method may, therefore, be considered essentially as a derivative of the historical, experiential and/or experimental methods. J.N. Keynes opines that the experiment may lie at the base of the method of difference, which he considers to be the only completely adequate method of reasoning from specific experience towards generalization (p 179). It implies that Keynes considers comparative method to be the essence of induction provided that the criterion is agreement rather than the difference. The essence of the method of difference is the comparison of two instances, which resemble one another in all material aspects, except that in one a certain cause is present, while in the other it is absent; effects of that cause are thus made manifest by the difference that emerges from analysis based on comparison. The instances chosen for comparison constitute the evidence. The choice of evidence involves i) identification of the source material; ii) a careful and detailed appraisal of all aspects comprehensively with a view to narrow down the range of options to choose from; iii) classification/ categorization of cases with the help of detection of similarities/dissimilarities and fixing the same into appropriate or inappropriate boxes for comparison; iv) identification of causative factor(s) for inclusion or exclusion from

comparable cases; and (v) finally, application of analytical apparatus of logic to the evidence for a) deriving inference(s) regarding the outcome(s) of the cause(s), or the identification of cause(s) of the given outcome(s), or/and b) highlighting the basic features of the system(s) and or its given operations. A deeper analysis may lead to the inferring of the policy implications also. Comparison may also aim at evaluating the appropriateness of some action, having already succeeded in a different context, or evaluating even the effect or efficacy of something untested. Countries in similar situation can benefit more from such already tested ideas as a policy patented elsewhere. For example, historical experience of countries like UK and France justified the designing of such political systems as US and Indian constitutional government, based on democracy, characterized by equality, fraternity and freedom. Comparative Method and Norm or Standard Normative part of a subject focuses on what ought to be, it refers to the desired state; whereas the positive part highlights what a phenomenon is; how it does operate, why it is the way it is. It thus focuses on the state of things as these are and the way these operate. The state in which the phenomenon is desired to be relates to the approval and acceptance of some norm or standard. It is the norm/standard which the actual is compared with. Normative part of social sciences thus inevitably uses the comparative method of study. The comparison of actual with the desired indicates the degree and direction of the distance/difference of actual from the desired norm/standard. Naturally, what it ought to be inevitably involves the delineation of what it is. Comparison then refers to what the distance/ difference is between what it ought to be and what it actually is. Determination of this distance is ideally required to move the actual towards the desired. This warrants answers to twin questions: why does distance between the two exist and how could distance/ difference be reduced/ eliminated? Thus, the normative gets enmeshed in positive. Such parts of the positive science do use the comparative method of study. Positive social science focuses on the nature and degree of relationship between the cause and its effect. This causal relationship constitutes the theoretical core of the subject. But theories are erected on the foundation furnished by the given set of assumptions needed for a) transformation of complex into simple; b) isolation of the basic/ fundamental causative from secondary or less important cause(s) /factor(s); and c) forging of organic link between the cause and consequence. Positive social sciences accept the assumptions, and hence, take these for granted without testing and verification. The causal relation, based on these assumptions, is supposed to need testing and verification. Testing and verification of a theory/principle is considered essential before its final approval and acceptance (Cf. Popper, 1968). The theory/principle will, however, be as valid or relevant as the assumptions, specially those pertaining to institutional set-up and organizational structure upon which hinges the systems operations, used for its formulation. Most of the social theory, specially economic theory, has been developed by western thinkers. They have naturally taken the institutional set up and organizational structure of American and European capitalism as the given of the system of theorizing. Vital assumptions of most of these theories are seldom spelled out. Joan Robinson also opines that it is impossible to write out in full all the assumptions that are made in setting up a particular model and that British economist from Ricardo to Keynes, have been accustomed to assume as a tacitly accepted background, the institutions and problems of England each of his own day; when their works are studied in other climes and other periods by readers, who import other assumptions, a great deal of confusion and argument at cross purpose arises in consequence (See also, Hicks, 1933). As against the positive science, normative science accepts the validity of the causal relation and subjects its assumptions to the testing and verification. In my view, testing and verification of both theory and its assumptions are warranted for ascertaining the validity and relevance. Evaluation of assumptions should precede the application of a theory to any case/situation. This is even more important for comparative method. It is, therefore, erroneous to test the

theory without evaluating first whether its assumptions are satisfied (Cf. Popper, 1969). Testing and verification involves the use of evidence, that may be statistical or experiential or experimental, to compare the actual with theoretical. This part of the positive science is inevitably comparative in essence. The process of verification may also need the formulation of policy and its implementation. For example, the prediction of utility theory that transfer of money from the rich to poor through taxation and public expenditure will promote welfare is accepted as true. The prediction is based on the assumption that the law of diminishing marginal utility applies to money also. This leads to the inference that the poor have greater utility for money than the rich. But the validity of the assumption, that the marginal utility of money is more to the poor than the rich, may be tested through the policies of progressive taxation and subsidization of consumption of the poor. It implies that the accepted norm(s)/standard(s)/ theoretical prediction(s) and their premises together furnish the contents and direction of socio-economic policies, while the facts/data constitute the raw materials. Comparative method needs all these for its use and application. Typology of Comparative Method Different strands and streams may be distinguished in order to classify comparative method into different typologies. Each typology has specific facets and features, which shall be explained in the context of this differentiation between one and another type of comparative method. It shall be extremely difficult to discuss comprehensively all the facets of any given comparative method in all possible detail independently of each typology to which the particular features relate. Methods of difference and agreement have already been highlighted as two distinct types of comparative method. Other typologies of comparative method may be discussed now. Methodology of science may be defined as the choice and use/application of appropriate principle(s) and method(s) of (i) knowledge generation, (ii) knowing, understanding or explaining, and/or (iii) predicting the phenomenon(a) under study. Comparative method has been a part of this methodology in numerous scientific investigations and research studies; such studies have been based on specific evidence, experiment or experience. The specific evidence/ experience, used as the base of comparative method, may facilitate classification of the method into the following typologies/categories: i) Temporaneous Comparative Method; ii) Spatial Comparative Method; iii) Macro Comparative Method; iv) Micro Comparative Method; and v) Policy Evaluation Method. The fact is that the comparative method relates either to (a) time or space; (b) macro or micro entities; (c) policies, processes and operations of the systems, their structures and outcomes; (d) individuals or group of entities. A little reflection may reveal that this categorization may be more of an overlapping rather than exclusive type. Besides, this is in contrast to the categorization that has been conceptualized by Henry Teune, who focuses on the comparison of (a) countries; (b) country groupings, and (c) quantitative comparisons of states; (d) projection of the West, embodied in US perception, as the standard for comparison; (e) variance reducing theoretical schemes; and (f) comparison of development. It may also be pointed out that Teunes categorization, like mine, is also characterized by certain level of overlap. Then, there may also be certain degree of overlap between these two approaches to categorization and classification. But whatever the contents and contexts or focus of comparative analysis, objective is basically the understanding and explaining change, factors governing the change, and the outcomes resulting from the process, called change, so as to facilitate the formulation of general propositions or the evolving of a policy or assessment of policy impact. What follows in ensuing pages shall dwell on the use of above categories of comparative method and important general propositions thrown up by it.

Equivalence, Variance Reduction and Classification As the Base of Comparative Method Use of comparative method requires that the comparison is done between comparables. Incomparables can neither be compared nor should they be compared. Various entities in the pool from which selection/identification has to be made may require classification into different categories. It, therefore, requires a careful selection/identification of the entities for comparison. If the control, associated with experimentation is involved, comparability of entities may require the establishment of equivalence through the reduction of variability. Classification may, however, be used as an instrument of variability reduction, and hence, establishment of equivalence. It is important since controlled experiments are difficult to perform in social sciences. Social scientists adopt the processes of identification and classification for variance reduction and identification of equivalence. The following three problems with variety, and hence, variance reduction arise from inclusion and exclusion of entities/countries in a group: i) It is assumed that the inclusion of an entity/observation in a given category is a significant variety reducer within a group in so far as the variance within is much less than that between the groups. Basic principle is that the variance within the group is minimized, while between the groups it is maximized. This is the basic principle of classification/categorization. However, at times, the variance within may be more than what it is between the categories/groups. For example, regional income disparities in India and Yugoslavia, now Slovakia are much more marked than income inequality between these two countries; ii) Country/region/ entity, included in a category, should either have or be capable of acquiring the attributes of other members of the group and be different and vary significantly from those excluded from the group; iii) A comparison of attributes or quantitative dimension imputes the properties to countries/ entities that require similarity in patterns among the entities of comparison. In practice, serious difficulties are encountered in accomplishing this task. Classification may often pose the problem of overlapping, ambiguity or even mismatch at times. For example, if economic development, and hence, prosperity is a pre-condition for democracy, then either the development of India has been grossly under estimated or democracy has been totally exaggerated. If literacy and economic development are postulated to move together, then the classification of such Indian states as Kerala and Mizoram in different groups of Indian states and categorization of oil producing Islamic countries in groups of countries shall be problematic (Prakash et. al., 1996). Similarly, if per capita income is an indicator of development and elections on multi-party system and change of rulers indicate democracy, then most of the oil producers will also pose problems in their classification. Categorization is generally based on the use of few specific criteria enunciation of which require care and caution in order to be full proof. Comparison based on equivalence may involve, for example, relationship among such variables as wealth and health, and the change within and across the system. Social systems are associated with structural change, while mechanical/biological systems display equivalence by the equilibrating of change in force. Structure is the hub of socio-politicoeconomic systems, while biological or mechanical systems focus on balance and equilibrium, which implies the movement with reference to space. Then, concepts and theories generally focus on rapidly rather than gradually changing phenomena. Graduality in movement/ displacement may make the change imperceptible, and hence, unobservable unless very long lead times are involved in comparison. Rapid changes arise either from radical transformation, revolutionary upheavals, disasters or replacement of one by another totally different policy. Minor adaptations/ modifications of policy may make policy comparison

difficult. Comparison of policy aims at learning from i) the experience gained from and change brought through the implementation of the given policy, ii) important defining junctures and events associated with that policy, and iii) identification and initiation of measures required for mobilization of support for the policy, iv) opening up or closing of the system, v) random or non-random nature of change or events. From this view point, comparative method is similar to the historical method in its orientation. Main objective of variance reduction in social sciences has been to compress i) the entire range of human experience, ii) total achievement of mankind till date, and iii) human decisions and consequent behaviour into few systematized categories with a view to find identifiable but stable patterns and relationships based on them (Cf. Teuen, 1993). The comparative method requires the identification and selection of two or more comparable entities or phenomena for analysis out of all those available as evidence. It involves care and caution in the choice to avoid the comparison of incomparables. Mills advocacy of similarity in all/most and difference in one aspect is based on this consideration. The comparison can only be between comparables either across time or space. The concept of comparability inevitably involves equivalence. Comparability may depend upon the similarities in size, or structure of the entity (ies) of comparison, or similarity in operational aspects/ conditions with reference to the given cause(s) of a particular phenomenon(na) of study. If similarity in all aspects/areas is achieved, comparison may converge towards what Mill conceived to be the method of agreement. Categorisation often involves biases in grouping, since only a few parameters/variables/ traits are generally used for this purpose, leading to probable negligence of several basic factors. This necessitates a general theory of universal character. A Newton or Eienstein to put forward Social Theory of Change of universal character is, however, still awaited. Besides, imitation of one subject by others has often led to sterility. For example, Anthropologists, the longest in the field, using the method of difference, have developed Functional Analysis as the Theoretical Perspective of Variance Reduction. Adoption of Structural/ Functional categories of anthropology by sociology ended up with the study of rituals or other structures of specified functions. Adaptation of the same by political scientists made them look at such functions of political system as making rules, adjudication and their implementation in a comparative framework with the articulation of the group interest (See for example, Almond, Coleman and Leds, 1960). These concepts and categories have been Western in origin and orientation; these could naturally not cope up with the systems that either ideologically ignored the diversity of group interest or deliberately sought to suppress the same. Consequently, the analytical schemata of comparative studies mismatched the empirical reality, leading to outcomes that sounded hollow and shallow. Limitations of these approaches induced the evolving of an alternative system, based on theoretical schemata of variance control within social, political, and economic systems, that focused on the universality of certain constants or parameters of mankind (Czudnowski, 1975). These constants could be chosen from such parameters as a) human needs, b) human nature, c) human development, and d) core traits of human behaviour such as desire to i) achieve distinction through power, wealth or differential modes, ii) dominate others, and iii) relate/associate with others. Tuene asserts that neither the universal nature of functions of socio-political- economic systems nor the universal constants succeeded much in variance reduction. These, in fact, do not yield i) relationships as the base for evolving theoretical explanation or prediction. Hence, use of the term theory, structural/ functional or Parsonian theory was nothing more than the classificational tool. But Tuene has missed the whole of classical and Neo Classical theories of economics as enunciated by Smith, Ricardo, Malthus and Mill and Neo-classical economics, as evolved by Bentham, Menger, Jevons and Marshall (utility) and Friedman and many other modern economists. Such parameters have led to the development of some basic theories. For example, economists assumption of the pursuit of self interest, rational behaviour and the motivation of

optimization led to the development of the apparatus of classical economics on the one hand, and utility school on the other. Gossens three laws of utility constitute the base of entire demand analysis/consumer behaviour, it is a substantial part of economics. But the analysis is based on Weber Feschners law of reaction that states that the intensity of reaction declines as the intensity/stock/quantity increases. The assumption that the marginal utility of money to the poor is greater than that to the rich, the base of the edifice of welfare economics, is on the same footing. Universality of these parameters was embodied in the ideological perspective that was in juxtaposition to the Area Specialists belief in Human Variety. Teuen dismisses all these by one assertion. Tuene suggests the use of the concept of inter-connectivity of system. Macro facets of the economy, explaining something that is system specific such as rapid or slow growth, centralized decentralized, openness or closedness of the system as the cause of its operational facets such as internal imbalances, high subsidies, high deficits, external account imbalance in payments or trade may be highlighted. Such generalizations furnish systems effects on which to build up some theoretical edifice. Micro-effects of macro operations or vice-versa may also be analysed by comparative method. Textiles and then coal being the leading/ key sector of British growth in eighteenth/ nineteenth centuries are illustrations of macro effect of micro operations. Certain expected differences may be used as the artifacts and instruments of research. But units or their levels within the macro entity of a system/ economy/country, chosen for analysis, may be important. Equivalence is not only that of size. The defining structures, components and their properties should also be comparable in the initial period, while the differences in the terminal stage may offer the subject of contrast and comparison. Equivalence is like the system of variance reduction. But the meaning is contextual, which changes both with time and space. Identifying equivalence of the comparable is also made difficult by concurrent change both in time and space. The identification of equivalence is facilitated by some simplifying assumptions such as that the individuals are differentiated among themselves as well as from the system. Values, attitudes and behavioural propensities, that are acquired partly from the system, or ideology, or contextual conditions, do affect the decisions and resulting operations both directly and indirectly. It is the outcomes or consequences of such facts of the contextual framework as above, which offer the phenomenon for comparison. Movement in time from initial to final stage generally brings change in the initial state/status in relation to the final position. Development determines individual differences, including pragmatism and flexibility (Cf. Kuechler, 1986). For example, contextual adjustments necessitated by 40 per cent currency fluctuation in 1985 and 20 per cent black economy arise from the differences between the periods or systems. Importance of contextual frame is also illustrated by the fact that The per capita income of Indians certainly would have led to early death in other contexts/countries, but income does not mean the same in India (Kravis, et. al., 1975). Policy Comparisons Policy comparisons involve such questions as i) why did the government opt for the given position; ii) Why did the governments/ systems have acquired the nature they have had? Is it due to the decisive influence of man at the top of decision making? Examples are SocialistNehru, having colonial background, or Soviet Planners, having Zarist background, or Freedom, Fraternity, Friendship and Equality of post French Revolution era arising from the Feudal and Monarchic background; iii) what are the consequences expected to flow from the chosen policy in short and long term?; iv) what shall be the means and mechanisms, specially institutional/organizational set up needed and actually associated with the implementation of a given policy or operation of a system; v) What specific factors may act as facilitators or

obstacles in the formulation as well as implementation of the chosen policy? (Cf. Tuene, 1990, pp. 57-58). Answers to such questions are important, since inter-country comparison of policies is mired in a) national polities, b) beliefs, c) values, d) administrative support base, e) popular support or lack of it, and f) conditions of operations. Intra- country comparisons also encounter differences in structure, instruments, institutions and even values and mindset. Intended and actual outcome(s) of implementation may also differ a lot. Impact of other policies on the given conditions and even on policy under comparison may also cloud the understanding. At any given point in time, several policies may be in operation. Even seemingly dis-joint or indepent policies may either be counter-vailing or mutually reinforcing. For example, the policy decision to hike petrol and diesel prices may run counter to the objective of keeping passenger fares and freight rates low. Then, country experiences are used by the proponents of a different/new policy to i) indicate such beneficial outcomes as may be expected, and ii) advantage over current policy, iii) validation of arguments that might have been advanced to support their case, and/or iv) adoption of an alternative to one that has failed to deliver the desired results. Steps in Policy Comparison Policy Comparison comprises of the following steps a) identification and selection of entities or period(s) for comparative study, b) compilation of evidence, c) comparison and contrast between similar or/and dissimilar facets by putting specific aspect/ phenomenon under study in initial and/or terminal stages/states in juxtaposition, d) putting the evidence under logical evaluation/analytical examination with a view to offer i) explanation of the state as it obtains, ii) relationships and their nature, complementary/substitutability, or causal, and iii) prediction about the future state/outcome, if possible. Besides, judgments/inferences about the superiority/inferiority of systems/policies may also be drawn. Analysis of the effect or impact of any given policy or impacts of two different policies have also been the subject of comparative method. In the first case, the state of the system before the introduction of a given policy is compared with the state of the system after the adoption and implementation of the policy. As the fine tuning of policy and the observablity of its outcome(s) requires the lapse of a reasonable time period since inception, the comparison involves two distinct periods rather than two points in time for the evaluation of the impact of policy. For example, Prakash (1994, 1996) has used the comparative method of analysis for the evaluation of the impact of NEP on Indian economy. He has compared the regression growth rates of pre and post reform period. The choice of phenomenon or entities for comparison need care and caution. Radically different entities or totally dissimilar phenomena do not furnish appropriate unit for comparison. Then, comparison may also require normalization or standardization of the variables used for comparison. For example, size effect involved in comparison of GDP of Singapore and India may be neutralized by comparing per caput rather than absolute GDP. Evaluation of policy impact generally focuses on the analysis of outcome(s) and/or achievement(s), resulting from the implementation of chosen policy and its programs. This is accomplished by the identification and evaluation of outcome(s) in the pre policy period and it is then compared with the corresponding state after implementation of the policy. Two different policies, pursued by the same country at two different points in time may also be compared. For example, Prakash (1996, 2005) has compared the growth of national and per capita income in pre-independence period with their growth in post independence period. The two periods are associated with different policy regimes, the autonomous functioning of the market economy of the British regime compares poorly with the functioning of the post independent planned Indian economy. Such comparison may also be effected for two different countries say India and China in early fifties of the twentieth century, when their economies were characterized by almost similar features but they opted to operate with different policies and systems.

Alternatively, the objective(s)/ target(s) of policy/ planning may be compared with the actual performance/achievement. Outcomes of two different policies may also be compared. But the policies generally differ in thrusts and directions, scope and encompassment, whereas the programs tend to have differences of focus on varied objectives, targets and goals, contents and reach. Outcomes and achievements are naturally expected to differ from one period to another, one policy regime to another, and even within the same policy regime, from one program/project and/or a given set of measures to another. Proportion/Percentage and Average Proportion may be used as a tool for the evaluation of extent/ magnitude and direction of change/ movement; the change may be inferred from comparison of two or more proportionate values pertaining to two different time periods or entities. Percentage may be used as an alternative of proportion. Both proportions and percentages are relative magnitudes, estimated to control the scale effect for comparability. But the unit is the norm/standard for the proportion, while centum is the standard for percentage. Both these measures also render variables/entities free not only from the difference in the unit of measurement but also the scale and/or different nature/dimension of entities measured. These, in fact, are pure numbers. These two offer approximation, and hence, a crude rather than precise index for an agglomerate. But these offer basis for interpretation of data to draw inferences from comparison. Averages may also be used for a) compressing massive data into single figure(s) and comparing magnitudes of two huge/mass of data, b) interpret and draw inferences from the same. These are desirable and inevitable/ essential/ integral instrument of comparative method. It may, however, be noted that, unless one has the global proportion/percentage as the reference, comparison may be misleading. For example, if one finds that the candidates with engineering background outnumber graduates with economics/commerce background among the enrollees in business schools, it need not necessarily mean favour to one or discrimination against the other group. For proper interpretation of the results, one has to compare the proportion of engineering graduates among total admission seekers with the proportion of economics/commerce graduates among the admission seekers to have the global proportion as a point of reference to compare the proportion of engineering and non-engineering graduates among the enrollees. A mere comparison of proportions of enrollees with these backgrounds may not furnish the base for right inference. This is a common error committed by social scientists (Bhati, Amita, 2003, Also See, Raina, Anupama, 2004). Comparison of Interpretations Investigational findings from comparison of the given state with respect to i) a priori accepted criterion, ii) findings of other investigations, iii) normal/ideal/ standard condition(s), iv) prejudgment, or expert opinion(s), and v) differential perspectives may provide the base for the espousal of interesting proposition(s). Relationships may also be investigated in the comparative framework with reference to form, structure, degree and direction of interdependence, while relationships may be deduced for the behaviour/ change in entities of comparison. Sometimes, given evidence may be interpreted differently by different scholars. The differential interpretations may also provide material for comparison. Basic Thrust of Comparative Method for Policy Impact The comparative method may attempt to i) Compare and distinguish the perceived from actual state, and ii) assess the results and outcomes with reference to a priori specified norm(s) or standard(s). In several cases, statement of a policy or program explicitly specifies particular goal(s) and/or target(s) to be realized in the given time frame. In such cases, the objective(s) or target(s) may be used as the standard or norm for comparing actual

performance or outcome/result for assessing the success or failure of policy on the one hand, and the degree and direction of change(s) that has been effected in values of the given variable(s)/factor(s) that reflect the impact of policy on the other. The success or failure is, however, a matter of degree rather than it being absolute. For example, Dr. P. Rajan (1978) analysed the divergence between the Planned and Actual Agricultural Development of the State of M.P. in his Ph. D. thesis. The targets set to be realized during the planning horizon were used as the fixed Norm/Standard with which actual development was compared. Similarly, in a recent study of Divergence between the Desired and Actual Capability Profile of HR Mangers of pharmaceutical companies by Prakash and Bhargava (2004), desired profile was accepted as the standard with which actual competence and competency profile was compared. The gap between these two was found to fall in the range of 20 to 67 per cent; iii) Another criterion, used for such evaluation of the impact of plan/policy or planning, is to compare the performance/outcome before the adoption of policy with the performance recorded or outcome/result achieved after the adoption of policy. This approach shall highlight the differential effect and outcome of the differences in policy and a comparison of the performance during the two policy/ planning regimes shall be involved. Temporal Distance Comparative method may also involve comparison of the state of an entity or phenomenon at two or more points in time/period. Here, time enters as a variable, while the subject of the study remains invariant; it does not get replaced by another phenomenon/object/entity. The difference in the state of an entity/phenomenon at different points in time may be taken to manifest the outcome of the process of change, involving specified factor(s)/ force(s) at work through time. As time changes, the process of change involves temporal distance. Movement away from the point of origin will, however, become history. The temporal distance manifests dissimilarity in two states of the entity/phenomenon at different points in time. As the entity/ phenomenon and its spatial location remain the same, spatial distance is assumed to have remained invariant. Therefore, the change and/or its resultant outcome is attributed/imputed to temporal distance or the factor(s) in operation that induces change through time. Difference in time is assumed to be the proxy of factor(s) and process of change. It shall be useful to note that the Historical Method distinguishes historical laws from historically decisive moment(s) to differentiate between the junctures and historical event(s) on the one hand, and to differentiate(s) between the historical process and historical conditions on the other. Events need not necessarily occur in a continuum as these may be a once for all affair also. Epochal events may often be once for all affairs. But the historical process requires continuity and stability of operation in the given milieu. For example, Marxs conceptualization of the Asiatic Mode of Production envisages the prevalence of a given set of production conditions over at least a limited period of time and through space, technology in use, and organizational structure. It also warrants the uniformity of operational mechanism to generate similar outcome/output. Defining Junctures and Epochal Events differ from the usual/ mundane or unimportant ones; these (former) assume novelty and uniqueness that may not be replicable. As against these, mundane/ ordinary events are a common occurrence, needing no notice. Concepts and theories/ laws are needed a) to note or observe, b) to explain, and c) interpret the mechanism of forces to link the same to some general or specific outcome. Social, political or economic change may, at times, be abrupt in emanation, direction and time, and its effect. This may be associated with the defining moment/juncture or epochal event. Distance in time may furnish the context to highlight the change/difference. Reflection of distance in time may also facilitate i) narration of nature, direction and dimension that distance in time has brought about in two states, and hence, difference(s), including factor(s) that change the entity or phenomenon; and ii) description of the basic feature(s) of two or more states, including factor(s) of change of the entity/phenomenon

under study. Both these facets may result in the formulation of some law/ principle/ theory, if the force(s) involved in the process of change could be identified even broadly, if not precisely. The distance in time or temporal pathway traversed is identified as the basic force/factor to have caused the dissimilarity(ies) or difference(s), while the spatial location has remained invariant. Spatial Distance Alternatively, comparative method may involve a comparison of the state of two or more entities/phenomena with differential locales in space at a given point in time. In such cases, one keeps time distance constant by undertaking the study of two different states of an entity or two entities/ phenomena at the same given point in time; one may also, compare the state of two or more spatial entities at the same point in time. In such cases, time is a constant, and hence, the differences between two spatial entities may be attributed to distance in space. Because of the same time location, spatial distance is taken to cause the difference(s) or dissimilarity(ies). Dissimilarity means difference and/or contrast. The first approach keeps space constant to evaluate the impact of movement/change in time, whereas the second approach assumes time to be the constant of the system with a view to focus on the repercussions of change in space. Both these approaches are like the partial equilibrium approach in orientation, which allows only one of the two or more factors/ forces to change at a time. It is probably to keep complexities, resulting from time-space continuum changing together, away from the analytical framework. There is one difference between equilibrium method of analysis and comparative method and that has to be noted. The comparative method does not assume the state of equilibrium to exist; it takes the phenomenon/entity as it is. It is compatible both with the state of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Interestingly, equilibrium, general as well as partial, takes the condition(s) of equilibrium as the norm/standard with which the actual state of the system is compared. Distance between actual location/condition from the equilibrium state manifests the distance and direction required to be traversed to eliminate the gap/distance. Thus, equilibrium method is also implicitly, if not explicitly, comparative in nature. In the general equilibrium framework, both time and space differences may have to be incorporated in the analytical framework, which shall pose serious challenge to the comprehension of the whole as distinct from the understanding of the part. If the system is in disequilibrium at any point in time or space, the assumption of equilibrium will collapse in the absence of comparative framework. The comparative method examines dissimilarities at different temporal points or distinct spatial entities as the basis of analytical comparison. Dissimilarity may either relate to the causative factor(s) or its outcome or even both. The comparative method logically evaluates dissimilarities for detecting and discerning the temporal or spatial patterns and/or uniformities that flow from time or spatial distances/ differences, though the conventional view focuses on the comprehension of difference or dissimilarity rather than similarity or uniformity itself (Cf. Teune, 1990). These dissimilarities then may form the basis of formulating generic propositions. This is the conventional view of comparative method. Both time difference and spatial distance have been assumed to lead to dissimilarities or differences in the basic features/behaviour of entities/ phenomena. But the comparison of similar or dissimilar entities or phenomena may be one among several layers of the subject and thrusts of logic used in comparative analysis. The objective may be to use logic and evidence jointly or separately as a procedure to unify the given field of knowledge, that may be based on the formulation of propositions of general nature, derivable from the similarity of experience/ outcome(s) cause(s). Alternatively, contrast between dissimilar or desperate conditions/ experiences/ evidences and their outcomes by the detection of uniformities of pattern and/or structure through movement in time and/ or space may throw up generic conclusions. Policies or operations/processes may also be compared to

identify either convergence or divergence of outcomes they may lead to. After all, there are only three possibilities that may characterise available evidence and/or experience: (a) similarities or dissimilarities; (b) conformance or deviance or dissonance between the systems/ operations and their outcomes; and (c) congruent and convergent or totally contrasting and divergent processes and their similar/dissimilar outcomes. Difference between b) and c) is that of degree. Congruence and convergence relate to tendency or trend rather than homogeneity. As against this, conformance is largely a point of agreement. Obviously, a wide compass of numerous possibilities, their combinations or permutations have been compressed into above 3 broad categories. Comparison may facilitate the identification of one of these possibilities, that may logically be associated as the most probable outcome/state of the operational factors, or policies, or process and/or systems.

Static, Stationary and Dynamic States and Comparative Method In my view, the time difference or spatial distance may be a necessary but not the sufficient condition for generation of dissimilarity(ies). If the factor(s), that determines operational/behavioral outcome, does not change, time difference or spatial distance will be neutralized. What is important is not the time difference or spatial distance but the process of change and its outcome that holds the key to comparison or contrast. If outcome remains the same, despite the lapse of time or distance in space, it is similarity rather than difference or distance that emerges as the focus of attention. In such cases, two states of the same entity/unit/phenomenon at two points in time, or entities/phenomena at different spatial locations will not exhibit any difference, or change from its initial state/condition. This may be understood and appreciated better if the distinction between stationary and static and static and dynamic states is understood. Different sets of operational variables/factors and their response(s) to the causative factor(s) may be distinguished on the basis of dissimilarities. Such variables may reflect three types of states/status that arise from interrelations. First, we may distinguish independent from dependent variable(s) among the inter-related variables. Then, One Way or Unidirectional Determining and Causally Determined variables may be distinguished from Mutually Related variables. In a stationary state, none of these variables displays any change. A stationary state is immune to any change, and hence, the production of dissimilarity. This may conform to Mills Method of Agreement. A stationary state does not change from one to another point in time, it remains the same. Similarity rather than dissimilarity is its hallmark. The stationary state operates in accordance with its own laws and procedure. Change may, however, be of various types. Typology of change has, therefore, to be defined to distinguish one from another type of change: i) Once for All Change; ii) Historically Repeating Change; and iii) Change in a continuum. Stationarity does not admit any change whatsoever. It is thus a no change situation/condition, which is characterized by similarity or even uniformity. Three other types of changes may also be distinguished according to their source of origin: changes emanating from i) autonomously operating factors/forces within the system; ii) Autonomously operating exogenous factors that have an impact upon the system but these are not affected themselves by the endogenous variables of the system; and iii) Deliberately introduced change through contrived experimentation, or introduction of policy directed change, or planned replication of some experience. Above three types of change may operate in conjunction with any one of above types of change. Their various combinations may involve different configurations. Understanding of these differences is important because human and social changes have generally been based on learning from the willfully contrived

experiments or experiences and the initiating of change in polity/system/community for the realization of desired outcomes. Tuene, however, opines that the goal of change is learning and taking the benefit out of others experience or experiment rather than testing or creating theory on ones own. Tuene thus implicitly denies the possibility of policy making either on the basis of theoretical paradigms, or on the basis of own experience. This is in contradistinction to the Keynesian interventionist or Friedmanian non-interventionist policies, which arose from their specific theoretical moorings. It also denies the experiences of Fabian experiments, or large number of countries that were inspired by the success of Soviet Model of Planned Development. Once for all change has unit (one) as its frequency. Once it has occurred, it shall not recur or repeat itself either in foreseeable time or space; its non-recurrence is in an infinite horizon. But no-one can vouch-safe for infinite time-span. Hence, it has to be understood as a definite and finite time horizon in which a particular once for all change is ruled out to materialize again. Once for all change has off necessity to be exogenous. If it is endogenous, it may be in-built in the system. Hence, such change may occur frequently. Invasion of Alexander on India, French Revolution, end of British rule over India or disintegration and disappearance of Mughal Empire are examples of a once for all change. Stationary state is not compatible even with such an once for all change. Historically repeating or cyclical change occurs at some specific/ regular interval of time. Periodic crop failures and consequent famines in British India, foreign invasions of India through Sind-Panjab land route, whenever Indian polity was in a fragmented and weak state(s) during the medieval period, are examples of cyclically or historically repeating changes. Similarly, recurrence of recession in national economies is a repetitive cyclical change. Stationary State admits both once for all and periodically repetitive changes. The static state, as distinct from stationary state, is compatable with change provided that the change is either historically repeating or cyclical in nature. In a static state, the once for all change alters the state only once, then the system operates in a stable pattern. But the system before and after such a change may be compared. For example, some historians opine that Alexanders invasion of India was like a storm that uproots some trees of a forest, leaving the rest of the forest untouched. As against this, Mohmad Gauris victory over Prithvi Raj Chauhan led to the establishment of the slave dynasty, which ruled India for quite some time. Such cases fall within the purview of the method that economists have defined as statics or comparative statics. Dynamic state is characterized neither by changelessness of the system nor is it associated with cyclical or historically repetitive or once for all change. It rather encompasses change in the continuum of space-time. Continuity of the ceaseless process of change may tend to make even the observation of change of this nature difficult, what to say of understanding and explaining of the same. Method of comparative statics may, however, be used to study the dynamic system(s). Comparative statics is like a photographic representation of ceaselessly changing dynamic system at a moment. It is like the picture taken by a movie camera (Mehta, J.K., 1959). It records the system as it is at an initial and a terminal point in time in order to compare and contrast these two states of the system. In practice, the method may encompass both similarities and dissimilarities. The objective of comparative analysis of similarities is to detect and discern stylised uniformity in pattern, or causative factor(s), or outcome of the systems operations with a view to formulate general propositions. In case of focus on dissimilarity, the objective is again to identify and highlight the systematized cause of a given stylized outcome. None but one variable is allowed to be different for this purpose. Thus, the dissimilarity is generally associated with one parameter/variable alone. The observance of Stylised Dissimilarity may be used to propound some law of general nature, or prediction of the outcome of a given cause/factor, whose presence in one and absence in another state is assumed to have led to the

emergence of dissimilarity. It is obvious that the cause or consequence of change is the centre piece of comparative method and its analytical framework, irrespective of the focus being on similarities or dissimilarities. However, the differences of operational modes and mechanisms, that is, the way change occurs and the process of change, as distinct from the consequence or cause of change or change itself, may also account for differences or dissimilarities. Analysis of the process and its time path is the pivot of dynamic method of investigation. This may be defined as the dynamic comparative method. These postulates differ from the position of Teune and several other traditional analysts. Some of the above facets of comparative method may be illustrated by the Mills use of it. In the context of protectionist controversy, Mill explained the conditions that are to be satisfied for the application of the method of difference: If two nations can be found which are alike in all natural advantages and disadvantages; whose people resemble each other in every quality, physical and moral, spontaneous and acquired; whose habits, usages, opinions, laws, and institutions are the same in all respects, except that one of them has a more protective tariff or in other respects interferes more with the freedom of industry; if one of these nations is found to be rich and the other poor, or the richer than the other, this will be an experimentum cruces: a real proof by experience, which of the two systems is most favourable to national riches. However, modern economics defines such cases as falling within the purview of comparative statics. The static method of comparison abstains and abstracts from the process of change in order to focus on the outcome(s) of change or its mechanism. In such cases, it does not matter whether change occurs in time or over space. Comparative Statics is often explained by contrasting it with the stationary state, though it also stands in contrast to Social/Economic Dynamics. Static, in fact, lies between the stationary and dynamic. But the inclusion of either temporal or spatial process of change or differentiation, or both rather than its final outcome(s) within the analytical compass will transform the method from comparative statics into comparative dynamics. It shall be much more complex and intricate than the usual comparative method or comparative statics. For understanding the difference between these two, it may be noted that a stationary system is self-replacing and self sustaining. It reproduces itself from one to another time period and/or from one to another spatial point without change. A static system/ entity may, however, encompass historically repeating, or cyclical, or once for all changes in time or space. These features of stationary system shall be characterized by similarities in pattern, structure, and even in consequences most of the times. Method of comparison can naturally focus on these similarities, associated with either the changeless system or with temporal or spatial changes and their consequences. Incidentally, these changes are built within the system, and hence, these are basically endogenous in nature. The changes and consequences thereof, caused by some exogenous factor or force, are neither inbuilt within the system nor are these repetitive or once for all in nature. The distances in space or differences in time may, however, lead to both operational dissimilarities and differential consequences thereof. These may easily be encompassed within the method of comparative statics. This is termed static, since the process of change and its temporal or spatial path of movement is not an essential component of analysis. If either of these two aspects is included in the analytical framework, the method may be defined as comparative dynamics. Steps in Comparative Method and Evidence Comparative method involves i) Conceptualization of the subject of study; ii) Identification and selection of temporal/ spatial units to be investigated and the identification of phenomena for study; iii) Selection of specific aspect/facet/trait as the basic objective of study. It may be development/change/structure/ policy; iv) Marshalling of evidence either about similarities or

dissimilarities, or both, that are germane to the problem of study. But it does not mean selection of each and everything. It is also unlike the case/ area study; v) Selection of the Mode/Mechanism of comparison; vi) Application of concepts and analytical tools to evidence; vii) Identification of operational mechanism, its features and factors determining the outcome(s); ix) Conclusion from comparative analysis. For example, Malthus selected population growth as the facet/phenomenon of study, collected evidence from the countries that fulfilled certain conditions. Then, he analysed the evidence to formulate his population theory. Similarly, some economists chose the level of tariffs and their impact on growth for study; x) Drawing of inference(s) from analytical results; and xi) Suggestion of alternative(s), if warranted. In so far as the empirical evidence is concerned, it may be historical, experimental, experiential or statistical. In many cases, evidence may comprise of extensive statistical data/information. It may be noted that the evidence, that is, facts or figures constitute, in a manner of speaking, the raw materials of comparative method. The method may, therefore, be dubbed empirical and as at least quasi inductive. One may, however, has to note the following three strands of thought regarding the usefulness of empirical evidence: I. One stream of thought holds the view that Nothing can ever be proved by evidence/figures. Proof probably lies in the logic, underlying the analysis of facts or figures and the interpretation of results that those figures/facts may lead to. It is probably because of this that Marshall declared that data do not speak for themselves, they have to be made to speak. The improbability of proving anything on the basis of facts arises from the following probable but complementary factors: i) facts are always incomplete or partial, it is not possible to draw any conclusive inference from incomplete facts. In view of this limitation, inference or conclusion drawn from data may tend to be provisional and tentative; ii) there is always the possibility of garnering more facts as time lapses or spatial context changes, which may not conform to the presently available facts, and which may possess features that make the two sets of facts incompatible. Addional evidence may so radically differ from what is currently available as may refute the inference or invalidate the proposition that may be drawable from the initially given facts; iii) probability of alternative logic that may lead to different conclusion(s); iv) probable divergence of approach, views and interpretations of results emerging from the analysis of evidence among scholars; and v) reality, embodied by facts, is part actual and part perceptual. Perceptions may, however, differ among scholars. II. Another stream of thought stresses that Anything can be proved by facts/figures. It is because the facts are compatible with different interpretations. The interpretations may themselves be embodied in the theoretical or policy framework of analysis. Then, facts are also amenable to the application of different methods or approaches. This points towards the fragility of facts or evidence in the context of logic used and interpretations offered on the one hand, and the flexibility of understanding that facilitate the compability of any given set of facts with the competing and even conflicting inferences on the other. Perceptional differences and ideological predilections of scholars also lead to differences in views/opinions, even though the factual base remains the same. These factors facilitate the use of evidence to draw an inference(s) to validate the chosen postulation; and III. Third strand of thought asserts that Nothing can ever be disproved by facts or figures. This postulation highlights that i) theory or principle is not fact specific. It is governed more by a) assumptions that are used as the base of theorizing, b) subtlety of texture with which facts are fused/ synthesized into the theoretical framework may make it

difficult to invalidate the given proposition, and c) logical plausibility of an alternative cause being compatible with the observed consequence makes it possible to speculate that the idea/concept/hypothesis under investigation has a reasonable chance of being valid. It is probably because of these facets that positivists are inclined more towards deduction rather than induction as an instrument of scientific research. Above discussion leads us to believe that any evidence used for analysis can, at the best, facilitate only tentative hypothesisation/ theorizing. Development Experience Development economists have often used comparative method to examine and evaluate i) historical or contemporary evidence about the level of growth achieved and the growth path traversed by nations, or regions/states within nations, and even smaller entities such as districts, sectors, industries within regions/states with a view to draw general inferences about the systems behaviour and/or growth or development. Use of comparative method, based on extensive development related evidence has facilitated the evolution of the general theory of growth (Kuznets, 1969, Lewis, 1956, Clark, 1954). It also enabled the formulation of such concepts as a) Stages of Growth, and b) Take-off (Rostow, 1960). Thus, the method attempted to identify or even evolve the policies and/or infer propositions, which are general in nature, from the available evidence or outcomes of the processes or operations under observation. Entities of comparison may, however, be geographical or administrative units, systems, organizations or parts thereof, and such other phenomena as processes and/or conditions that shape and guide operations or their outcomes may also be the focus of comparison. Development economists focus on change or movement in time and its pattern, form, and/or structure. As against development economists, sociologists have persistently used the comparative method for the formulation of postulations about the emergence of culture, social institutions and traditions, whereas, development experiences and the observed processes of development have furnished the base of formulation of such concepts as Modernization, Society in Transition and the State of Social Flux. The political scientists and historians have generally focused on the formation of empires/nations/states/countries on the one hand, and evolution of political systems, organizations, administrative systems etc. on the other (Cf. Teune, 1990). The observed experiences/experimentation of some developing countries have been used comparatively to propound such new concepts as Guided or Controlled Democracy and theorizing about the success or failure of coalition governments in multi-party democratic systems. Temporaneous Comparative Method Differentiation and distinction between two or more components of the continuum of time, divided arbitrarily into parts, constitutes the basis of this method. The method may be combined with one of many techniques of analyzing evidence/facts. Periodisation of time into two or more parts has been a very common approach of this method. Economists, Sociologists and Political Scientists have used this method very extensively. This method could easily be combined with the historical, experimental and experiential evidence as the support base. Regression Estimates of Growth Rates, Difference and Differential Equation Models and Dummy Variable models have been popular among mathematical economists and econometricians for studies in a comparative framework. Mathematical models may map out the entire time path of movements on the basis of the given initial conditions(s) and specification of the structure of the model. Periodisation and Temporal Comparison

The process of demarcating and dividing the continuum of time into compartments is known as periodisation and the analysis of each period/ sub-period separately with a view to compare the results of analysis of each period with one another has been the part of the period analysis (See Baumol, 1959). Period analysis may well be adopted as the instrument of comparative method of study. There are two alternative techniques available for such studies: i) complete time path(s), traversed by the variable(s) or system as a whole may be traced and analyzed; and ii) time-path of movement may be overlooked, while value(s) at the beginning of the period and terminal value(s) may be worked out and compared. If two different time periods are involved, an appropriate indicator of performance during the entire duration of two periods may also be estimated and compared. This also falls within the purview of comparative method of research. Naturally, periodisation has been found to be quite helpful for such comparative as well as evaluationary studies (Sharma, 1998). The analysis of outcomes in a comparative framework furnishes an idea about the relative performance/outcome/result in two or more periods, which have been distinguished by different policies or features in operation or conditions in prevalence (Prakash, 1994, Sharma, 2002). Periodisation attempts to divide/classify the continuum of time into two or more parts on the presumption that the dividing line of this continuum furnishes such watershed(s) as represents a structural break or change in vital condition(s)/factor, that affects operation(s) of the system and its outcome(s). The break may itself be represented by i) Cessation of the operation of a) well defined trend, that might have characterized the functioning of a system/sub-system/economy/tradition/ values/ institutional set up or behaviour of a variable or a group of variables; or b) Break may mark the reversal of direction of the trend, or it may just herald the movement in a direction different from the earlier one; or ii) Absence in one and presence in another period of a well defined change or operational condition(s), that prevailed upto a point in time but gave way to different condition(s), may mark the period(s) under consideration. Such condition(s) may be associated with some natural, political, social, economic or organizational facet. But absence of the former and presence of later condition is assumed to exercise a decisive influence on the system under study; iii) Presence/ absence of well marked forces/factors/variables, that may be associated either with historical or natural or social-economic processes and/or operations, may distinguish one from another period; or iv) Termination of one and initiation of another policy, having a bearing upon the operations and/or outcomes of the functioning of the system/variable may characterize these periods; or v) The trend, operating upto a given point, may register a structural break. Therefore, a new trend might have emerged. The statistical significance of the difference of paired parametric estimates of trend growth rates may be used to evaluate the differential performance of sector(s)/economy. The difference will highlight the impact of a given change/break/policy. Regression estimates of annual compound growth rates may also be used in combination with periodisation (Sharma, 2002, Prakash and Sharma, 2001). One may also heuristically compare the distinctive periods on the basis of overall evidence and the distinctive features, associated with specific periods, to facilitate inferential conclusions a la Rostowian Theory of Stages of Growth. Dummy Variable and Temporal Comparison Dummy variable based estimates of regression parameters may offer an alternative to the detailed periodisation as a method of analysis. Incidentally, glaring errors, conceptual, philosophical and methodological, committed in two different studies, that used dummy variable are highlighted here. A critical note on one of these studies by Shalini Sharma (1996) had been published in EPW, which has preceded the second study by Bhatt (1996). The regression model used in these studies is outlined hereunder: ln Y= b(0)+b(1)t + b(2)D + b(3)t D + U ..... (1)

where Y is the variable growth of which is to be evaluated during pre and post reform periods, D is dummy variable, having value 0 for the pre-reform and value one for reform period, t is time and U is error term. In this regression model, natural numbers, 1,2,3,.., are assigned as values to time variable, t. Obviously, time is assumed to change discretely rather than continuously. It is measured by discrete numbers the range of which is defined by the duration of time span covered by the study. Like t, dummy variables, D also relate to time. Besides, dummy variables D also pertain to the same years both in pre and post reform periods as t relates to, but D is treated as a binary variable, having 0 and 1 as values for specified years of time in pre and post reform periods, depending upon whether a year falls in pre or post reform period. Unlike the range of t, range of D is compressed between 0 and 1, corresponding to two parts into which the entire period has been divided. It may be noted that time has entered the model as a determinant of the dependent variable and both t and D relate to the same time variable. Conceptually and philosophically, the same given unit/entity/variable, time in this case, can not be measured in two alternative ways in the same study. Individual years, attached to t, are measured by natural numbers in a continuum within 1 to T range, while same units of t, defined by D, are assigned either 0 or 1 as values in binary range of 0 and 1. This is erroneous. I, however, do not blame Bhatt for this error, since he is following standard econometric model available in literature (See, Gujarati, 1989). The error is rather professional and profession has failed to either take cognizance of the criticism of this approach by S. Sharma or refute her arguments, though her comments have been published by a highly popular publication like Economic and Political Weekly. It is obvious that b(1)+b(3) in equation 1 furnish an estimate of the coefficient of variable t and tD. Since D has either zero or unity as value for all the years, covered either by pre or post reform period; variable D is not subjected either to differentiation or differencing. If D equals unity, then b3 becomes the coefficient of t. Why should the same variable be included twice in the model? However, it is above understanding that considers b(2) to measure the difference of intercept between post and pre-reform periods, while b(0) is the usual intercept. D obviously measures the influence of all variables other than t on Y, since its coefficient is interpreted to reflect the intercept, that is, autonomous value of Y, independent of t (Rao and Miller, 1972). Thus, D is the part of autonomous value. But then the variable D is assumed to act in conjunction with the explanatory variable t in third term of the equation. If it is part of the explanatory variable, it has to be subjected to differentiation, which shall yield the slope estimate. If D is constant, uniformly having unity as value and not subject to differentiation, as is the case with any variable associated with intercept, then it can not be interpreted to have any association with the slope coefficient. We can not retain contradictory assumptions, or treatment, or interpretation. The standard regression equation is Y=b(0)X(0) + b(1)X(1) + b(2) X (2) + U (2)

In this equation, X(0) has unity as its value uniformly, and because of this constancy of X(0), if X(1) and X(2) are zero, value of the parameter b(0) is interpreted as autonomous influence on Y, independent of X(1) and X(2). But in the dummy variable model, D acts both as an autonomous and as a part of explanatory apparatus. This embodies logical fallacy. Then, if equation 1 is differenced or differentiated with respect to t, it shall yield

dY b(1)dt b(3)dt Y [b(1) b(3)]dt

.. (3)

This will hold only if D is treated as a constant and equal to unity. But then D can not be treated as an explanatory variable. b(1) can easily be defined as annual compound rate of growth for the entire period, not for any sub-period, where dt equals unity through out the period of observation. But in dummy variable case, b(1) is interpreted to represent the slope for pre-reform period for which D has O as its value. Now, in order to see the other implications of model 4, let it be assumed that E(U(i))=0, and

E ln Y (i) D 0, t (i) b(0) b(1)t

.. (4) ...(5)

and E ln Y (i) D 1, t (i) {b(0) b(2)} {b(1) b(3)}t

Equations 4 and 5 may be interpreted as the growth functions of post and pre reform periods, where b(2) measures intercept difference and b(3) the slope difference of these two periods. These growth implications are derivable only if the values of D are substituted into the equation and differencing/ differentiating is performed after this substitution. If, however, differencing/ differentiating is performed on equation 1, as it is, one has difficulties. Then, it is the sum of b(1) and b(3) in relation 5 and dt in relation 3, which emerges as the coefficient of t or dt; t represents entire period as one composite unit. Naturally, b(1) and b(3) have to be taken jointly rather than severally for the interpretation of results. This will make the interpretation of these coefficients severally for pre and post reform period crumble. Bhatt (1996) seems to have been oblivious of these technical and conceptual problems that the specification of equation 1 embodies. Shalini Sharma has critically commented upon a similar study published in EPW. These specifications are fine, if one does not impose semi-log specification for the derivation of growth rates. If one directly derives the growth implication from equation 4 by differentiating or differencing, one shall encounter difficulties with respect to differences/ differentials of D. All values of D, their differences, and product tD will equal zero, if D is constant. Differences for post reform period shall also be zero. These conceptual and methodological problems have been overlooked, though this model is a part of literature. Analysis of variance and covariance also involves the use of comparative method (For Difference Equations Based Models of Education, See Correa and Tinbergen, 1962, also See, Bos and Correa, 1971 Prakash for Difference Equation Models of Population Growth and Education, 1976,1977). Comparison of Distinct States/Conditions Many facets of socio-economic reality are qualitative in nature. The variable(s) or parameter(s) may not admit cardinal measurement; ordinal measurement may, however, be compatible with qualitative variables. Even the absence or presence of some trait may facilitate categorization or classification. For example, available information may be classified in two groups according to gender. Several Non Parametric Tests, such as Sign Test, Signed Rank Test and Coefficient of Association, or Coefficient of Contingency as the Test Criterion have been developed and their application involves comparison. Spatial Comparative Method It has already been discussed that the focus of comparative method is change, its cause and effect. Whereas natural and physical sciences are concerned with change in space, social sciences focus mainly on change in time, though the emergence of Regional Science has facilitated the incorporation of analysis of change in space in social sciences also. Concerns with Spatial Aspects of Development, specially spatial inequalities in the post second war period, politically and socially different contexts and their impact on operational decisions,

community specificity of Values and Traditions and their overall effect on systems can also be studied in comparative framework. Use of comparative method by social scientists, specially economists, geographers and sociologists, has facilitated the shift in exclusive focus from change in time to change in space. It may, therefore, be averred that comparative method concentrates on the comparison of change(s) either in time or space, or both. However, the basic objective of comparison of a given entity at two points in time is to discern and detect dissimilarities, that the process of change in time definitely leads to. As against this, discovery of similarities may guide the comparison of two or more entities at a single point in time. It is implied that the temporal distance produces dissimilarities and differences. These dissimilarities or differences are envisaged to arise from change in time, while space is held constant. The effect of process of temporal change tend to transform the very variables or factors, policies or procedures, structures and patterns that guide change itself. These guideposts are greatly likely to vary in time. It may, therefore, implicitly be assumed that the constancy of time leads to similarity(ies) even though one may focus on two or more spatial entities. In the comparison of spatial entities, involving spatial distance, may logically be assumed to lead to similarity or uniformity, since constancy of time involves zero time distance. But this may or may not be the case in reality. The distance in space is also conventionally assumed to relate to changes or differences that have emerged, even though time might have been kept constant; these differentials are sought to be compressed, comprehended, explained and highlighted through comparative method with a view to deduce and infer general proposition(s). If similarities characterize different spatial entities of comparison, when changes in time are held constant or neutralized, similarities may be analysed to draw inferences about the pattern(s) and/or structure(s). It is, however, not uncommon to discover divergence rather than convergence emerging out of spatial comparisons (Cf. Teune, 1984). Logic warrants that we should assume that both time difference and space distance are compatible both with uniformities/ similarities and diversities/dissimilarities. The comparison of two different entities at a single point in time may often highlight differences and dissimilarities, even though the entities of comparison may be quite comparable in certain respects. It may be due to the hidden or even apparent differences arising out of spatial/ locational distances. Spatial distances are often closely associated with socio-economic, politico-administrative, cultural and institutional differences, that condition and guide operational system(s) and their modes of functioning. So spatial distances, in my view, are as much capable of throwing up differences and dissimilarities as are temporal distances, characterizing these entities. Therefore, comparison(s), which constitutes the hub of comparative method, may relate to a) nations, or smaller entities within the nation, b) level and/or structure of development reached/ attained, c) systems evolved, and institutions/organizations developed, d) problems faced and remedies discovered, and e) policies evolved and implemented. Comparison and contrast of development or achievement(s) may involve either time, or space, or even both. This process of comparison starts with the identification, collection and arrangement of evidence, that is, facts/data or observations that pertain to i) entities at a given point in time, or ii) a given phenomenon/entity at different points in time with a view to detect, discern, discover, and hence, deduce similarities and/or dissimilarities, strengths and weaknesses, patterns and structures, regularity/uniformity of movement or path(s) traversed. For example, the level and structure of development of the countries of first and second worlds in post second war period is often compared with a view to highlight the differences and divergences in their achievements, which are then imputed to differences in structures and systems and the policies associated with the same. The differences in socio-economic conditions, policy orientation and even the modes and mechanisms of policy implementation or functioning may be envisaged to have led to differences and dissimilarities. As against this, even if the same policy is pursued continuously, the very success of policy changes the problems, structures etc.. These changes will make the policy inappropriate under these changed circumstances (Prakash, 1994). So, while dissimilarities are quite natural to be expected from

temporal comparison of the given entity at two points in time, dissimilarities may also emerge from the comparison of two or more spatial entities at the given point in time. Both dissimilarities and similarities may have to be analysed to yield useful generalizations from the comparison of either temporal or spatial entities at or through time and space. The Principles or laws, that purport to be common generalizations, focus both on similarities and dissimilarities, and convergence and divergence. The differences or divergences, as Mill postulated (1843, 1961), have to be explained, whereas similarities or conformance and congruence endow these generalisations with the capacity to encompass wider space as well as facilitate predictability in time even if the long temporal traverse is involved. These two sets of generalizations may, however, be different qualitatively, thrust, scope of coverage and power of explanation and prediction. International Comparison In the post second war period, spatial comparative method focused on international comparisons which have been greatly popular. US not only encouraged such studies but it also provided liberal funding during the cold war era (Teune, 1990). International comparisons hover largely around inter country comparisons. Comparison involves the acceptance/ approval and use of some norm or standard. Standard may be hypothetical in which case it has to be conceptualized. Such standard is likely to be perfect in conception or design. Perfect Competition is such an hypothetical norm. Standard or norm may also be real in which case it is likely to be empirical. The standard may also be drawn from ethics and values, or political or economic ideology. Such comparisons may explicitly or even implicitly be based on the acceptance of one country as a norm/standard. Comparison and contrast then assumes that other country has to come upto this norm or standard. Most of the comparative studies, specially those funded by US, implicitly or even explicitly assumed the i) institutional set up, ii) decision and behavioural modes, and iii) achievements of US economy and society to act as the standard upto which others have to come and with which the currently prevailing state has to be compared to delineate not only the direction but also distances to be covered. The development economists, political scientists and sociologists have used the comparative method usually for such inter country comparisons. Comparative religion, comparative education, and comparison of health systems also provide instances of comparative studies. Country comparisons are assumed to be helpful in deducing and/or discerning and discovering (i) general principles or laws of change in time on the one hand, and the best or worst scenarios that may be envisaged as outcomes of the operational factors, systems, organizations, values and culture, or policies that lead to predicted outcomes in future on the other. Unlike the German Historical School, analysts who depend on comparative method for country comparisons, implicitly assume that, like the laws of nature or principles of physical sciences, the laws governing society and / or economy are also universal in nature and these are independent of time and space related profile; (ii) the best development policy(ies), or social set up or socio-politico-economic change, that has the capability to facilitate the realization of specified goals/targets and broader objective(s) having general approval and approbation (of those who are accepted as the standard and or guideposts) tend to operate with similar results. It implies that, if a policy/system has been successful in a country at some point in time, that country could adhere to it at other points in time also. Similarly, what has succeeded in some country at some point in time, other countries could benefit by following the experiment(s)/ experience(s) of that country at that or other points of time also. Such inferences will autonomously flow from any general proposition about development/ growth, or pattern and structure of change or its consequences, deducible from the employment of comparative method as an analytical tool. Such assumptions are highly abstruse and abstract, and hence, unrealistic. Inferences drawn from such assumptions transgress both the time and space constraints. For example, the success of USSR in achieving extremely rapid economic development in a few decades through centralized

planning, which the market oriented capitalist countries achieved in centuries, inspired numerous developing countries to opt for the model of planned development, dominated by heavy and basic industries. The heavy and basic goods centric planned development model found numerous adherents in the post second war period. Countries like India, having opted for heavy and basic goods centric model of industrialization in a mixed economy and democratic polity, differed in too many respects from USSR or China, which could blur the comparison. One may, however, mention that, like two types of statistical errors, leading either to acceptance of a false, or rejection of a true hypothesis, the above approaches to policy and/or theorization may also involve two types of errors: a) the very success of a particular system/ policy generates changes that make the persistent use of the same in- appropriate; and b) the time lapsed and spatial distance may alter socio-economic conditions to an extent that render the imitation of a successful system/ policy in some other country or smaller/larger spatial unit irrelevant for the late starters (Prakash, 1996, Cf. Teune, 1990). As an illustration of the types of scenarios that inter-country comparisons may throw up, it may be pointed out that the adoption of market based model of development by Germany, France, U.K., other West European countries and Japan in a democratic polity on the one hand, and experimentation with the heavy and basic goods dominated centralized planning model in Comecon group of countries with state based socialist polity on the other during the post war period threw up very contrasting and divergent outcomes of growth. This contrast also arises from too many differences, characterizing two politico-economic systems. Proper use of comparative method suggests the difference in only one and similarities in most other respects. These differential facets still, however, do not completely rule out the use of comparative method in practice. Even though such comparisons do not fulfill all the conditions, stipulated by Mill, or observed by Malthus in studying the demographic phenomenon in Norway and Sweden, the method may still be used while differences in more than one aspect characterize the entities of comparison. Malthus chose these countries for comparison with a great deal of care and caution. These two countries have had a great deal of resemblance in their general economic conditions. Sweden has slight advantage over Norway, which has more conducive climate and favourable soil than Norway. But average mortality of Sweden in proportion to its population was considerably higher than that of Norway. The method of difference or comparison was used by Malthus to determine the causes of differential mortality rates in these countries. He found the prevalence of superior preventive checks to be prevalent in Norway in comparison to Sweden. On deeper probe, he found that i) ten years of compulsory military service; ii) prohibition of marriage without adequate financial means to support a family; iii) general sentiment against early marriage; iv) absence of migration and division of labour, pointing towards possible redundancy of additional workforce, all these factors taken together kept both birth and death rates low in Norway. As against this, Sweden had had i) more varied and higher employment level; ii) possible redundancy very low; iii) high average of marriages in proportion to population; iv) tendency of having more births in response to higher food availability; and v) public policy to encourage population growth. These observed differences made the contrast quite sharp. Thus, similarities and dissimilarities, when juxtaposed in the analytical framework of comparative method, led Malthus to draw the inference(s) that he drew. Such illustrations show the intricacies involved and the deft handling required for the use of comparative method. Random Causes and their Effect As Base of Comparative Method Effect of sudden appearance of some natural cause or fortuitous circumstance has also been examined by the application of comparative method. Radical decline in the supply of labour, caused by Black (Plague) deaths in fourteenth century, affected both wages and growth of output. A comparison of labour supply before and after black deaths highlights the effect of

scarcity of labour on wages. Sir G. C. Lewis evaluated the effect of Irish Potato Famine during the period from 1845-1849. Scarcity of supply during the famine and consequent highly marked rise in price could be linked to each other. Supply and price before and after the famine are then compared in order to deduce the causal link between scarce supply and high price. Development Models and Country Comparisons Post war concern with development put socialist and centrally planned Soviet and Chinese models on the one end of spectrum and capitalist and market based Western models on the other in the centre stage. Within each category, Chinese could be distinguished from Soviet model in several respects; and Japanese, German and French could be distinguished within Western models. Between these two, stood the Indian model that resembled Soviet model with respect to heavy and basic goods in the centre of industrialization and socialistic pattern of society, having public sector as the pivot of development with extensive control, direction and regulation of private enterprise in market operations; while the number of private enterprises in a big chunk of the economy, operating according to the principles of market economy, made it resemble the western model. Political ideology provided the base of these models. Once the base year/period, having similar initial conditions was identified and the terminal period/year was selected, these models, embodying diversities of outcomes of development in respect of the level of GNP, conditions of living etc. offered multiple cases of inter-country comparisons. Comparisons could lead to the identification of less or more development achieved or crudely defined different stages of growth reached as the outcomes resulting from a) efficacy of the market in relation to state control; b) effectiveness of private enterprise and initiatives in comparison to inefficient functioning of the state; and c) effect of individual freedom of choice as against the standardization of human needs, exercise of options by the state for individuals and the regimented as against liberal political order, based on state knows the best as against individual knows the best what is good for him/her. The very concept of development is Western rise in per capita income being its sumum and bonum. Since the seventies, development is global rather than national with such agencies as WTO, WB, IMF attempting uniformisation through a) sustained reduction in diversities in public policy with commonly defined goals; and b) promotion of creativity, risk taking and enterprise, which are rewarded in a market economy. National is replaced by the global system, which contains national as a part of global development. The comparisons are now naturally of part(s) with the whole, or whole with the whole in two different time periods. Method of comparison is thus compatible with the contrast of micro with macro, macro with macro and one time period with another. Equivalence of the entities of comparison is, however, vital. Inter-Country analysis has, however, been selectively applied largely in macro comparisons, while most of the social sciences, such as sociology, anthropology and psychology keep research focused on micro analysis. But the findings of such micro research studies are assumed to be case studies, devoid of the capability of generating basic laws or theories. Notwithstanding the above, research based on comparative method is usually considered to have led to the evolving of sub-disciplines. Comparative Politics, Comparative Education, Comparative Sociology, Comparative Religion are illustrations of such mistaken identification of a method of research used in investigation as a discipline by itself if considered in the context of specific application of comparative method to a particular discipline (Cf. Ragin, 1987). But one may also conceptualise intra-country analysis, involving entities much smaller and lower than the nations as the focus of application of comparative method. On lines similar to those of comparison of the West and East Europe, Bihar and U.P. may be compared with Gujarat and Tamil Nadu for analysing development in the post independence period. Such comparisons may highlight differential movement of different spatial units along the development path during the same period. Rather than

comparing only the outcome(s) and its cause(s), entire (time) path traversed may also be the subject of comparative method. In latter cases, time shall become a continuous rather than a discrete bi-value variable. In such cases, the method used shall be dynamic rather than static comparative method. Analysis of such cases may enable the formulation of laws/ theories about both development and underdevelopment. Intra country comparisons assume that all the systems, by definition, involve similar organisational patterns, hierarchical structures of super and sub-ordination and networking, needing co-ordination, that are based on generic principles (Cf. Teune, 1984). But the cross level generalisations are supposed to constitute macro analysis, though these may involve both inter and intra country comparisons. Intra-country comparisons for a vast and diverse country like India are inevitable. For example, a comparison of Andaman & Nicobar Islands with any other Indian state or Union Territory may furnish cross level generalisations. As comparative method focuses on change and social science research also focuses on change, comparative method may be considered as an appropriate method of social science research. Theories of Social Sciences purport to be the theories of change. These theories are necessarily across time, that is typical or historical in nature; or alternatively, these may also pertain to change in space, the latter may be termed as ahistorical or atypical comparative method. Comparative studies may also relate to analysis of the impact of macro entities on micro units or vice versa. For example, Ramasubramanian (2005) in a recent study, evaluated the economy wide macro impact of micro operations of a single company/ corporate and micro impact of macro operations of the sectors of the economy on one company. Rows and columns of input output table of Indian economy, that corresponded to the products, which particular company produced, were replaced by the company level data. Solution values of output and its sectoral composition after the substitution were compared with the pre-substitution values in initial solution. In this case, all other things, as stipulated by Mill, had been kept the same, except those corresponding to company operations. Similarly, Hemlata (2005), in another study, has used both school level and country level input coefficients of education. This involves comparison neither across time nor through space. This innovative approach to comparative method opens up new possibilities of application. Dada Bhai Naoroji in his Un-British Rule in India, compared the systems of governance in India and Britain of those days in order to evolve his Theory of the Drain which, in my opinion, is first ever Theory of Under-development. He, in fact, fathered the economics of underdevelopment (Cf. Mathur, P.N. 1991). All such studies have to be empirical in nature. For example, in the context of regional science, development of periphery under the impact of pole/centre through linkages also highlights this aspect of comparative analysis. Thus, the comparative method has been the base of several interesting theories/generalizations in different branches of the social science. Choice of Time or Space as the focus of comparison furnishes the analytical framework. Focus on temporal changes may generally involve the study of any entity or phenomenon at two different points in time, the spatial or locational context remaining the same. The choice of spatial change will have two entities as focus. The entities of study in both the cases may, however, be either macro or micro in dimension. From this view point, macro and micro comparisons, listed in my approach as the second group, will only be the sub-components of this group. Hence, first and second groups may overlap in terms of entities or phenomena of study. It will become obvious from the illustrations that follow. Comparative method has very often been directed at any two or more nations achievement, particularly development, and the systems with which they functioned. Such comparisons either attempted to bring out similarities, if not uniformities, or these focused on the detecting of contrasts and dissimilarities in operational outcomes that could then be imputed to differences of styles, policies and/or systems and their structures. These two groups together will exhaust Teunes country comparisons also. This approach abstracts from distances or differences in time. Analysis of spatial or locational change abstracts from the effects of change in time in order to focus exclusively on the spatial dimension of change, which will then be the focus of study

by comparative method. Abstraction from and neutralization of change in time will warrant the holding of time as constant. This may be achieved easily by concentrating attention on two or more spatial entities/ locations of change in space at a single point in time. This freezes change in time. Hence, comparative study or framework in such cases pertains only to one single point/ period in time, whereas it examines the state of two entities/ phenomena, having relational dimension to two or more points in space. This is what Malthus did in analyzing differential growth of population in Norway and Sweden. The method is a deft combination of induction with deductive reasoning in so far as it uses both empirical evidence to support logic and abstraction from details. For focusing attention on temporal changes exclusively, abstraction from and neutralization of the effects of spatial change is warranted. This is easily achieved by holding space constant. This objective is attained, if one examines only the state of one given phenomenon, having the same spatial dimension/ location at different points in time. The differences due to space/ location of change are thus brought under control. It is the motion or change in time that then becomes the subject of study in such cases. This is how the differential growth performance of Indian economy during pre and post indepence periods on the one hand, and pre and post reform periods on the other, has been analyzed by Prakash (2005). Analytical results, derived from both types of studies based on comparative method, could be used to furnish the basis of general propositions, or laws, or policies. Comparison of even smaller entities like organizations/ institutions, their problems and remedies may be the focus of this method. It may, however, be noted that, under certain circumstances, changes both in time and space and the effects of their mutual interactions may be undertaken in a dynamic rather than comparative static framework. But then the focus shall shift from outcomes of change to process of change itself. Contrasting and comparing two or more entities at a given point in time and/or even across time, or comparison of states of two or more entities at different points of time with a view to detect and discern either similarities or dissimilarities, strengths and weaknesses, problems and their solutions may be used to formulate interesting propositions of dynamic nature. General lessons from comparative study of countries, macro generalisations about human behaviour and social systems, and such a theory of development as Stages of Growth may be inferred and/or proposed. The descriptive theory of growth, as enunciated by Clark(1954) and reformulated by Lewis (1960), combined both space and time in their comparison of developed and developing countries to focus on the role of resource transfers from primary to secondary sectors as the cause and mechanism of growth. The analysis of historical and contemporary experiences of the countries in a comparative framework have revealed that i) countries, whose structures are dominated by manufacturing industries, are rich and developed, while the countries, whose economies are dominated by primary production, are poor and developing; and ii) In the competitive electoral political systems, two party systems have greater capacity to change from one to another policy than the multi-party systems (Teuene, 1990). Similarly, during the post second world war period, comparative analysis may highlight that Capitalism and Free Enterprise based economies like Japan and Germany have developed much more rapidly than Socialism and State Enterprise based countries like Poland and Hungary. Changes, both in time and space, are involved in such comparisons. As against this, the comparison of Indian economy in pre and post independent eras reveals that the growth of GDP in the later period has been 3.5 times faster than in the earlier period due to proactive role of the state in development. Besides, real per capita income of colonial India was practically stagnant during the first half of the twentieth century despite the slow population growth, whereas per capita income of independent India has grown at a rate of 2 per cent per annum despite rapid population growth during the second half of the twentieth century (See Prakash, 2005). Similarly, the impact of new economic policy in general and scale and technology upgradation in particular on employment has been studied recently by Prakash

and Balakrishnan (2005). The study, as per the theory of input output modeling, assumes that the technology is represented by Leontief Inverse. Leontief Inverse for 1988-89 and 1993-94 are thus envisaged to encompass the differential technological distance traversed by Indian economy from 1989 to 1994. Final demand of 1989 has been combined both with 1989 and 1994 Leontief Inverse to generate different solution values of output and its sectoral composition. Similarly, final demand of 1993-94 has been used in conjunction with Leontief Inverse of both 1989 and 1994 to generate two different solutions. The study has thus focused on differences of technology at two different points of time, when final demand is kept constant on the one hand, and changes in final demand at two different points of time are allowed to display their effect, when technology remains constant on the other. Thus, the study attempted to isolate the effect of change of i) technology, and ii) final demand on output and its sectoral composition on the basis of comparative method. The comparative method has thus facilitated the analysis of change in i) time, ii) technology, and iii) final demand. Intra and inter-temporal comparisons have also been facilitated with cross comparisons. Labour coefficients have then been combined with the technology matrices to determine i) employment and its sectoral composition, and ii) productivity. The results have facilitated empirical evaluation of a set of hypotheses: whether the growth of Indian economy has been i) employment neutral; or ii) employment displacing; or ii) employment creating. This represents a subtle extension of the comparative method. Macro and Micro Comparisons Rostow, Durkhiem, Marx, Weber, Spenser, and others highlighted the differences in experiences of countries and tried to explain these as a part of the macro theory of development and theory of historical change respectively. This theoretical base, in turn, has been used for predicting the future. For example, the stages of growth, that the developing countries are expected to traverse in the process of movement along the growth path, may be foreseen and predicted from Rostows theory of stages of growth. Similarly, what changes in structure ought to be involved in development may be predicted by the descriptive theory of growth, enunciated by Colin Clark or Arthur Lewis respectively. Off course, the underlying assumption is that now developing countries shall conform to the policy and growth path traversed historically by the industrialized countries of the world. It means that there is the next stage along the development path, or Higher Structure, associated with what is conceived as development or growth with which current stage/structure is to be compared. Lower structure/stage is then the Actual, and Higher Stage/Structure is the Norm/Standard, which is desired to be achieved. Thus, comparative method may be quasi normative and quasi positive in approach, design and orientation. Besides, it implicity assumes the path to be laterally traversed, mechanisms or procedures/ policy to be pursued and instruments to be used to be the same. There is no scope for divergence. It implies uniqueness and want of options, which may not conform to reality. Notwithstanding this, comparative method may throw up general propositions, which may come handy as prescriptive or normative paradigms, that are expected to be accepted and implemented across time and/or space in order to realize a given goal (Prakash, S., 1996, Cf. Henry Teune, 1990). It may, however, be noted that Macroness necessarily assumes aggregative even though it may be implicitly micro. The twin concepts of macro and micro are relational as both these are defined in relation or even contrast to each other. Macro deals with the whole, while micro focuses on parts; macro analyses huge aggregates or averages; whereas micro discusses small entities or values; micro focuses on behavior or decisions of individuals or smaller entities that also involve small quantities. Micro or behavioral decisions analysis, therefore, invariably involves the analysis of human mind, whereas behaviouristic/ human elements get eliminated in aggregation or averaging to arrive at macro values/ aggregates for macro analysis. Therefore, the study of micro parts of the countries, that is, intra country units such as regions/states/provinces, districts/divisions within states and even cities within districts,

based on the use of comparative method involves approach, logic and assumptions similar to those as are involved in cross country or inter-country comparisons (Cf. Teune, 1990). Obviously, comparative analysis of countries or systems is macro in nature. The comparative method may involve either comparison of two or more countries at a point in time, or a comparison of a country/system at two points in time. Later case will also be macro in nature. Macro will necessarily imply that micro variables are involved in the system, though the magnitudes or values of these variables may be macro. The macro comparison may be fraught with the possibility of absurd inferences being drawn at times, since a lot of information may be lost in the process of averaging or aggregating the micro entities. Disadvantage There is no more. Common fallacy than a false argument from cause to effect based on an illegimate application of the comparative method. Besides, this fallacy is not confined to the cases only when an effect is attributed to a cause related to it but also when an effected is imputed exclusively to a cause which may only either be connected to the effect only partially or may be acting in conjunction with other causes also. Examples of the first type may be found in arguments supporting protected trade on the basis of prosperity of US and free trade on the evidence of the prosperity of England (Keynes, p. 199). Marshall the second type of error when the cautions- against treating the new forces of competition as exclusively responsible for those sufferings of the English working classes at the end of the last century and the beginning of this, which were partly due to war, bad harvests, and last, but not least, a bad poor law. That law was itself antagonistic to free competition, which it set aside in favour of a crude form of socialism, that exercised a degrading influence of character (Principles of Economics, Vol. 1, 1st Edition, p. 717, Note). Comparative Method: Comparision of an entity at different points in time, or comparison of two or more/different entities at a given point in time is associated with comparative method. Comparisions can be both across time and space Use of temporal and/or spatial logics of comparison. It is one of several logic pursued to unify the fields of knowledge and disperate experiences.Methodology of science may be defined as the principles of knowing. Henry Teune, In Else Oyen (Ed) Comparative Methodolgy, Sage, 1990. Comparing Countries: Lessons Learned Comparison of nations, achievements, development, systems, even smaller entities like institutions, problems and their remedies. Contrasting and comparing two or more entities at a given point in time or even across time (stages of growth), an entity at different points of time to detect and discern similarities as well as dissimilarities, strengths and weaknesses, problems and their solutions. Historians have been persistently comparative to address the formation of cultures/empires, nations, countries, administrative systems etc.. General lessons from comparative study of countries macro generalisations about human systems stages of growth theory, In competitive electoral political systems, two party systems have greater capacity to change policy than multi-party systems. Macro necessarily imply micro variables involved in the systems is fraught with the possibility of absurd infrences being drawn.

However, the basic objective of comparison is to discern and detect dissimilarities that the process of change in time has resulted in, whereas the discovery of similarities guides the comparision of different entities at a given point in time. Obviously, temporal distance is envisaged to produce dissimilarities and differences, while the spatial differences are sought to be compressed to deduce similarities. Development economists and sociologists have used comparative method for country comparision. Country comparision are assumed to be helpful in deducing or discerning and discovering (i) general principles or laws of change. *(ii) to learn about the best development policy(ies) or social change. It implies that if a policy has been successful in a country at some point in time, that country could * [unlike the German Historical School, such analyst seem to assume that, like the laws of nature, the laws governing society and, or economy are universal in nature, independent of time and space;] advere to it at other points in time. Similarly, what has succeeded in some country at some point in time, other countries could benefit from the experimental experience of those countries at that or other times. For example, the success achieved by USSR in extremely rapid economic development in a few decades through centralized planning which the market oriented capitalist countries achieved in cneturies inspired numerous developing countries to opt for planned development. The heavy and basic goods centric planned development model found numerous adverents in the post second war period. One way, however mention that, like two types of statiscal errors leading either to the acceptance of a false, or the rejection of a true ingpothesis, this approach also involves two types of errors: a) the very success of a particular policy generates changes that make the persistent use of the same in appropriate, and b) the time lapsed and space relative change may alter the socio-economic conditions to an extent that render the imitation of a successful policy in some country irrelevant (Prakash, 1996, cf. Teune, 1990). Country comparisions have, however, been selectively applied largely to some sort of macro comparisions, while most of the social science research remains focused on micro analysis. But the findings of such researches are assumed to be some sort of case studies devoid of generating. Besides, research base on comparative method is usually treated as a subdiscipline by itself. Comparative Politics, Comparative Education, Comparative Sociology. Comparative Religion are its ilustrations (Ragin, 1987). Macroness necessarily implies micro. The twin concepts of macro and micro are relational as both these concepts are defined in relation or even contrast to each other. Macro deals with the whole, while micro focuses on parts; macro analyses big aggregates or averages, whereas micro discusses decision of individuals or entities involving smaller quantities; micro analysis invariably involves analysis of human mind, whereas behaviouristic human elements get eliminated in the process of aggregation or averaging. Therefore, the comparative study of micro parts of countries that is, intra countries such as regions/states/provinces and even cities involves the similar approach, logic and assumptions as are involved in cross country or inter-country comparisions (Cf. Teune, 1990). Bihar and U.P. may be compared with Gujarat and Tamil Nadu for analysing development in post independence period. Intra country comparisions assume that all systems, by definition involve organisational patterns, hierarchical structures of super and sub-ordination and net working needing co-ordination that are based on generic principles (Cf. Teune, 1984). Cross level generalisations are supposed to constitute macro theory of social sciences; these theories purport to be the theories of change. These theories are necessarily across time or historical in nature. Comparative studies may also relate to the analysis of the impact of macro entities on micro units or vice versa. All such studies have to be emperical in nature. The Principles or the laws that purport to be common generalisation focus both on similarities and divergences. The differences or divergences, as Mill postulated (1843, 1961), have to be

explained, whereas the similarities or conformance congruence endow these generalisation with predictability. Durkhiem, Marx, Weber, Spenser, Rostow and others highlighted differences in experiences and tried to explain these as a part of macro theory of development and theory of historical change. Turn, the theoretical base has been used for predicting the future. For example, the stages of growth that now developing countries shall traverse along the growth path may be foreseen from the theory of Rostow and what changes in structure shall be involved in development may be predicted by the theory of growth enunciated by Clark or Lewis.

i) Since men started searching knowledge

ii) Limited by intellectual ability of a) observation; b) relating one with another event, action or behavior and c) Availability of natural and financial resources.

Example: a) All social laws inspired observed behavior of natural phenomena which are assumed to be governed by Natural Laws, and

Indian conceptualization of life cycle thesis of Ashrams 1) Brahamcharya, 2) Grastha, 3) Vanprastha, and 4) Sanyas patterned on the behavior of 4 seasons of nature

b) Observed behavior of animals e.g. Swan Asan Yoga

iii) Focus on Assessment of achievements, and shortfalls, successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses of 1) macro two or more time periods, 2) two or more countries/regions

Comparative method

1) Two or more entities at a given point in time; 2) Two or more points of time but the entity remains the same; 3) Change-level and pattern and its effect may be gauged; and 4) Factors-causes and consequences may be inferred. 5) Both differences and similarities detected and highlighted

Less dev. similar methods of production and dependence on agriculture

Differ. Growth and industry

Basic objective

Performance evaluation of i) countries, ii) times, iii) people

Subject to norm/standard or other times and units.

Scientific

Mill method of difference and Mill method of agreement complementary Detection of regular patterns of change and their causes

Systems and patterns change Vs stagnation rapid or slow growth i.e. pace of change

Mill

i) ii)

Method of difference Method of Agreement Both complementary Friedmans comparison of capitalists vs. socialists

Pre and post liberalization Pre and post independent Indian growth

At lower levels communities and groups/governments micro

Two or more persons

Method of Agreement Relates cause with consequence same condition(s) exist in two or more cases of the same phenomenon and only one condition is common, that is identified as cause and the other as consequence

Free Enterprise Market

Higher Income

Higher Income

Cause

References Dada Bhai Naoroji, Un British Rule in India, London. Keynes, J.N., (1890) The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Augustus M. Kelley, New York (1965 reprint, fourth edition 1917). Mathur, P. N. (1991) Why Developing Countries Fail to Develop, Macmillan, London. Popper, Karl R. (1968) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., London. Almond, G. and J. Colman (eds) (1960) The Politics of Developing Areas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Baumol, M.J. (1959) Economic Dynamics, Macmillan. Bhati, Amita (2003) Study of Stress Levels in Organizations and its Impact on employees behaviour, Business Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2. Bhatt, P. R. (1996) Structural Reforms in India, The Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXVII, Allahabad University. Bos, H. C. and Tinbergen, Jan (1971) Econometric Models of Education, O.E.C.D. Clark, Colin (1953) The Conditions of Economic Growth, Macmilan. Correa, H. C. and Tinbergen, Jan (1962) Quantitative Adaptation of Education to Accelerated Growth, Kyklos. Friedman, Milton (1982) Ideas Vs Facts. In Bhatt, M.P. and Trivedi, M. S. (Editors) Liberalism and Less Developed Countries, Gujarat University, Ahemdabad. Gujarati, N. Damodar (2003) Basic Econometrics, McgrawHill, New York. Hemlatha (2005) Education in Human Development Index of India An Analysis, presented at 15th International Conference on Input Output Techniques, June 2005, Beijing Hick, J. R. (1933) Value and Capital, Basil Blackbell. Keynes, J. N. (1932) Scope and Method of Political Economy, Macmillan. Kravis, I. , Heston, A. and Summers, R. (1975) A System of International Comparison of Gross Product and Purchasing Power, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Kuznets, Simon (1969) Modern Economic Growth, Lewis, Arthur (1959) Theory of Economic Growth, George Allen & Untion, London. Lewis, G. C. On the Method of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, Chapter 6. Malthus, T. R., An Essay on Population, London. Mehta, J. K. (1959) Lectures on Modern Economic Theory, Chaitanya, Allahabad. Mill, J. S. (1843,1961) A System of Logic, Ratiocinative, Vol. II, Longman, London.

Popper, Karl (1968) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson of London Prakash, S. (1977) Educational System- An Econometric Study Concept, N. Delhi. Prakash, S. (1976) Input Output Models of Education with Application to Indian Data. In Mathur, P.N. (Editor) Economic Analysis in Input Output Framework, Vol. III, IORA, Mumbai. Prakash, S. (1994) Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalization and Relevance of Nehru Mahalanobis Strategy of Growth. In Sinha, Ajit, K. (Editor) ICSSR Survey, Deep & Deep. Prakash, S., Gupta, Abha and Buragohain, J. (1995) Literacy and Development, Project Report, NIEPA, New Delhi. Prakash, S. (2005) Human Development Index in an Input Output Framework, presented at 15th International Conference on Input Output Techniques, June 2005, Beijing Prakash, S. (2005) Impact of New Economic Policy on Indian Economy Third Survey of Research in Economics, ICSSR, N. Delhi. Prakash, S. and Balakrishnan, B. (2005) Input Output Modelling of Employment and Productivity As Base of Growth. Proceedings of Fifteenth International Conference on Input Output Techniques, Peoples University of China, Beijing. Prakash, S. and Bhargava, Neeru (2003) Divergence Between the Actual and Desired Capability Profile of H. R. Mangers in Pharmaceutical Industry, Project Report, BIMTECH, G. Noida. Ragin, G. (1987) The Comparative Method, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Raina, Anupama (2004) Relationship Between Job Involvement, Organizational Commitment and Collective Efficacy: A Comment, Business Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 1. Rajan, P. (1978) Divergence Between the Planned and Actual Agricultural Development of M.P., Ph. D. thesis in Economics, Saugor University, Sagar. Rao and Miller (1973) Applied Econometrics, Prentice Hall of India. Rokkan, S., Campbell, A., Torsvik, P. and Valen, H. (1970) Citizens, Elections and Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of Development, Mckay, N. Youk. Robinson, Joan (1969) Philosophy of Economics, Penguin. Rostow, W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sharma, Shalini (1996) EPW Smelser, N. (1976) Comparative Method in the Social Sciences, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ. Subramanian, R. (2005) Macro Contribution of a Micro Level Company: A Study Through Input Output Framework, Fifteenth International Conference on Input Output, Renmin University of China, Beijing.

Teune, Henry (1990) Comparing Countries: Lessons Learned. In Oyen, Else (Ed) Comparative Methodology, Sage. Teune, H. (1973) Public Policy: Macro Perspectives. In Zaltman, G. (Editor) Processes and Phenomena of Social Change, Wiley, New York. Teune, H. (1981) Concepts of Evidence in Systems Analysis: Testing Macro Systems Theories, Quantity and Quality, Vol. XV, pp. 55-70. Venugopal, R. and Dixit, M. R. (1999) Enterprise Response to Public Policy Reform A Scan of Extant Literature and an Agenda for Future Research, Vikalpa, Vol. 24 Czudnowski, M. (1975) Comparing Political Behavior, Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton Kuechler, M. (1986) The Utility of Surveys for Cross-national Research, Paper Presented to the XIth World Congress of the International Sociological Association, New Delhi. Kravis. I., A. Heston and R. Summers (1975) A System of International Comparisons of Gross Product and Purchasing Power, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press Goode, William J. and Hatt Paul K. (1952) Methods in Social Research, McGraw-Hill, New York. Blalock Hubert M. Jr (1964) Causal Inferences in Non-experimental Research, university of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.