Critical Policy Studies,2013 Vol.7,No.2,198–206,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.796888 FORUM For a (self-)critical comparison RichardFreeman a *andEricMangez b a School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; b Institute for the Analysis of Change in Contemporary and Historical Societies (IACCHOS), University of Louvain, Belgium This article reflects on the design and organization of cross-national comparative researchinsocialandpublicpolicy,basedinourownexperienceofleadingandtaking partinprojectsofthiskind.Weacknowledgerecentcriticismofcomparisonconceived as the measurement of similarity and difference between discrete national units, and notethepoliticalaswellasmethodologicaldifficultiessuchworkentails.Wedescribe ourattemptstoovercomethem,callingforboth(1)acriticaltheoryofcomparisonand (2)acriticalpracticeofcomparison.Weoutlinewaysofworkingbasedonthecollective interrogation of case studies, and conclude by formalizing an approach to comparison conceivednotascross-nationalexperimentbutasinternationalencounter. Keywords: social policy; public policy; cross-national comparative research; critical theoryofcomparison;criticalpracticeofcomparison The changed contexts of comparison Differences and similarities between countries have always interested policy makers and policyresearchersalike.Wehavealwaysbeenfascinatedbyourneighbors,wantedtoknow howandwhytheydowhattheydo,andtowhateffect.Thereareideastobeborrowedand lessons to be learned, whether in respect of constitutional design or the organization of government,theadministrationofenvironmentalriskorthefundinganddeliveryofpublic services. Policy researchers, however, have become troubled by a ‘crisis of comparison’, an essential contradiction between its form and function. It is one which has been widely observed,thoughitsconsequencesarenotalwaysmadeclear.Inessence,itisthatinterna- tionalization makes for interaction, for an increased interest among policy makers in any onecountryinknowingaboutothers.Exchangingknowledgeofthiskindisoneofthekey functions of international organizations. But internationalization also intensifies Galton’s problem,accordingtowhichwecannolongerreasonablyassumethatunitsofcomparison (states)areeffectivelyindependentofeachother. Recentresearchandtheorydevelopmentsdoindeedamounttotheunravellingofthelargely unquestionedsubjectmatterof[comparison]:theworldconceivedofasamultitudeofseparate regionalornationalsocietieswhich,asautonomousentities,ashistoricallydistinctconfigura- tions, constitute one another’s mutual environments. The immediate consequence of such an epistemiceliminationofthefield’ssubjectmatteristhatitsdefiningmethodologicalprocedure *Correspondingauthor.Email:richard.freeman@ed.ac.uk ©2013InstituteofLocalGovernmentStudies,UniversityofBirmingham Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 05:06 29 July 2013