Abstract
ABSTRACT Cross-national comparisons are a common instrument of epistemic governance in national parliaments. Their prevalence could be seen as a consequence of the emergence of the ‘competition state’ and the ‘rankings explosion’. However, what is actually done with cross-national comparisons has not been properly analysed. The study analyses almost 1000 parliamentary debates from 8 countries from the years 1994–2013. It builds a comprehensive categorisation of the functions of cross-national comparisons. Altogether, six categories were identified: competing nations; rational governance; morals of governance; modern condition; scaling, and picking apples and oranges. The findings indicate no significant increase in the number of comparisons during the studied period. More importantly, only about one third of the comparisons evoke a competitive framing. Cross-national comparisons are a stable feature of political rhetoric and their ubiquitous nature is due, precisely, to their malleability in defining political problems and principles of good governance outside a competitive framework.
Highlights
The image of a world composed of competing nation-states and the political rationale of trying to gain an edge over rival countries are so commonplace (Cammack, 2006) that one does not usually question the impetus for cross-national comparisons in political talk
Cross-national comparisons are a stable feature of political rhetoric and their ubiquitous nature is due, precisely, to their malleability in defining political problems and principles of good governance outside a competitive framework
As Fougner (2006, p. 165) notes ‘if by “competition state” is understood a state geared towards international competitiveness, there should be little doubt that many, if not most, contemporary states qualify for the label’
Summary
The image of a world composed of competing nation-states and the political rationale of trying to gain an edge over rival countries are so commonplace (Cammack, 2006) that one does not usually question the impetus for cross-national comparisons in political talk. Parliamentary debates are fountains of rhetorical activity and, as earlier studies have shown (Alasuutari, 2016), members of parliament (MPs) are typically very eager to take advantage of references to the international community while trying to persuade their audience These types of references are clearly considered useful and effective in both developed and developing countries across many different issues, but it remains unclear why. The number shows that MPs consider them a very effective tool This finding lends support to the hypothesis that the emergence of a competitive state as a guiding governmental rationale might explain the prevalence of cross-national comparisons in policy debates. One way to do this is to claim certain laws and regulations to be morally justified if other countries have previously established similar measures This type of justification is typical in cases where the state might be considered to step out of line and infringe on the rights of citizens or undermine traditional political principles. In specific cases, it may seem rhetorically more advantageous to emphasise features that place the countries in separate categories: they are too different for meaningful comparisons
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
