1. 4 Why compare?

Several legendary scholars in sociology, "the grand masters of comparison", have used comparisons of countries/cultures as a method to study a social phenomenon. Charles Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu in Persian Letters, Max Weber in The Social Psychology of the World Religions and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, as well as Emile Durkheim in Suicide used the method to identify the particularities of one phenomenon by contrasting them with others.

Comparison holds a central position in this thesis, and I would therefore like to discuss some aspects of the method. Some important questions have to be answered.

The question, why compare, can be answered by the aim of the study. It is not restricted to describing two parallel control practices but is also a search for explanatory factors. The description of one single case could reveal the process of problem definition in one country but would fail to pinpoint its particularities. To find these we must contrast one practice with another practice.

The presumption that different contexts also result in different control practices is not daring. However, what I am after is to demonstrate what the differences are and how they influenced the problem definition. By comparing the processes of problem definition in both countries diachronically, I expect to be able to analyse and connect the differences to their specific contexts. In other words, their relations to already existing patterns of social control can explain the different reactions to a new social phenomenon that occurred simultaneously. Besides a diachronic comparison I will compare the problem definitions and related practices synchronically in order to identify historically grown structures that influenced both the definition of the problem and the implementation of the action programme. A synchronic comparison can also identify generations of the problem definition. The type of comparison is what Tilly defined as an individualising comparison, "in which the point is to contrast specific instances of a given phenomenon as a means of grasping the peculiarities of each case" (Tilly 1984: 82).

Secondly, why Sweden and the Netherlands? There are several good reasons for using Sweden and the Netherlands in a comparative analysis of drug policies. In international discussions, both countries are generally described as anti-poles on a scale from repressive to permissive types of drug policies (Boekhout van Solinge 1997; Waal 1998). In addition, today's outspoken objectives for the national drug policies (a drug-free society in Sweden and harm reduction in the Netherlands) confirm the idea of anti-poles.

The use of the Netherlands and Sweden also rests on the assumption that the two countries are similar in a number of respects. They have a history as corporate states, meaning a strong tradition of consultations between the governmental sphere and interest groups. Both areparliamentary democracies and industrialised welfare states with highly developed systems of social security, education, and health. Both belong to the category of rich countries that have a reputation for caring about the environment and are members of the European Union. Both experienced an economic boom after World War II and applied Keynesian economic politics requiring a strong involvement of the central state. These similarities entail that the differences are restricted to some fields, which makes this comparison more manageable.

A third advantage concerns access to primary data, which can become a problem in cross-national or cross-cultural studies using qualitative methods. Max Weber expressed this problem clearly when he warned the reader against overestimating his essays on religions:

It is obvious that one who is obliged to use translations and furthermore to orient himself on the way in which to use and to evaluate monuments, documents or literature as sources under the guidance of specialist literature, that often is very controversial and whose value he cannot judge by himself, has every reason to behave with very modest pretensions regarding the value of his own achievement (Weber 1920/1978: 43).

Dependence on secondary data sources can otherwise constitute an almost insurmountable problem in cross cultural studies that go beyond the level of quantitative data. If one wants to understand the relations between policies and their social-cultural context, thorough acquaintance with both cultures is necessary (Nelken 1994: 227, Manning, Cullum-Swan 1994: 467). Because of my acquaintance with both Dutch and Swedish culture and language I am able to study both countries on a primary data level.

The comparison used in the thesis is called a small numbers (N) comparison with many variables. The advantage is a deeper understanding of the relation between a particular drug policy and its social and cultural context. The use of a comparative case-oriented research design with small N, however, also brings about a problem. It becomes difficult to decide the position of the two cases in relation to others. It has a limited potential for generalisation. I do not see this as a disadvantage because it is not my ambition to generalise the findings to other cultural settings. However, the emphasis on contexts that influence the social construction of the drug problem and the action program may be useful for other comparative studies on drug policies or other social problems.

Biased?

All people, researchers included, bring with them their own reference of interpretations when looking at the surrounding world. My background as a Dutchman living in Sweden will undoubtedly raise questions about my impartiality when conducting this study. Since the study is based on interpreting documents, there is not much I can do to prove that I am not favouring one country above the other. It is up to critics to prove that prejudices have determined the outcome of the study.

Secondly, the aim of the study is not to show that one policy is better than the other. To discuss the study in terms of good or bad would be to miss the point altogether because the objective of the study is to examine how national drug policies are intimately and inseparably related to their social/cultural context.