Political Science 217

Comparative Politics

  Spring Quarter 2003

 

Profs. Pion-Berlin, Hiskey and Bowler

Thursdays, 2:10-5pm

Jenkins Library

 

Introduction

            This serves as the core course and is required for all those who expect to major in comparative politics. As the term implies, comparison is a central component to this field.  Then again, it is central to all the empirical fields in Political Science.  Comparative analysis lays at the foundation of theory building and theory testing.  Whether one  conducts a large N or a small N study, a statistical or non-statistical study, comparison is a component to the research.   In this course, students will be introduced to a number of  different  approaches to the study of  comparative politics. There is no one central tendency  which dominates: various theories, concepts, issues and methods are evident in the field.  Political Science 217 was  designed with these realities in mind.  

              Substantively, Comparative Politics is thought of as the study of the internal politics of nations other than our own.   That makes it a hugely diverse and complex field. No single course can begin to cover the vast array of  regions, countries, topics,  and problems within this field. What we offer here is one cross-sectional slice, which hopefully will wet your appetite for more.

 

Requirements

          You will prepare three thought papers, to be submitted in weeks five, eight, and finals week.  Each will count for 25% of your grade.  The remainder of your grade will be based on class participation.   Papers submitted  late will be marked down ½ letter grade. Thought papers are conceptually, not empirically oriented. Their purpose is to assess your ability  to absorb, synthesize, critique, and compare  the reading materials for each of the three sections of the course.  Papers should be organized around a central theme or problem,  should pose an argument, and bring the literature to bear on the analysis. Typically, such papers run about 10 pages in length, double spaced.

 

Readings

            All readings on the syllabus are required unless otherwise noted. The books are listed below and  can be purchased at the bookstore.  The assigned articles for weeks one through four (Professor Pion-Berlin)  will be placed on reserve at Rivera Library. For weeks five through seven (Professor Hiskey)  a reader has been made available for purchase at Vision Copy Center on University Ave.

 

1.      Steven Van Evera, Guide To Methods  for Students of  Political Science (Cornell University Press, 1997

2.      Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government forms and Performance (Yale University Press, 1999)

3.      G. Bingham Powell, Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions (Yale University Press, 2000)

4.      George Tsebelis, Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work (Princeton University Press, 2002).

 

 

Syllabus

Week One (Pion-Berlin)

Small-N Methods in Comparative Politics:

The Why?  

1.      To know how the political world is- Gregory Kasza, “Quantitative Methods: Reflections on the Files of Recent Job Applicants” (unpublished ms., 13 pgs.)

2.      To reduce  conceptual stretching-Giovanni Sartori, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” APSR 64 no. 4 (December 1970):1033-1053

3.      To find  interesting ideas, generate theory- Harry Eckstein, Case Study and Theory in Political Science,  focus on pp. 96-108; Van Evera, Chapter 1.

4.      To contextualize: the importance of configurations – Charles Ragin, “The distinctiveness of Comparative Social Science”

5.       To study commonalities: Charles Ragin” Using Qualitative Methods to Study Commonalities” in  Ragin, Constructing Social Research.

6.      To know how does X affect Y? Explaining causal relations- Van Evera, 64-67

 

Week Two

Small-N Methods:

The What and the How? Overview and Case Studies

           

1.      Overview- David Collier, “The Comparative Method: Two Decades of Change,”  in Rustow, ed. Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives

2.      Overview- Arend Lijphart, “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method,” APSR 65,3 (September 1971).

3.      King, Keohane and Verba, Chapter  2, Descriptive Inference, pp. 34-43.

4.      Harry Eckstein, “Case Study and Theory in Political Science” in Greenstein

       and Polsby, Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, (focus on pp. 96-123).

5.      Van Evera,  Chpt. 2.

6.      Alexander George and Timothy McKeown, “Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision-Making, pp. 34-41.”

 

Week Three

The What and How cont’d: Comparative and Historical Methods

              1.      Alexander George, “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison” in                       Gordon and Lauren, Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy

2.      Przeworski and Teune,  Chapter  “Research Designs,” in The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry” Wiley 1970.

3.      King, Keohane and Verba, “Controlling the Research Situation,” 199-207.

4.      Charles Ragin, “Using Comparative Methods to Study Diversity” pp. 105-120.

5.      Paul Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path dependence, and the Study of Politics” APSR 94,2 (June 20000).

6.      Skocpol and Summers,  “The Use of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry” Comparative Studies in Sociology and History  22,2 (April 1980):174-197

 

Week Four

The Practice: Applications

 

1.      W. Hunter,  “Post-authoritarian Brazil”

2.      Fernando Lopez-Alves, “State Formation and Democracy in Latin America, “Introduction”

3.      Ruth Collier and David Collier, “Framework: Critical Junctures”

4.      Barrington Moore, “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy,” preface xi-xviii

5.      Clifford Geertz, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cock Fight.”

6.      Pion-Berlin, “Institutions, Policy and Civil-Military Relations”

 

Week Five (Hiskey)

Cross-National and Subnational Methodologies

  First Concept Paper Due

 

  1. Richard Snyder, “Scaling Down: Subnational Approaches to Comparative Politics,” Studies in Comparative International Development, Spring 2001, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 93-110.
  2. Arend Lijphart, “The Comparable Cases Strategy in Comparative Research,” Comparative Political Studies 8 (1975): 158-77.
  3. Adam Przeworski and Henry Teune (1966),  “Equivalence in Cross-National Research,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(4): 551-568.
  4. Stein Rokkan, Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development (New York: David McKay Company, 1970). Chapter 2 on whole nation bias.
  5. Juan Linz and Amando de Miguel, “Within-Nation Differences and Comparisons: The Eight Spains,” in Richard Merritt and Stein Rokkan, eds., Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966).
  6. Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 63-120.
  7. Robert W. Jackman (1985), “Cross-National Statistical Research and the Study of Comparative Politics,” American Journal of Political Science, 29(1): 161-182.

 

Week Six 

Subnational Variations in Economic Development

  1. Richard Doner and Eric Hershberg, “Flexible Production and Political Decentralization in the Developing World: Elective Affinities in the Pursuit of Competitiveness?” Studies in Comparative International Development, 34 (1999): 45-82.
  2. Richard Snyder, “After Neoliberalism: The Politics of Reregulation in Mexico,” World Politics 51 (1999): 173-204.
  3. Pradeep Chhibber and Samuel Eldersveld, “Local Elites and Popular Support for Economic Reform in China and India,” Comparative Political Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, April 2000, pp. 350-373.
  4. Edward Gibson and Ernesto Calvo, “Federalism and Low-Maintenance Constituencies: Territorial Dimensions of Economic Reform in Argentina,” Studies in Comparative International Development, Fall 2000, vol. 35, no. 3.
  5. Jonathan Hiskey, "Demand-Based Development and Local Electoral Environments in Mexico,” forthcoming 2003, Comparative Politics.
  6. Robert R. Kaufman and Guillermo Trejo (1997), “Regionalism, Regime Transformation, and PRONASOL: The Politics of the National Solidarity Programme in Four Mexican States, ” Journal of Latin American Studies, 29(3): 717-745.
  7. Judith Tendler, Good Government in the Tropics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997), Chapter 1.

 

Week Seven

Subnational Dynamics of National-Level Political Change

  1. Larry Diamond and Svetlana Tsalik, “Size and Democracy: The Case for Decentralization,” in Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 117-160.
  2. William Munro, “The Political Consequences of Local Electoral Systems,” Comparative Politics, April 2001, 33(3).
  3. Patrick Heller (2000), “Degrees of Democracy: Some Comparative Lessons from India,”  World Politics, 52(July): 484-519.
  4. Jonathan Fox, “Latin America’s Emerging Local Politics,” Journal of Democracy, April 1994, vol. 5, pp. 105-116.Deborah Yashar, “Indigenous Movements and Democracy in Latin America,” Comparative Politics 31 (1) 1996: 23-42.
  5. Jonathan Hiskey and Mitchell Seligson (2003), “Pitfalls of Power to the People: Decentralization, Local Government Performance, and System Support in Bolivia,” Studies in Comparative International Development 37(4): 64-88.
  6. Kelly McMann (2001), “The Territorial Dimension of Democracy: Reform in Post-Soviet Federal and Unitary Systems,” paper presented at 2001 meeting of American Political Science Association.
  7. Eliza Willis, et. al.  (1999) “The Politics of Decentralization in Latin America,” Latin American Research Review, 34(1).

 

Week Eight (Bowler)

Majoritarian versus Consensus Institutions I

  Second Concept Paper Due

  1.   Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance    (Yale 1999)

 

Week Nine

Majoritarians versus Consensus Institutions II:

Is there any there there? 

    1.     G. Bingham Powell, Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and             Proportional Visions (Yale 2000)

 

Week Ten

Institutions more Broadly 

  1.     George Tsebelis, Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work (Princeton 2002)

 

Finals Week

Final Concept Paper Due